Re: inspection and acceptance of goods

**RSM** Mon May 31, 2010 10:51 pm

RJM

I think it is both.

You may have expertise within the organisation but you do not have enough people to carry out an assignment in which case you employ the consultant to do the assignment- under this scenario you may find that normally there is no problem with the preparation of TOR and also reading and approving consultancy reports.

You may have another situation where you are actually looking for a solution for a problem - you will be luck if you have expertise within your organisation to say exactly what the problem is and once a solution is proposed to decided that indeed that solution will solve your problem. We have lots of situation where organisation ends with reports which do not address their problems.

Some organisations have a problem, but do not have expertise to define the problem and evaluate the proposed solution for the problem. One expert once suggested that under these circumstances you hire another consultant to define the problem for you - that is write TOR for you. The problem is that you will also be required to write TOR for this Consultant to write TOR for you bounce

**RJM** Mon May 31, 2010 7:37 pm

RSM

Is it not a time know where we need to think critically on whether we need these consultants or not?

I addition to your question, do we employee consultants because we are over-stretched or we do not know the solutions of our problems??

GadielCM Mon May 31, 2010 4:06 pm

Dear in Forum,
In my view, can we discuss more and propose the ammendnment of the Rg74/GN 98 and that of Rg 121(1), Rg 123 (1,2), Rg 128/GN 97/2005 to suit the purpose of Regulations of GN 98/2005 on inspection and acceptance of service from Consultant performed?

**RSM** Mon May 31, 2010 11:14 am

RJM

I concur with your views on the quality of the Terms of Reference which is actually the critical and guiding document on what the Client wants in as far as consultancy services is concerned. There is actually a need to sharpen people's skills in writing TOR.

But may be before writing TOR there could be another question- Do we need a Consultant at all??
I have seen cases where a consultant is hired to do something which everbody in the organisation knows but they are merely lazy to put it down into a detailed report. So what actually the consultant does is to compile all the information they have into a nicely bound report and off he/she goes with his/her hefty fees.

Is it not a time know where we need to think critically on whether we need these consultants or not?

**RJM** Fri May 28, 2010 10:26 pm

RSM

I believe this is the weakness of the R98/2005. To me even if the regulation had those provisions, the challenge still do we real know the problem when engaging consultant and are we able to tell the consultants what is the problem? Here I am referring drafting the Terms of Reference [ToR]. If we cannot draft our ToR precisely, how are we going to assess the consultancy reports and say this is the solution for our problem? This has been also the case for Goods Inspection and Acceptance Committee when the Specifications are not clear. In most case we accept what they have, what they know or want they want to give us and not what we need.

**RSM** Fri May 28, 2010 12:44 pm

Forum members have discussed about the inspection and acceptance of goods. Regulations for Procurement of Consultancy Services GN. 98 unfortunately says nothing about acceptance of Consultancy Reports, which to me are even more complicated than in the case of goods where you are able to see and even test the physical items.

Members what is your take on this?

GadielCM Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:58 pm

Dionis,
Dont hit your brain in so much.Like other commitee, e.g evaluation committee, negotiation committee, if found that the skills and knowledge of the personnel of the PE not available for subject of procurement, then PE will appoint the external expert for subject matter during inspection and acceptance of goods to servce the PE's interest , Rg. 126(b) purport this point. other terms, conditions, ethics in professional apply during acceptance but this committee lack one thing which is Personal Convenant to declare sincerity of having no person interest for inspected goods from the supplier supplied the goods. I submit.

dionis Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:23 pm

with thanks RJM

If am not mistaken this committee if they are established they are hanging somewhere lacking proper procedures accomplish there duties especially in the following areas

Who will appoint the technical member to perform technical procured items like computer and the likes if happen the team in place lack the person of that caliber?

As currently I noted somewhere within the PE’s to remain the duty of the committee members to ask by writing for any incoming consignment to AO to appoint the same on that particular event and so on ...

**RJM** Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:28 pm

Which is acceptable value that the PE shall incur in order the goods to be inspected?

Having gone through the two Regulations, I do not see any value attached which would warrant formation of the Inspection and Acceptance Committee (IAC) by the AO. May be this is the high time to have a value “tusije kutumia risasi ya kuulia tembo kuulia inzi”.

What is the penalty attached to the inspection committee if they fail to do proper inspection for the goods procured?

I think it depends on what kind of “fail to do proper inspection”. If it is the failure relates to corruptions and alike, definitely there is a penalty as per S87 (1) (a)/2004 which states that “A person commits an offence who knowingly gives false or misleading information or evidence I purported compliance with a summons issued under this Act; and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding Tshs. 500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment. On the other hand, if it is another way round, I don’t think there is a penalty attached to the inspection committee if they fail to do proper inspection for the goods procured. If this will be the case, many evaluation and negotiation committees will be in trouble as we have evident a lot of failure on those committees.

Who carry the liability once the inspected goods failure to perform?

This is very interesting. Dionis, I believe you mean that the goods do not “fit for purpose”. In this case the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract document will govern and to great extent the supplier will be liable for goods which do not fit for purpose and he cannot rely on inspection done by the committee to relieve him from the obligations or responsibilities have under the contract. In other words, the supplier is obliged to supply the goods which fit for purpose based on the specifications stipulated in the contracts documents and that’s why normal we require the warranties for the goods supplies to the extent that it should come the manufacturers [Manufacturer Authorization]. To me, IAC stipulated in the referred regulations is the additional (second) quality assurance tool within the PE to ensure that PE receives goods that meet quality as specified in the contract BUT in all cases contract document will be fundamental instrument to ensure that PE get the goods fit for purpose. Interestingly, IAC is not mentioned in the terms and conditions incorporated in the Standard Bidding Documents for Procurement of Goods – this is like a third party in the contract who does have any influence in the contract. Under contract management, IAC does not exist and contract document is the only instrument will ensure each party in the contract fulfill its obligations which requires the goods to be inspected, counted and tested for compliance according to the governing the contract. Under normal circumstances, in the absence of the IAC, does PE has the responsibility to inspect, count and test the goods for conformity to the specifications?

What are the independent of power of the committee after being appointed by accounting officer between them?

I think this is a valid observation. The Act and Regulation are silent on this. Do we real need independence of powers and responsibilities?

dionis Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:29 pm

With reference to GN 97 RG 126 and 127 which account officer should appoint the good inspection and acceptance committee I would like to be enlighten on the following aspect
1. Which is acceptable value that the PE shall incur in order the goods to be inspected?
2. What is the penalty attached to the inspection committee if they fail to do proper inspection for the goods procured?
3. Who carry the liability of the goods in question once the inspection fail perform there work ?
4. what are the independent of power of the committee after being appointed by accounting officer between them?

Sponsored content

inspection and acceptance of goods