Re: TENDER BOARD AWARD AGAINST ACCOUNTING OFFICER DECISION!

[Maduhu]

"where the weakness in this decision comes from?, TENDER BOARD, AO, USER DEPARTMENT OR PMU?"


I think PMU because was supposed to advise from the beginning.

[GadielCM]

Maduhu,
Mmh!, am not sure. Is it true that neccessarily for Tender Board to have a market research on that aspect?.
I think as one contributor pointed out that, when due APP implementation, user department and as well as PMU staff (procurement professional) should have prior market analysis on current prices on procurement subject matter.

Second, even though tender board could recommend rejection to AO, is it true that APP and internal plan is fixed as MSAHAFU it cant be revised?, or re-allocated to some areas to fit for intended procurement?

In additional to that, where the weakness in this decision comes from?, TENDER BOARD, AO, USER DEPARTMENT OR PMU?, Please let us swing!

[Maduhu]

I have problem with who is who here? The Original question was in respect of the PPA2004 and GN97.

It could be wise if the tender board could be skeptical of the whole procedures starting from the market research. Market intelligence is a key component to budgeting and tendering processes.

It is to my surprise that PMU could anticipate otherwise basing on the technical specifications provided during need identification.

[RJM]

Challenger2010 & RSM,

Despite the fact that you are trying to rescue AO in this saga, I do not think AO is ready for your advise based on his statement,

AO, officer claimed that the budget is fixed and cant be changed so they have to look any way to procure that four and it cant be possible to reduce tha mount of motorcyle required within that budget of tzs 16mil.

This is typical argument of the most of AO. I think here AO need to be educated that "need identification process" during planning is not only number of units required but also the specifications [performance and functional characteristic of the motorcycle]. In this scenario it think PE has to settle for 50% of the specifications in order procurement 4 units[option 2].

[Challenger2010]

RSM

I concur with your observation. This is a common problem in many procuring entities. In many cases the source of this problem originate back from the budget preparation process. User departments prepares their budgets on the basis of the assessed needs and technical specifications. But later on when the ceiling for the budget is provided, people in the user departments are normally not involved and the budget is normally reduced proportionally. When it comes to the implementation phase, PMUs and User Departments do not bother to go bac and revisit their origional requirements.

As you have said, in the GadielCM case, the TB should have decided to cancell the tender process and direct PMU to revise the specifications before inviting a fresh tender.

[RSM]

RJM

I want to focus on the following quote:

Question to ask ourselves, should always accept bids because the prices are within or below our budget?

This is a very interesting aspect to be considered not during the acceptance of bid but during needs identification. From this case it is very obvious that the PE budgetted Tshs. 14 million to buy four motocycles. However based on the specifications written they got one motocycle for Tshs. 35.4 million. The Accounting officer may have not followed the procedures but has every reason to reject the 35.4 million bid. He only needed advise on how to proceed - cancell the tender, and re-tender based on revised technical specifications.

The issue here, and it needs to be observed by PEs, is we have tendencies of budgetting for Bajaj but write and invite tenders with specifications of a Mercides Benz or Landcruiser VX. The specifications should match the available budget and above all, procurement officers should have knowledge of the market (i.e. the different makes of motorcycles and their prices) before they go out to tender.

Further more I want to comment on a statement appearing on GadielCM submission.

The PMU submitted the evaluation report to TENDER BOARD FOR APPROVAL AND APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION TO OPTION I.

It is a bit suprising that the Tender Board would recommend the award of option 1 while they are aware of the available budget - this information is always available internally and is included in the Procurement Plan of the Entity. If the Tender Board had done their job properly, they would have advised the Accounting Officer to reject the tender on account of S54(2)(d)/PPA2004 and R20(2)(e)/97/2005 [ reject bid as it exceed the budget resource available] and advise on the way forward.

[RJM]

GadielCM, it looks interesting!

