Latest topics
Statistics
We have 1676 registered usersThe newest registered user is esagile
Our users have posted a total of 1240 messages in 351 subjects
Who is online?
In total there is 0 user online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests :: 1 BotNone
Most users ever online was 225 on Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:24 pm
Acceptance of Tender and Entry into Force of a Procurement Contract – For Local Government Authorities
Page 1 of 1
Acceptance of Tender and Entry into Force of a Procurement Contract – For Local Government Authorities
RJM Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:01 am
Section 60 of the PPA No. 7 of 2011 (newly promulgated Act) has aspect which is commendable (standstill period of 14 days for aggrieved bidders to submit complaints prior to official awarding of the tender) – Bravo! May this will reduce number of complaints to be handled after the contract has come into force.
However, one aspect which I am not comfortable with and which may be source of delays in procurement process or will create more tension in the process is on Subsection (4) which requires Accounting Officer of a Local Government Authority (LGA) before issuing a notice of intention to award a contract, submit the award decision to the Committee responsible for finance and planning for scrutiny and where the Committee is dissatisfied with the decision of the Tender Board, it shall request the Authority (PPRA) to conduct an investigation pursuant to Section 33(3). Section 33(3) states that “The budget approving authority may request the Authority to carry out procurement audits or investigations where it is not satisfied with the implementation of any procurement in the organization.”
If think there is a confusion here; Section 33(3) is concerning with implementation of procurements in the organization and audits/investigation to be carried out by PPRA are in the implementation phase (if I got it right otherwise I stand to be corrected) while Subsection (4) is talking about actions to be taken by the Accounting Officer before awarding the tender. Is the Committee for finance and planning also Budget Approving Authority or vice versa? I think there is a need of straightening this or more interpretation/clarifications are required to clear this puzzlement.
On the other hand, even if Subsection (4) stands alone without linkage with Subsection 33(3) still we are going to face problem of delays and the dilemma who is the boss between the Accounting Officer and Committee referred here. I believe this way we will be going back where we came from in terms of procurement reform in Tanzania. What this Committee will be scrutiny which Tender Board can/will not scrutiny? In this case what will be functions of the Tender Board as per Section 33(1)? May be there are reasons behind this which most of us we don’t know!
However, one aspect which I am not comfortable with and which may be source of delays in procurement process or will create more tension in the process is on Subsection (4) which requires Accounting Officer of a Local Government Authority (LGA) before issuing a notice of intention to award a contract, submit the award decision to the Committee responsible for finance and planning for scrutiny and where the Committee is dissatisfied with the decision of the Tender Board, it shall request the Authority (PPRA) to conduct an investigation pursuant to Section 33(3). Section 33(3) states that “The budget approving authority may request the Authority to carry out procurement audits or investigations where it is not satisfied with the implementation of any procurement in the organization.”
If think there is a confusion here; Section 33(3) is concerning with implementation of procurements in the organization and audits/investigation to be carried out by PPRA are in the implementation phase (if I got it right otherwise I stand to be corrected) while Subsection (4) is talking about actions to be taken by the Accounting Officer before awarding the tender. Is the Committee for finance and planning also Budget Approving Authority or vice versa? I think there is a need of straightening this or more interpretation/clarifications are required to clear this puzzlement.
On the other hand, even if Subsection (4) stands alone without linkage with Subsection 33(3) still we are going to face problem of delays and the dilemma who is the boss between the Accounting Officer and Committee referred here. I believe this way we will be going back where we came from in terms of procurement reform in Tanzania. What this Committee will be scrutiny which Tender Board can/will not scrutiny? In this case what will be functions of the Tender Board as per Section 33(1)? May be there are reasons behind this which most of us we don’t know!
RJM- Posts : 260
Join date : 2009-07-30
Age : 73
Location : What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure
Similar topics» E-PROCUREMENT CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
» Are we Ready to Embark on E-procurement
» procurement contract
» IS IT TIME TO THINK OF DEACTIVATING TENDER BOARDS AND INTRODUCE A MECHANISM OF PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONAL OPINION?
» Is the Head of Procurement a voting member during Tender board meeting?
» Are we Ready to Embark on E-procurement
» procurement contract
» IS IT TIME TO THINK OF DEACTIVATING TENDER BOARDS AND INTRODUCE A MECHANISM OF PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONAL OPINION?
» Is the Head of Procurement a voting member during Tender board meeting?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|
» Is non-submission of invalid CRB receipt voucher a major deviation?
» MAKANDARASI KUWEKWA NDANI KWA KUTOKAMILISHA MIRADI NDANI YA MUDA
» How Supplier can register in e-Procurement system (TANePS)
» Kukosekana risiti ya ununuzi wa tenda
» IS IT TIME TO THINK OF DEACTIVATING TENDER BOARDS AND INTRODUCE A MECHANISM OF PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONAL OPINION?
» e-Procurement System is now operational
» TENDA ZINAPOKOSA WAOMBAJI
» Attendance of District Treasurer in Council Tender Board meetings