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

SUPPLIER CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS WITH ADDITION COSTS

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: SUPPLIER CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS WITH ADDITION COSTS

Post  GadielCM on Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:12 pm

My advise is concurrent to Mauka's conclusion, that the PE should reject the award and call for next lowest evaluated bidder if at all meet the specs as required by XDC. On other hand if found in additional of 50 mill from the anticipated lowest bidder will be within the budget of XDC and the amount still lower than the second evaluated bidder, the XDC should consider Rg 117(4, 8 & 9) to approve that amount then award the contract to that supplier.

GadielCM

Posts : 69
Join date : 2009-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SUPPLIER CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS WITH ADDITION COSTS

Post  mauka on Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:49 pm

basing on your scenario, i think the supplier was required to provide a full description or analysis of the motor Grader including its dimensions, availability, costs and physical properties so that basing on detailed analysis, the Xdc could be in better position to ascertain the successful bidder.

but the supplier seems to did the opposite by submitting incomplete information either intentional {due to deliberate misstatement of tender documents} or unintentional { due to incompetence} especially on the availability of motor Grader with their models.

therefore, i think the Xdc should refuse to award a contract to the winner because i don't see if there is any obligation to accept the revised tender which has shown all the sign of frauds, and in this case, the contract should be awarded to the next lowest bidder

mauka

Posts : 24
Join date : 2010-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

SUPPLIER CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS WITH ADDITION COSTS

Post  RJM on Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:41 pm

X District Council [XDC] advertised the tender for supply Motor Grader. The specifications in the bidding documents based on functional and performance for the Motor Grader to be supplied. No query received by XDC from the prospective bidders on the specifications which implied that prospective bidders understood the requirements of XDC. Three supplies submitted their offers before deadline and were opened publicly. The Evaluation Committee [EC] was constituted according to the requirements of the laws. After evaluation EC recommended award to the supplier who quoted Model W for Tshs. 240 millions VAT inclusive. Tender Board blessed the recommendations of the EC and eventually M/s was awarded the contract.

The notification of award was sent to the supplier on the following day. On receipt the letter, supplier wrote back to XDC explaining that the Model W quoted his tender is no longer available in the market. The available model is Model Y which higher version than W. In same letter supplier informed XDC that he will supply Model Y but they have to top up Tshs. 50 millions. At this stage no contract had been signed by the parties.

What is your advise to XDC?

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