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

It is a Contradiction during Implementation!

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: It is a Contradiction during Implementation!

Post  id2013 on Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:23 pm

Dear Forum Members,
if it is contradicting, we practitioners we need the urgent guidance from the responsible authority regarding on this matter. May be other members may come with different interpretations

id2013

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-07-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: It is a Contradiction during Implementation!

Post  Bieda on Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:11 pm

It is true, they are contradicting
(Sect 6o(3)
vs
Reg. 231(2)

Bieda

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

It is a Contradiction during Implementation!

Post  id2013 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:11 pm

Dear Forum members,
When your refers Sec. 60(3) of PPA 2011 read together with PPR 231(2) of 2013 against PPR 59 (3) of 2013 you reveal that the provisions contradict itself. Let me put it clearly and directly that both provisions provide time frame of three days after tender board award decisions for accounting officer to notify as directed. But which comes earlier than other?, and which proper way to follow?
My opinion is that PPR 59(3) should come after cool off period has been completed and the award letter to the successful bidder has communicated by the accounting officer. This is because how can you submit the draft of contract to AG without having the consent from other bidders participated in the same tender after issuance of intention for award as Sec. 60 (3)/PPR 231 (2) while all provisions provides the same time frame after tender board award decisions?.

My understanding is that draft of contract should contain all necessary information including the name and address of the supplier awarded, Contact person in the contract (for supplier) and for the Client, contract amount, all other issues need to be incorporated in the contract including minutes for negotiations etc. So submitting the draft of contract missing theses information as as my opinion is like submitting the blank contract and also submitting the draft of contract to AG while still in cool off period is contradicting the way for us practitioners, otherwise let me here from others.

id2013

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-07-17

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