It is a Contradiction during Implementation!

Dear Forum Members,
if it is contradicting, we practitioners we need the urgent guidance from the responsible authority regarding on this matter. May be other members may come with different interpretations

It is true, they are contradicting
(Sect 6o(3)
vs
Reg. 231(2)

Dear Forum members,
When your refers Sec. 60(3) of PPA 2011 read together with PPR 231(2) of 2013 against PPR 59 (3) of 2013 you reveal that the provisions contradict itself. Let me put it clearly and directly that both provisions provide time frame of three days after tender board award decisions for accounting officer to notify as directed. But which comes earlier than other?, and which proper way to follow?
My opinion is that PPR 59(3) should come after cool off period has been completed and the award letter to the successful bidder has communicated by the accounting officer. This is because how can you submit the draft of contract to AG without having the consent from other bidders participated in the same tender after issuance of intention for award as Sec. 60 (3)/PPR 231 (2) while all provisions provides the same time frame after tender board award decisions?.

My understanding is that draft of contract should contain all necessary information including the name and address of the supplier awarded, Contact person in the contract (for supplier) and for the Client, contract amount, all other issues need to be incorporated in the contract including minutes for negotiations etc. So submitting the draft of contract missing theses information as as my opinion is like submitting the blank contract and also submitting the draft of contract to AG while still in cool off period is contradicting the way for us practitioners, otherwise let me here from others.