Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search
Latest topics
December 2016
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Calendar Calendar

Statistics
We have 861 registered users
The newest registered user is akt991

Our users have posted a total of 1208 messages in 336 subjects
Who is online?
In total there are 3 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 3 Guests :: 1 Bot

None

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 32 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:22 pm

EVALUATION

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: EVALUATION

Post  Rutaihwa on Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:58 pm

RJM
THANKS FOR YOUR CLARITY CLARIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION ON EVALUATIN

Rutaihwa

Posts : 58
Join date : 2011-09-29
Age : 49

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: EVALUATION

Post  RJM on Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:40 pm

Sorry for coming on board late!

I must admit that this is a trick situation and we must acknowledge also that do happen – like the case we have now!

Having gone through submissions of the previous contributors, I learned (I stand to be corrected) most of them if not all they have treated the case at hand as either “correction of error” or “clarification issues”. My submission will focus on these two in relation to the situation.

To me the situation is neither “correction of error” no “clarifications”.

Rutaihwa wrote
“1. Since the quantity and amount is there means the rate also is there by dividing amount and QUANTITY by doing so you are not changing anything”.
The result of what is being suggested by Rataihwa is a Unit Price which legally should be quoted by the respective bidders. Is this a correction of error as per respective Clause of ITB and as per R90(11)/97/2005 which states that “Notwithstanding sub-regulation (6) PE shall correct purely arithmetical errors that are discovered during the examination of tenders …….” If we adopt this approach will this be construed as we are suggesting unit price for bidder which he did not contemplate and will it be accepted? I believe by virtual of the respective Clause ITB [Correction of Arithmetical Errors] the situation cannot be mended by correction of error as it will be contravening the respective clause.

CGM-''Ng'wigi'' wrote,
“26.1 To assist in the examination, evaluation, and comparison of bids and post-qualifications of Bidders, the Procuring Entity may, at its discretion, ask any Bidder for clarification of its bid including breakdown of prices. Any clarification submitted by a Bidder that is not in response to a request by the Procuring Entity shall not be considered”.
I doubt if this can be treated as issue to seek clarification from the bidder – if so what kind of clarification should PE seek?
The clause referenced by CGM [bidder’s breakdown of prices] caters for unbalanced rates/front loading of bid to demonstrate the internal consistency of the prices with construction methods and schedule proposed.

To my view, what makes difficult for the situation at hand not to be corrected as a “correction of arithmetical errors” is the ITB Clause relating to Bid Prices.

The typical clause states “The Bidder shall fill in rates and prices for all items of the Works described in the Bill of Quantities. Items for which no rate or price is entered by the Bidder will not be paid for by the Procuring Entity when executed and shall be deemed covered by the other rates and prices in the Bill of quantities”.

Referring situation under discussion, the price for executing item of the works described in the BoQ is quoted – one can conclude that the clause has been complied – as the price for executing the item of the work has be quoted by the bidder.

From the above, I would say that the evaluation should continue without correcting or seeking clarification from the bidder. However, in the later stage [Contract Execution] if the bidder emerge the winner the challenge will be “what if the variation order is to be issued in the respective item – what will be rates will be applied in paying such variation? Will this limit the client the unilateral right to issue variation because of dilemma of the unit rate to be used?

What is your take?

RJM

Posts : 256
Join date : 2009-07-30
Age : 66
Location : What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure

View user profile

Back to top Go down

EVALUATION

Post  Rutaihwa on Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:53 pm

Chimola
Reg 90 (10) GN 97 PE may ask Suppliers for clarification......... but no advantages shall be sought,offered,or permitted to change any matter of substance change in the tender,including changes in price and changes aimed at making an responsive tender responsive.

1. Since the quantity and amaount is there means the rate also is there by dividing
amount and QUANTITY by doing so you are not changing any thing.

2. PE may regard this as minor deviation. Reg 9o (11) (a) Pe may regard a tender as
responsive even if it contains minor deviations that do not materially alter or depert
from the characteristics......................or it contains errors or oversights that are
capable of being corrected without touching on the substances of the tender.

3. ITB CLAUSE 27.4 PE may waive any minor informality, nonconformity, or irregularity
in a bid which does not constitute a material deviation, provided such waiver does
not prejudice or affect the relative ranking of any bidder.

4. ITB CLAUSE 27.7 PE may waive any minor informality, nonconformity, or irregularity in
a bid which does not contitute a material deviation, provided such waiver does not
prejudice or affect the relative ranking of any bidder as result of the technical or
commercial evaluation pursuant to ITB CLAUSE 26 & 28.


CGM-''Ng'wigi'' wrote:Chimola,
The action to be taken should be refered to the tender document issued to bidders. Let say for BOQ's refered to procurement of works for medium and large works. In this document it is allowed for the PE to do the following, the ITB from said document is extracted as followings;

''ITB Clasuse 26''- Clarification of Bids

26.1 To assist in the examination, evaluation, and comparison of bids and post-qualifications of Bidders, the Procuring Entity may, at its discretion, ask any Bidder for clarification of its bid including breakdown of prices. Any clarification submitted by a Bidder that is not in response to a request by the Procuring Entity shall not be considered.

26.2 The request for clarification and the response shall be in writing or by cable, telex, or facsimile, but no change in the price or substance of the bid shall be sought, offered, or permitted except as required to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors discovered by the evaluation committee in the evaluation of the bids in accordance with ITB Clause 28.




This citation is apparently to that of Regulation 90(10), GN/97,2005 of PPA 2004.

Chimola, please take action in aspect to this law provisions.


Last edited by Rutaihwa on Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typing error)

Rutaihwa

Posts : 58
Join date : 2011-09-29
Age : 49

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: EVALUATION

Post  CGM-''Ng'wigi'' on Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:02 pm

Chimola,
The action to be taken should be refered to the tender document issued to bidders. Let say for BOQ's refered to procurement of works for medium and large works. In this document it is allowed for the PE to do the following, the ITB from said document is extracted as followings;

''ITB Clasuse 26''- Clarification of Bids

26.1 To assist in the examination, evaluation, and comparison of bids and post-qualifications of Bidders, the Procuring Entity may, at its discretion, ask any Bidder for clarification of its bid including breakdown of prices. Any clarification submitted by a Bidder that is not in response to a request by the Procuring Entity shall not be considered.

26.2 The request for clarification and the response shall be in writing or by cable, telex, or facsimile, but no change in the price or substance of the bid shall be sought, offered, or permitted except as required to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors discovered by the evaluation committee in the evaluation of the bids in accordance with ITB Clause 28.




This citation is apparently to that of Regulation 90(10), GN/97,2005 of PPA 2004.

Chimola, please take action in aspect to this law provisions.

CGM-''Ng'wigi''

Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

EVALUATION

Post  Chimola on Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:22 am

During Evalution it was discovered that one bidder in the BOQ did not qoute Rate but insert the Amount What action to be taken

Chimola

Posts : 4
Join date : 2009-08-11
Location : Dodoma

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum