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 9 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 9 Guests :: 1 Bot

None

[ View the whole list ]


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

Clarifications

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Clarifications

Post  GWK on Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:00 pm

APOSTLE BIEDA,
Thank you for your valuable contribution on the topic. It is true that tender evaluation MUST be done using criteria stated in the tender document. Engmagoma presented that his tender documents explicitly indicated that project duration is four months with defects liability period of 365 days but one bidder submitted a power of attorney indicating validity period of three months from the date of bid opening and not even from project start date.

To me the tender is not substantial responsive to the requirements of the tendering document for specifying shorter period than project duration. They were supposed to demonstrate how they will perform crush program to complete the works within such a short period otherwise they will not be capable. The PPRA ITT for medium and large works clause 27 stipulates that PE should determine whether the tenders are substantial responsive to the requirement of the tendering document. here is the ITT 27.1

Prior to the detailed evaluation of tenders, the Procuring Entity will determine whether each Tender;
(a) meets the eligibility criteria defined in ITT Clause 3;
(b) has been properly signed;
(c) is accompanied by the required securities; and
(d) is substantially responsive to the requirements of the Tendering Documents.
The Procuring Entity's determination of a Tender's responsiveness will be based on the contents of the Tender itself.
A substantially responsive Tender is one which conforms to all the terms, conditions, and specifications of the Tendering Documents, without material deviation or reservation. A material deviation or reservation is one that:-

a) affects in any substantial way the scope, quality, or performance of the Works;
b) limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the Tendering Documents, the Procuring Entity's rights or the Tenderer’s obligations under the Contract; or
c) if rectified, would affect unfairly the competitive position of other Tenderers presenting substantially responsive Tenders.


GWK

Posts : 51
Join date : 2014-03-24
Age : 49
Location : DAR ES SALAAM

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarifications

Post  Bieda on Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:57 pm

Dear all
regulation 204(1) of the PPR 2013 requires the evaluation to be done using the criteria explicitly stated in the tender document.
If the bid document didn't specify type of power of attorney required it will be difficult to evaluate basing on those category of power of attorney.
I think you better use existence of special power of attorney as one of the major criteria.
The other can be treated as minor deviations and clarified during the Negotiation, otherwise you may correct me.
Sorry for late response.

Bieda

Posts : 10
Join date : 2014-08-28
Age : 37
Location : Dar es salaam

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarifications

Post  engmagoma on Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:40 pm

GWK
Thank you for you inputs

engmagoma

Posts : 2
Join date : 2014-08-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarifications

Post  GWK on Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:22 pm

RJM & engmagoma,

I support you that all two bids seem to be responsive.
However, the evaluators have to take into account the purpose of power of attorney be submitted with the tender documents.
  • PPR 9(10)d gives the purpose as to confirm to the procuring entity the lead member of the joint-venture, association ... "a joint venture, consortium, or association shall appoint a lead member who shall have the authority to bind the joint venture, consortium, or association and the lead member shall at the time of contract award confirm the appointment bu submission of power of attorney to the procuring entity"

  • The ITT11.1g (PPRA medium & large works) the purpose of the power of attorney is to confirm signatory of the tender to commit the tender

  • ITT 24.2 (PPRA medium and large works) the purpose of power of attorney is to confirm the signatory as a person duly authorized to sign on behalf of the tenderer


In light of provisions above, my evaluation is that the first bidder has committed Major deviation for submitting conditional offer, though power of attorney may be taken as an introduction letter (introducing the person whose signature appear in the tender docs) but the first bidders' contain a condition that it is valid for 3 months only while the project duration is 4 months and the tender procuring entity require a defect liability period of 12months (may be due to nature of the project). The firm might not be available after three months as indicated in their power of attorney!

For the second bidder though it is unusual to confirm two persons, but to me seem to be minor deviation and the evaluators may continue to evaluate it.

I stand to be corrected,

Regards

(NOTE: THE TOPIC HAS BY ERROR BEEN POSTED IN MAJADILIANO KWA KISWAHILI)

GWK

Posts : 51
Join date : 2014-03-24
Age : 49
Location : DAR ES SALAAM

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarifications

Post  RJM on Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:52 pm

Magoma,

All two bids are responsive.

What do you think will make them non-responsive?

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

Clarifications

Post  engmagoma on Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:13 pm

Dear Comrades,
In one of the evaluation which I was involved, I met two issues which are new to me:-
1. One bidder, a class one Contractor had submitted a power of attorney with validity period of three months from the date of bid opening. However, the bid document had explicitly indicated a project duration of four months with defects liability period of 365 days.
2. Another bidder had submitted a power of attorney granted to two persons at a go and their specimen signatures appear on the power of attorney and the two has signed all documents as required.

NOW, how could you treat the two cases? Responsive Bids? Non responsive bids?
MAGOMA

engmagoma

Posts : 2
Join date : 2014-08-05

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