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 5 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 5 Guests :: 1 Bot

None

[ View the whole list ]


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

PROCUREMENT OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES USING RESTRICTED METHOD - A REAL CASE

View previous topic View next topic Go down

PROCUREMENT OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES USING RESTRICTED METHOD - A REAL CASE

Post  RJM on Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:00 pm

HII NI BILA CHENGA! I received this from friend of mine who need assistance and I think worth to share.

PE X allocated fund for the development and maintenance of website where on its procurement plan it was allocated Tshs. 15,708,991.00.

From that allocated sum selection method was QCBS. The PMU of the PE basing on the APP prepared tender document for obtaining consultant who can provide the respective service.

Basing on the available funds the PMU used restricted tendering system with consideration that the amount reflected was in the limit of the threshold given in the regulation, and the service required are within the competence of a limited number of specialized consultants.

The PMU submitted tender document and the names of the respective consultants considered. The tender Board approved the document for that assignment.

When the five respective consultants invited, three of them responded and their technical proposals were opened. After evaluating those technical proposals only one consultant reached the scores which allow his financial proposal to be opened. (The minimum score was 75%).

The evaluation team recommended the said consultant to be considered for the opening of the financial proposal. As those information submitted to the Tender Board it was approved accordingly and demand the financial proposal to be opened while the financial proposal for the unsuccessful firms to be retuned un- opened.

The financial proposal was opened and the evaluation team then recommended that consultant to be called for negotiation and to be awarded the contract of developing, maintaining and hosting the website at the contract sum of Tshs. 13,093,000/=. As these recommendations submitted to the TB the TB approved the said recommendations and requires negotiation to be done in both parties.

The report was submitted to the Accounting Officer so that the contact may be signed for the purpose of enabling the execution of the said contract. There had no any response to the AO required such activity to be re-advertised publically in order to avoid audit query as well as achieving value for money. But this decision was neither communicated to the head of PMU nor to the tender Board for having a review and advice accordingly rather that assigning this work to the handover to his assistance when he was moving somewhere to attend a meeting.


Concerns
• Was the reflective procedures used being immaterial? Was it correct?
• I would like to know if the allocated sum is Tshs. 15,708,991.00 and the AO needs the assignment to be advertised publically at least twice with the reflex of the allocated sum, to which extra cost should be required to ensure the consultant is obtained, will it be cost effective and achieving value for money? Does the first method selected being improper?
• What should be done in order to ensure the best practice of such assignment?

We ask you to assist accordingly on this case study.

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