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 8 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 8 Guests :: 1 Bot

None

[ View the whole list ]


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

PMU TO REVIEW EVALUATION REPORTS

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: PMU TO REVIEW EVALUATION REPORTS

Post  Kawunju on Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:52 pm

RSM, I am in agreement with you that my posting regarding RJMbishi [PMU to Review Evaluation Reports] was wrongly positioned and interrupt my posting regarding the Partial Bid. I think now it is in the right position. This is what I posted in the wrong topic.

From what Mr. Mbishi has quoted, it is clearly indicating that, there is no particular law from Sections of PPA 2004 and Its Regulations, which gives mandate PMU to review evaluation report submitted by Evaluation Committee to Tender Board!!! How dare could PMU review Evaluation Report???

RSM, I am delighted that you have admitted that there is inconsistence between the Principal and Subsidiary legislations regarding the issue under discussion. If the case of consistence is true, does this amount to PMU to review the Evaluation Reports as Principal Legislation? In addition to what RJMbishi has pointed out, this contradicts Section 68 of PPA2004 which states that “the Tender Board shall review the evaluation and recommendation made by the Procuring Entity”. Although it is not clear whether the Procuring Entity stated here is PMU. In reviewing the Act and Regulations it should be made clear that EC reporting to PMU it should imply that EC should route the Evaluation Reports to PMU for reviewing prior to submit TB for adjudication of recommendation from the PMU and award of contracts.

At the same time Subsidiary legislation should be amended in order to be consistent with the Principals as you have suggested. I think it is right time now the Act itself should very clear on this issue and Regulations to amplify what it is stated in the act as have said the Regulations must be consistent with the Act and not to correct it.

Kawunju

Posts : 6
Join date : 2009-10-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: PMU TO REVIEW EVALUATION REPORTS

Post  RSM on Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:18 pm

RJMbishi

I think we have one problem of people failing to distinguish between Principal and Subsdiciary Legislations. The Public Procurement Act is the Principal Legislation and the Regulations are subsdiciary. According to the Principal Legislation Section 37(1)- All evaluations shall be conducted by an evaluation committee, which shall report to the Procurement Management Unit.

Two things comes out of this:

  1. The subsdiciary legislations are wrong and should be ammended accordingly to show that indeed the evaluation report should be routed through PMU, who accordingly should be in a position to advise the TB on the recommendations made by the ET
Going by the Provision of Principal legislation one could infer that in the PE there is only one Standing ET, which I think we all know that is not right.

I think as experts we should also not just say whether this is in accordance to the Act, but give views where we think the Act or Regulations are right or wrong. In any case the Regulations must be consistent with the Act and not to correct it.

RSM

Posts : 150
Join date : 2009-08-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

PMU TO REVIEW EVALUATION REPORTS

Post  RJM on Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:44 pm

There are on going debates for sometimes now; on whether PMUs are mandated to review the evaluation reports prior to submit to the respective TB by the virtue of the following Section and Regulations:-

S37(1)/2004 of PPA 2004: All evaluations shall be conducted by an evaluation committee, which shall report to the Procurement Management Unit.

R69(3)/98/2005: After the technical proposals have been evaluated, the PMU shall furnish to the appropriate tender board, in sufficient time for its review, a technical evaluation report and copies of the proposals.

R69 (4)/98/2005: If the appropriate tender board determines that the technical evaluation is inconsistent with the provisions of the request for proposals, it shall promptly inform the PMU and state the reason for its determination.

R69(7)/98/2005: A PMU shall furnish to the appropriate tender board in sufficient time for its review, the final evaluation report along with its proposed selection of the winning firm and if the appropriate tender board determines that the evaluation and proposed selection are inconsistent with the provisions of the request for proposals, it shall promptly inform the PMU and state the reasons for its determination and where such determination have not been made the tender board shall advise its approval to the proposed selection.

R90(26)/97/2005: A detailed report on the evaluation and comparison of tenders, setting forth the specific reasons which the determination of the lowest evaluated cost tender or highest evaluated price tender is based, shall be prepared by the evaluation committee and addressed to the approving authority for approval.

R58(12)/98/2005: The evaluation committee shall submit the evaluation report on the technical proposals to the appropriate tender board which shall review, comment on the evaluation report and where appropriate, approve the evaluation report and the scores.

R65/98/2005: On completion of the combined quality and cost evaluation, a PROCURING ENTITY [Who is this PE? Is it Head of PE, PMU or Evaluation Committee] shall prepare an evaluation report of the combined quality and cost comprising the forms together with the recommendations concerning the selection of the consultant and be submitted to the appropriate tender board for review, and where appropriate approval with all copies of the proposals attached to it.

These discussions are emerging because the general practice has been PMU review evaluation report and submit their reviewed summary and recommendation to their respective Tender Board for adjudication. Most of arguments have centred in the following issues:-

i. There are those who say the practice is okay and there those who say the practice is not okay as per the Sections and Regulations referred above?

ii. There are those who feel that; if the PMUs are mandated to do so, then, this contradicts S38 which states, “Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Accounting Officer or Chief Executive, the Tender Board, the Procurement Management Unit, the User Department and the Evaluation Committee shall act independently in relation to their respective functions and powers”.

iii.There are those who say that since Evaluation Committee (EC) is required to report to PMU as per Section 37(1), then, PMU is mandated to review the evaluation reports. In this context, EC to report to PMU, does this warrant PMU to review the evaluation reports?

iv.There are those who feel that by virtue of R69(4)&(7)/98/2005 which states “…..if the appropriate tender board determines that the evaluation and proposed selection are inconsistent with the provisions of the request for proposals, it shall promptly inform the PMU and state the reasons for its determination and where such determination have not been made the tender board shall advise its approval to the proposed selection” then, PMU is mandated to review, if not, why should TB inform PMU any inconsistent? Otherwise TB should inform EC?

WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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