My interest here is a clearly distinct between basic/baseline/ main bid and alternative bid in the bidding process. To me, this is the source of problem especially the AO contention that the budget [Tshs. 14,000,000] is fixed and cannot be changed.

In this case I will try to distinguish between Baseline/Basic/Main Bid and Alternative Bid and how the two should be treated in the evaluation process. It is common practice that Instruction to Bidders [ITB] allows alternative bids. The first rule for submitting alternative bids is that the bidders should first submit basic/baseline/main bid conforming to the bidding documents. The second rule, in the evaluation process first focus should be on the evaluation of basic/baseline/main bids to determine the lowest evaluated bid and if the alternative bid of the lowest evaluated bidder is considered more advantageous than its basic/baseline/main bid, such alternative may be accepted. For the alternative bid to be accepted it should conform to the basic technical requirements set forth in the invitation to bid otherwise is rejected and its basic/baseline/main bid is considered.

GadielCM, back to your scenario, I am not sure which one was basic/baseline/main bid between option 1 [you said meet specifications] and Option 2 [you said did not meet the specifications].

If option 1 was a basic/baseline/main bid and option 2 was an alternative bid, then the Evaluation Committee/Tender Board was right to recommend for award and reject alternative bid as did not meet technical requirements. Therefore, the arguments of the AO that the budget is fixed and cannot be changed is unjustifiable and not supported by the principles and procedures governing the procurement process since the option 2 was non-compliant in terms technical specifications. The big question to the AO is that, what if the bidder B did not submit the alternative bid? I presume that answer would have been S54(2)(d)/PPA2004 and R20(2)(e)/97/2005 [ reject bid as it exceed the budget resource available] which also should have been for the scenario in question. AO arguments were result after saw price quoted in alternative bid without consider technical aspect. Question to ask ourselves, should always accept bids because the prices are within or below our budget?

If option 2 was a basic/baseline/main bid and option 1 was an alternative bid, then the entire submission should be rejected at preliminary stage as a non-responsive.

[GadielCM]

Dear in the Forum,
It happen recently and it is real Scenario. Firm A invited Quotation in accordance to stipulated regulations in GN/97 and as approved in APP.Among of 5 Firms invited through IFQ only one bidder B managed to submit within the date, and time and the quotation opened in accordance to Rg 89/GN 97.After opening the quotation the PMU proposed the evaluation team and the evaluation done in accordance to Rg 90/GN 97 AND THE PROCUREMENT SUBJECT MATTER WAS THE PROCUREMENT OF BRAND NEW MOTORCYCLES in which the specification referred from the Ministry concern.

Furthermore, the IFQ allowed the alternative quotations, that means the bidder allowed to quote in more than one option of quotes. What happened is that the bidder B submitted two options of supply of motorcyle.
Option I quoted brand HONDA XL125 in TZS 35, 400,000.00 and OPTION II quoted brand CGL125N in TZS. 14,00,000.00.The total motorcycles required by FIRM A IS 4 unit of it. The EC RECCOMMENDED OPTION I, HONDA XL125 IN TZS. 35.4 Mill based in specification stipulated in IFQ. The PMU submitted the evaluation report to TENDER BOARD FOR APPROVAL AND APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION TO OPTION I.

However, the decision award of contract sent to Accounting officer for final decision and to make communication of contract. Instead the AO rejected the recommendation of TB based that the budget was TZS 16,000,000.00 for that 4pc of motorcycles, so AO, directed the Head of PMU to review the recommendation of tender so as to procure that amount of motorcycle within that amount that means to opt option II of motorcycle cgl 125N evem if did nt meet the specs as recommended by EC. AO, officer claimed that the budget is fixed and cant be changed so they have to look any way to procure that four and it cant be possible to reduce tha mount of motorcyle required within that budget of tzs 16mil.

As you were you, what the way foward to you on Accounting Officer deliberations and in accordance to PPA 2004? AND ITS REGULATIONS

[Sponsored content]