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 8 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 8 Guests :: 1 Bot

None

[ View the whole list ]


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

WHEN MONEY IS NO OBJECT

View previous topic View next topic Go down

WHEN MONEY IS NO OBJECT

Post  GadielCM on Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:52 pm

RJM,
This is an interesting scenario and its somehow challenge to procurement professionals. Iny my view, I pose with another dubious from M/S CHICO from the said he demonstrated post-qualification in good manner, but if at all was good in such aspects, what was the essence of requesting more 10% of the contract price?, for so called to maintain and strength bridges?, why could be lowest evaluated be such cost inclusive?. Submission said ''It was further reported that during negotiations M/s CHICO request an additional 10 percent of the contract value for maintain the road and strengthen of bridges''. What were the parameters of negotiations?, is complied with RG 95/G.N 97/2005 of PPA 2004?. In stage I concur with the decision of TANROAD TENDER BOARD because there is tendence for bidders to be lowest but highest in terms of variations/additions after contract award.I submit

GadielCM

Posts : 69
Join date : 2009-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

WHEN MONEY IS NO OBJECT

Post  Maduhu on Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:31 pm

I find it lacks common sense!

For sure I sense corruption smell. Going to the second lowest bidder could be a wise decision. The act of re-tendering would change nothing as it will be unfair to the existing bidders.

Therefore, the need to re-tender should be justified.


Maduhu

Posts : 21
Join date : 2010-08-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

WHEN MONEY IS NO OBJECT

Post  RJM on Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:23 pm

Government Agenc picks Highest Bid in Multi-Billion Shillings Contract, Resulting as Loss of More than 20 BN/- to Taxpayers

This article with the heading above appeared in the THISDAY Newspapers on 30th September, 2010 which I believe that there are some issues should not go unnoticed and it necessary we discussed in this forum. I believe that some of us we might have seen the article and some not. Let me put it clear that we should debate without touching personality – Let us be professionals-. I will try to summarize the story as reported.

What was reported in this newspaper was awarding the tender for the 64 km [Bagamoyo – Makofia-Msata road to bitumen standard to M/s Estim Construction Company Ltd which was one of the highest bidders in the tender process offered to construct the road for Tshs. 105.6 bn/- . It was reported that that M/s CHICO had the lowest bid of Tshs. 84.1 bn/- was elbowed out of the process in the final stage under dubious circumstances. Other bidders were M/s Sinohydro [Tshs. 131.5 bn/-] and M/s General Nile [Tshs. 118.9 bn/-].The reporter indicated that TANROADS picked a company which was Tshs. 21.5 bn/- more expensive than the lowest bidder. Furthermore, it was reported that TANROADS Headquarters Tender Board was split over the matter with some members preferring that contract to be awarded to the lowest bidder M/s CHICO. The reporter continued reporting that M/s CHICO also substantially demonstrated possession of the stipulated post-qualification requirements and therefore recommended for award of the tender, subject to successful negotiations.

It was further reported that during negotiations M/s CHICO request an additional 10 percent of the contract value for maintain the road and strengthen of bridges. This would have raised the contract value to around Tshs. 92.4 bn/- which was still Tshs.13.2 bn/- cheaper than the bid by M/s Estim. The reporter indicated that some senior members of TANROADS Tender Board maintained that due to a large difference between the bid by M/s CHICO and M/s Estim, which picked as the next ranked bidder M/S CHICO should be asked to withdrawn its demands for a 10 percent increase. Alternatively, Board Members suggested that the project to re-tendered in the event that M/s CHICO refused to withdraw the demand for extra payment of 10 percent. Ultimately, it was reported that the tender was awarded to M/s Estim.

Some few issues caught my attention which I am putting forwarding for discussion-

[1] Whether the demand of M/s CHICO additional of 10% to the contract value at the negotiation stage acceptable?
[2] If M/s CHICO refused to withdraw the demand of contract value increase, was TANROAD right to go for the second lowest bidder?
[3] If re-tendering is the solution as suggest by some of the Tender Board Members, what would be the reasons for re-tendering to the bidders who participated in the process?
[4] In this scenario can the common sense/logic outweigh rules and procedures?

What is your take on those issues? I believe other forum members who might have read the newspaper could bring up other issues.


Last edited by RJM on Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:28 pm; 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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum