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

Partial Bid

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Partial Bid

Post  fmwalongo on Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:33 pm

Under this circumstance was EC correct?. To achieve value for money which is the central objective the Evaluation Committee was supposed to correct the arthmetic error without affecting the unit price which can not be touched. For me I think the evaluation team must reason and they should not work like machines and consequently defeat the purpose of the Act.

Can PE seek clarification from the bidder and make correction? No need of crarication correct the artmetic error by takingthe unit price multiply by 28 computers instead of 20.

What could be the precise meaning of partial bid? Well, this is alos a partly scenario of partial bid. But in my view the partial bid prohibitted is that you bid for supplying computer only hile in that lot there are computers, printers and photocophiers.

fmwalongo

Posts : 22
Join date : 2010-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Partial Bid

Post  RJM on Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:56 pm

The motion has picked its expected pace! I believe that this will give practitioners more understanding of what so called partial bid if at the end of the day this saga will be concluded as partial bid or not? I will try to submit my opinion based on the issue as raised by Kuwunju as well as clarification given following observation of RSM and submission of Michael E.D. Chilongani.

i. Whether EC was correct or not?

According to the clarification given by Kawunju, I believe that there is no excuse that bidder did not get the addendum which was concern of RSM. In fact we know that PEs have right to issue addendum prior deadline of submission of bids and addendum is part and parcel of the bid document [See R85(4)&(5)/97/2005 and I believe a well drafted bid documents must contain the same provision].

Back to main subject, I will try to analyze this saga by looking at R90(Cool/97/2005 which is define a material deviation or reservation “is one which affects the scope, quality or performance of the contract, or which, in any substantial way, is inconsistent with the tender document or limit the procuring entity’s rights or the tender’s obligations under the contract and affects unfairly the competitive position of tenderers presenting responsive tenders”. I am convinced that EC used test number one; if the bidder quoted to supply 20 Desktop Computers instead of 28 as per addendum, then, this affect SCOPE, PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TENDER DOCUMENT. This amount to material deviation and bid is non-responsive [Does not conforms to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the tender document(s)]. In other words, we can say that bidder has the capacity to supply 20 Desktops instead of 28 required by PE.

BASED ON THE ABOVE, EC WAS CORRECT TO REJECT THE BID AT THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION STAGE.

ii. Can PE seek clarification from the bidder and make correction?

I think submission of Chilongani is centred to this. When I look at R90(10)/97/2005 which states that “The PE may ask suppliers, contractors, service providers or asset buyers for clarification of their tenders in order to assist in the examination, evaluation and comparison of tenders but NO advantage shall be sought, offered or permitted to change any MATTER OF SUBSTANCE in the tender, including changes in price and changes aimed at MAKING AN UNRESPONSIVE TENDER RESPONSIVE” I am not convinced that PE can seek clarification and make correction. The action of seeking clarification under this scenario it will change MATTER OF SUBSTANCE in the tender and to great extent will contravene test number 3 as this will “affect unfairly the competitive position of the tenderers presenting responsive tenders”.

This cannot be correction of error by virtue of R90(11)/97/2005 which states that “the PE shall correct PURELY ARITHMETICAL ERRORS that are discovered during the examination of tenders………”. Seeking clarification to change 20 to be 28, is this a purely arithmetical error? What is arithmetical error? The procedure for correction of errors is stipulated in ITB 30 [Correction of Errors] SBD for Goods.

“Bids determined to be substantially responsive will be checked for any arithmetic errors. Errors will be corrected as follows:-

a) if there is a discrepancy between unit prices and the total price that is obtained by multiplying the unit price and quantity, the unit price shall prevail, and the total price shall be corrected, unless in the opinion of the Procuring Entity there is an obvious misplacement of the decimal point in the unit price, in which the total price as quoted shall govern and the unit price shall be corrected;
b) if there is an error in a total corresponding to the addition or subtraction of subtotals, the subtotals shall prevail and the total shall be corrected; and


[(a) & (b) GIVE THE REAL MEANING OF PURELY ARITHEMATICAL ERRORS AS FAS AS PROCUREMENT IS CONCERN]

c) where there is a discrepancy between the amounts in figures and in words, the amount in words will govern”.

As you can observe from the above procedure, the QUANTITIES given the PE are not subject to errors as bidders make errors when dealing with the quantities given by PE and their UNIT PRICES.


iii. What could be the precise meaning of partial bid?

Simply partial bid is an incomplete bid; by quoting only select items or for only partial quantities of a particular items. I have come across these words in most of evaluation guidelines “Unless the bidding documents have specifically allowed partial bids – bids not offering all of the required items should be considered nonresponsive. However, under works contracts, missing prices for works items are deemed to be included in the prices of other items.

Kawunju, I believe in the later stage you will give us the outcome of the appeal on this sage which will trigger more discussions on the issue.


Last edited by RJM on Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

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

Re: Partial Bid

Post  Michael Chilongani on Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:18 pm

To my opinion the EC was not correct by rejecting the bid during evaluation on the following grounds: -

The quoted quantity of 20PCs insteady of 28 PCs should have been regarded as an arthemetic error of which pursuant to regulation 90.11a the procurening enity shall correct purely arithemtic erros that are discovered during the examination of tenders and the PE shall give prompt notice of any such corrections to the Supplier that submitted the bid.

