EVALUATION COMITEE

“The evaluation team is proposed by PMU and endorsed or approved by Accounting Officer/CEO OR BY AO AND CHAIRMAN OF FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR LG”.

It is true that the Evaluation Team is supposed to be proposed by PMU and approved by the AO/CEO [Head of Institution] according to S37(2)/PPA, Cap 410, S33(e)/PPA, Cap 410, R25(2)/LGA/177/2007 and R21(1)(f)/LGA/177/2007. I believe this implies that the appointing authority is AO/CEO. I doubt if the Chairman of Finance Committee for LGA is the appointing authority. In other words the Chairman of Finance Committee is not the Accounting Officer.

“Is it correct for the accounting officer to re - appoint the new team and ignore the recommendations of FORMER TEAM /PMU AND TB FOR THE SAME TENDER? AND EVENTUALLY AWARD TO A DIFFERENT BIDDER ALTOGETHER!!”

The first issue, the Accounting Officer to re-appoint the new team and ignore the recommendation of former team proposed by the PMU. By virtue of the Sections and Regulations I have cited above, the AO/CEO being the appoint authority he/she has the power to re-appoint the Evaluation Team proposed by PMU when she/she deemed fit for the interest of the Procuring Entity. RMD, in normal circumstance, proposing does not mean that the other part will accept whatever you propose, still decision and responsibility lies with one who is approving.

The second issue, RMD, I am not sure if I got you right, I guess you meant that the AO ignoring recommendations of the TB for the winning bidder and award the bid to the different bidder. If the AO ignore the recommendations of the TB and eventually award the bid to the different bidder, within the framework of the legislations governing our procurement processes, he/she will be contravening S38/PPA, Cap 410 [Independence of Functions and Powers] and S41/PPA, Cap 410 [Disagreements Between Tender Boards, Procurement Management Unit and User Department] and R37/97/2005 [Disagreement Between Tender Board and the Procurement Management Unit].

If we look at S38 Act which calls for independence of functions and powers for organs involved in the procurement process (AO, TB, PMU, UD & EC), in the case where the AO eventually award the bid to the different bidder, this will imply that he/she has interfered the function of the EC [evaluating the bids and make recommendations to the TB] as well as function of the TB [adjudicating of recommendation from the PMU and award of contracts]. On the other hand, this will be construed that the AO has evaluated the bids, made recommendations and adjudicated the recommendations and award the contract. Surprisingly, the same person will communicate award decisions as per S33(f)/PPA, Cap 410. Now, where is the transparency and accountability that being the case??

If we look at S41/PPA, Cap 410 and R37/97/2005, the legislations have provided the platform for handling disagreement for the organs involved in the procurement process. The best practice for the AO is to use the provisions provided under R37/97/2005 that “Where the AO is not satisfied with the decision of the TB regarding application or interpretation of any procurement method, process or practice or disposal by the tender, the accounting officer may:-

i/. return the decision to the TB for review giving written reasons for the dissatisfaction and ;
ii/. where not satisfied with the outcome of the review he may request for an independent review by the Authority (PPRA)

Under this Regulation each party has mandate to request for independent advice from the Authority stating in writing the reasons for its disagreements.