Re: Submission of Late Bids

**RJM** Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:47 pm

GadielCM, do you think apologizing to the public will it be enough take into account the costs incurred by the bidders in preparing the bids/proposals?

GadielCM Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:53 pm

RJMbishi wrote ''what happen when PE indicated the wrong address for submission in both invitation for bids/proposal and bidding documents and bids/proposals submitted in the wrong office or building? Is this an error attributed by the PE?''.

I think RJMbishi your challenge to our procurement laws goes to be deliberately to be done or done by PE. First, is true that an error attributed by the PE for wrong indication of address for tender/proposal submission. However, if this scenario occur it is the PE in virtue manner to inform the public the correct address for bids/proposal to be submitted if found that their is suffient time for bidders to submit their offer before deadline.

Secondly, if found that PE does not recognised their error and no any bidder or interested part/ or the authority (PPRA) to inform their error and to be rectified before the deadline and found their are great impact to many bidders due to such circumstances, I think the PE should apologize to the public due to incoveniencies occured and the tender should be re-advertised (This is on my view). This because is the mistakes made by PE, so there is no way to treat other way around to allow the bidder to participate equally in PE's bid without prejudice the right of bidders to submit their offer.

However, in this subject matter, it is the responsibility and accountability to any PE according to public procurement laws, that PPA 2004 and its regulations to be thorough during the preparation of bid document. I say this because, in the GN 97 of that PPA 2004 under Third Schedule it is advised to use two weeks (14 days) on preparation of tender document, using the PPA 2004 and the regulation concern to the subject matter of procurement, let say goods and that of ITT of the SBD.The essence of address for tender submission can be best explained in Rg 86/GN 97, however the tender board should approval the manner of text of the contents of the SBD including where the bids to submitted under the Bid Data Sheet/ Proposal Data Sheet. So it is the important area for PE be aware during SBD preparation.

And if such circumstances occured that the PE made mistakes on the PE address, the reason/ or the only option is as I expalined above. I submit my comment!

**RJM** Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:06 pm

GadielCM as point information I am not the one who posted this topic, it was posted by RSM, however, I have found it to be very interesting.

RSM, I believe goes without say that the current legislations we have PPA, Cap 410 and its Regulations are base on the principle of “LATE –IS-LATE” as have quoted in your submission. This underpins importance for the bidder/consultant to deliver the bid/proposal or offer at the appointed place, on time and that late bids or offers must be rejected and returned unopened by the Procuring Entity. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the bidders/consultants to submit their bids/proposals; on or before the date and time specified on the bidding documents, to the proper address indicated on the invitation for bids and to mark their envelopes with the correct bid number & name and closing date.

In the effort of getting best practices I found that in USA [Federal Acquisition Regulation - FAR] there are exceptions granted in cases where bidder is able to demonstrate government mishandling. However, most bids which are late are ultimately rejected in view of the difficulty in proving government mishandling. (See FAR 52.214-7). The FAR rule allows an offer to be accepted if the late receipt was due primarily to Government mishandling after receipt at the Government installation. The rule recognizes the use of hand-carried offers (including delivery by a commercial carrier) as common business practice and provides flexibility in determining when an offer was received. The rule also adds exception which allows consideration of a bid/proposal that was misdirected or misdelivered to an office other than that designated for receipts of offers in the solicitation. This implies that, a late bid should not be accepted if the bidder significantly contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling its own responsibility to submit its bid in a timely manner.

In line with above, the challenge and question to ask in our current legislations is; what happen when PE indicate the wrong address for submission in both invitation for bids/proposal and bidding documents and bids/proposals submitted in the wrong office or building? Is this an error attributed by the PE?

GadielCM Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:52 pm

Dear reader in the forum, sorry for confusion of names for my last submission.Instead of using name RSM for his/her concern raised, I use the prominent name and good contributor in the forum RJMbishi, Sorry for disturbance and incoveniency.

GadielCM Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:37 pm

RJMbishi your last submission was very interesting and common to those engaging in tender opening ceremony. I will try to respond by the following comments.

First, your reply to late bidder/consultant who submitted his proposal after the cutoff time was correctly according to the our regulations in our PPA 2004 even though the project funded by external donor, but the procedure remain the same.

I know sure that you relied your submission to late consultant from Rg 56/GN 98 OF 2005 of PPA 2004, under receipt of proposals and specifically can be best explained under Rg 56(9)/GN 98 ''that Any proposal received after the closing time for submission of the proposals shall be returned unopened. What I know from this phrase is that all proposals or all tenders in GN 97 under RG 89(11) that'' Tenders received after the time stipulated, as well as those not opened and not read out at the tender opening, shall not be considered, and they shall be returned unopened.
From this point of view, the receiving of any tender, proposals or any quotation should be registered in a specific register book/or the procedural form provided by PPRA, called the tender receiving form NO.8, which provide the name of firm submitting the bid, that proposal or tender or quotation, time of submission, contact (such as mail box, tellephone number, email and so on), name of whom submitted the tender/proposal and the may be the signature. This register should show up to the last bid submitted let say at 10.00 hours local time, so the last bidder to submit the proposal should be closed by the line and indicated at 10.00 HOURS but its should not limit the followed late submission to be indicated and registered after the deadline. it should be registered the same details mentioned above and received, BUT THE ONLY THING HERE IT SHOULD BE OPENED AND READ OUT. What the secretary of the tender opening committee is to prepare the minutes of all tender opening procedures as explained in RG89(9), 14, 15, 16/GN97 and that of RG 56(10-11)/GN 98, and the evaluation to be followed and that the late submitted should be returned unopened thereafter by using the address indicated in the tender receiving registere.

So, RJMbishi, for your concern, did you received the proposal and registered as late bid and the time received but not opened and returned thereafter? or did you just rejected the proposal sent back with the carrier without registering and entered in the tender opening meeting, and therefore caused the claim from the consultants?, let us share this!

**RSM** Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:18 pm

This is one of the querries we received from one of the Consultants submitting a proposal requesting his late submitted proposal to be accepted:

We have received feedback from the courier company that their delivery to you was refused. I fully understand the cutoff time and rules regarding these proposals. However, given that fact that we are far away and rely on service providers, and also that this is the third attempt on your behalf to get sufficient response to this RFP, I ask that you consider acceptance of this proposal. You can see from the waybill below that the package was sent from us in good time and we were clearly let down by the service provider, despite instruction, and acceptance on their side, of the time constraints. It seems a shame to me to therefore refuse what could be a very valuable proposal to you, because of a logistical let down.
I look forward to your response

Our Response:

We were very sorry to learn that your proposal was submitted after the deadline for submission. As was indicated in the RFP, the deadline for submission of the proposals was set at 10.00 hours local time on monday, 7th September, 2009. Also as was indicated in the RFP, the opening was scheduled to take place immediately thereafter. Your proposal was submitted more than two hours after the deadline for submission. The Tanzania procurement law as well as the clause 2.13 of the rules and procedures for the use to consultants issued by the African Development Bank Group guideline (who the financier for this project) prohibits accepting late submission. This requirement was expressly indicated in the RFP.

Due to that fact we are unable to accept your proposals because doing so is to contradict the procurement act and the rules of the financier.

We have very much interest to have a wider competition by including your proposal in the evaluation but unfortunately it was not possible because it was submitted late. I believe next time when such an opportunity is available, you will participate by submitting your proposals on or before the deadline for submission.

ANY COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC

Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30