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

Calendar Calendar

Statistics
We have 862 registered users
The newest registered user is oshe

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

None

[ View the whole list ]


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

Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013

Post  Magoti.Daniel on Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:02 pm

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.
..Thanks for the clarification, got you..

Magoti.Daniel

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-03-21
Age : 31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013

Post  RJM on Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:00 pm

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.


Last edited by RJM on Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:20 am; 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

Contradiction in Liquidated damages in Public Procurement Regulation 2013

Post  Magoti.Daniel on Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:19 pm

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.

Magoti.Daniel

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-03-21
Age : 31

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