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 are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests :: 1 BotNone
Most users ever online was 225 on Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:24 pm
Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Re: Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013
..Thanks for the clarification, got you..RJM wrote:Daniel,
I think the contradiction which Mlinga is referring to emanates from the fact that R112 is under PART II - GENERAL PROVISIONS while R322 is under PART IX - PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANTS (very specific for Consulting Services).
PPR - R112 (1) (c) - in the case of employment of consultant, 0.1 up to 0.2 percent of the contract value per day up to a sum equivalent to the amount of the performance guarantee.
PPR-R322, liquidated damages equals to one-tenth of one percent of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay and in no case shall the sum of liquidated damages exceed ten percent of the performance security.
Reading the two Regulations, I tend to agree with Mlinga's opinion on the contradiction between the two.
1. PPR - R322 only recognize 0.1 percent (mathematically one-tenth of one percent = 0.1 percent) but not the range provided under R112 (1) (c); and
2. 0.1 percent of the contract value per day NOT EQUAL to 0.1 percent (one-tenth of percent) of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay - although could be equal if portion has been performed by the consultant.
If I was a consultant I will go for item 2 - less penalty than item 1.
Magoti.Daniel- Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-03-21
Age : 38
Re: Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013
Daniel,
I think the contradiction which Mlinga is referring to emanates from the fact that R112 is under PART II - GENERAL PROVISIONS while R322 is under PART IX - PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANTS (very specific for Consulting Services).
PPR - R112 (1) (c) - in the case of employment of consultant, 0.1 up to 0.2 percent of the contract value per day up to a sum equivalent to the amount of the performance guarantee.
PPR-R322, liquidated damages equals to one-tenth of one percent of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay and in no case shall the sum of liquidated damages exceed ten percent of the performance security.
Reading the two Regulations, I tend to agree with Mlinga's opinion on the contradiction between the two.
1. PPR - R322 only recognize 0.1 percent (mathematically one-tenth of one percent = 0.1 percent) but not the range provided under R112 (1) (c); and
2. 0.1 percent of the contract value per day NOT EQUAL to 0.1 percent (one-tenth of one percent) of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay - although could be equal if portion has not been performed by the consultant.
If I was a consultant I will go for item 2 - less penalty than item 1.
I think the contradiction which Mlinga is referring to emanates from the fact that R112 is under PART II - GENERAL PROVISIONS while R322 is under PART IX - PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANTS (very specific for Consulting Services).
PPR - R112 (1) (c) - in the case of employment of consultant, 0.1 up to 0.2 percent of the contract value per day up to a sum equivalent to the amount of the performance guarantee.
PPR-R322, liquidated damages equals to one-tenth of one percent of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay and in no case shall the sum of liquidated damages exceed ten percent of the performance security.
Reading the two Regulations, I tend to agree with Mlinga's opinion on the contradiction between the two.
1. PPR - R322 only recognize 0.1 percent (mathematically one-tenth of one percent = 0.1 percent) but not the range provided under R112 (1) (c); and
2. 0.1 percent of the contract value per day NOT EQUAL to 0.1 percent (one-tenth of one percent) of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay - although could be equal if portion has not been performed by the consultant.
If I was a consultant I will go for item 2 - less penalty than item 1.
Last edited by RJM on Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total
RJM- Posts : 260
Join date : 2009-07-30
Age : 73
Location : What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure
Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013
Reference is made on Regulation 112 and 322 of Public Procurement Regulation 2013.
According to Dr. Ramadhan S. Mlinga (Lecturer, UDSM) article on basic elements of Public Procurement Act 2011 and Public Procurement Regulations 2013, PART 5 he has noted that " On liquidated damages, there is contradiction of what is provided under PPR-R322 with what is provided under PPR-R112" with respect to imposition of liquidated damages.
that is to say..
PPR-R112, liquidated damages equals to 0.1 to 0.2% of contract value per day up to a sum equivalent to the amount of performance guarantee, while
PPR-R322, liquidated damages equals to one-tenth of one percent of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay and in no case shall the sum of liquidated damages exceed ten percent of the performance security.
In so doing Dr. Ramadhan Mlinga concluded that, this contradiction needs to be sorted out"
But on my side after going through these regulations i prefer to differ in one sense by considering that, R-112 is for works, goods and non-consultancy services liquidated damages and the rest R-322 is for consultancy..
Plse with any comment lets share this contradiction.
According to Dr. Ramadhan S. Mlinga (Lecturer, UDSM) article on basic elements of Public Procurement Act 2011 and Public Procurement Regulations 2013, PART 5 he has noted that " On liquidated damages, there is contradiction of what is provided under PPR-R322 with what is provided under PPR-R112" with respect to imposition of liquidated damages.
that is to say..
PPR-R112, liquidated damages equals to 0.1 to 0.2% of contract value per day up to a sum equivalent to the amount of performance guarantee, while
PPR-R322, liquidated damages equals to one-tenth of one percent of the cost of unperformed portion for every day of delay and in no case shall the sum of liquidated damages exceed ten percent of the performance security.
In so doing Dr. Ramadhan Mlinga concluded that, this contradiction needs to be sorted out"
But on my side after going through these regulations i prefer to differ in one sense by considering that, R-112 is for works, goods and non-consultancy services liquidated damages and the rest R-322 is for consultancy..
Plse with any comment lets share this contradiction.
Magoti.Daniel- Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-03-21
Age : 38
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:13 pm by yohanaamon@yahoo.com
» Is non-submission of invalid CRB receipt voucher a major deviation?
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:00 am by RJM
» MAKANDARASI KUWEKWA NDANI KWA KUTOKAMILISHA MIRADI NDANI YA MUDA
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:46 am by RJM
» How Supplier can register in e-Procurement system (TANePS)
Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:48 am by pms
» Kukosekana risiti ya ununuzi wa tenda
Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:05 pm by ALLY MUNIR
» IS IT TIME TO THINK OF DEACTIVATING TENDER BOARDS AND INTRODUCE A MECHANISM OF PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONAL OPINION?
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:40 pm by pms
» e-Procurement System is now operational
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:14 pm by Admin
» TENDA ZINAPOKOSA WAOMBAJI
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:42 pm by thanksme
» Attendance of District Treasurer in Council Tender Board meetings
Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:57 pm by GWK