Thus without altering the unit price, the evaluation team should have effected the corrections to be in line wih regulation 90.3 that states the tender evaluation committee shall evaluate on a common basis opened tenders in order to detarmine the cost or price to the PE of each tender in a manner that permits a compariosn to be made between the tenderes....

in view of the above, the EC should have multplied the unit price with the correct quantity of 28PC to obtain the correct bid price of the bidder which should thereafter be compared to esatblish the lowest Evaluated bidder.

Subsequent to such corrections and pursuant to regulation 90.17b a PE shall not accept the tender if the supplier that submitted the tender does not accept a correction of an arthmetic error made pursuant to subregualtion 11.

in my opinion if after such correction the bidder is still the lowest then the supplier should be awarded the tender at the corrected bid price.

Michael Chilongani

Posts : 30
Join date : 2009-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Partial Bid

Post  Kawunju on Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:17 pm

RSM, as point of clarification the particular bidder submit his bid in the extended deadline for submission and there is a evidence that the the bidder received the addendum. I could agree with you that he only picked up the addendum on extended for submission and I am not sure whether he missed one on the increased quantities as the evaluation was done based on the contents of the bid itself. With this clarification I think motion is open for discussion on the issue I raised.

Kawunju

Posts : 6
Join date : 2009-10-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Partial Bid

Post  RSM on Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:27 pm

Kawunju

I pick these words as very key words in this whole saga: "The PE issued an addendum to remedy the error and extended the deadline for submission of tenders. The addendum stated a total quantity of Desktop Computer 28 instead of 8 and was circulated to all respective bidders who purchased the bidding documents".

An addendum issued to all bidders in accordance with the laid procedures becomes part of the bidding document. In this case the PE even exetended the deadline for submission. Did this particular bidder submit his bid in the original specified date, to demonstrate that he did not receive the addendum? or he only picked up the addendum on extended deadline for submission, and missed the one on increased quantities?

RSM

Posts : 150
Join date : 2009-08-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Partial Bid

Post  ntelya on Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:29 pm

Kawunju wrote:A certain Procuring Entity (PE) invited tender for the supply of computers and its accessories. In the list of items it was indicated that the PE intended prospective bidders to supply a total of 20 Desktop Computers. However, PE discovered that understated the Desk Computers by 8. The PE issued an addendum to remedy the error and extended the deadline for submission of tenders. The addendum stated a total quantity of Desktop Computer 28 instead of 8 and was circulated to all respective bidders who purchased the bidding documents.

During opening ceremony, read out price of one the bidder was lowest and had quoted to supply a total quantity of 20 Desktop Computer as indicated in the original bidding documents instead of 28 as per addendum. The Evaluation Committee (EC) after preliminary examination of the submitted bids rejected the bid of bidder who quoted 20 Desktop Computers on the grounds that this amount to a partial bid hence treated as material deviation despite the fact that it was lowest submitted price.

After notification of award to the lowest evaluated bidder and notification of unsuccessful bidders, the bidder whose price was read to be the lowest, lodged complaints to relevant authorities, purporting that the firm deserved to win tender because their price was the lowest.

i. Under this circumstance was EC correct?
ii. Can PE seek clarification from the bidder and make correction?
iii. What could be the precise meaning of partial bid?


Kawunju,



I would like to discuss about your questions as follows;



i. I think the Evaluation Committee was correct to reject the bidder; as the quantity evaluated was 28 Desktop Computers as indicated in the addendum and not 20 Desktop Computers.



ii. For this case there is no need for PE to seek clarification from bidder as the addendum was issued to all respective bidders stated the quantity required.

ntelya

Posts : 1
Join date : 2009-07-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Partial Bid

Post  Kawunju on Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:39 pm

A certain Procuring Entity (PE) invited tender for the supply of computers and its accessories. In the list of items it was indicated that the PE intended prospective bidders to supply a total of 20 Desktop Computers. However, PE discovered that understated the Desk Computers by 8. The PE issued an addendum to remedy the error and extended the deadline for submission of tenders. The addendum stated a total quantity of Desktop Computer 28 instead of 8 and was circulated to all respective bidders who purchased the bidding documents.

During opening ceremony, read out price of one the bidder was lowest and had quoted to supply a total quantity of 20 Desktop Computer as indicated in the original bidding documents instead of 28 as per addendum. The Evaluation Committee (EC) after preliminary examination of the submitted bids rejected the bid of bidder who quoted 20 Desktop Computers on the grounds that this amount to a partial bid hence treated as material deviation despite the fact that it was lowest submitted price.

After notification of award to the lowest evaluated bidder and notification of unsuccessful bidders, the bidder whose price was read to be the lowest, lodged complaints to relevant authorities, purporting that the firm deserved to win tender because their price was the lowest.

i. Under this circumstance was EC correct?
ii. Can PE seek clarification from the bidder and make correction?
iii. What could be the precise meaning of partial bid?

Kawunju

Posts : 6
Join date : 2009-10-09

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