Dear Editor,
The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) has finally issued a report based on a complaint from a contractor. Predictably, the report is a whitewash of the administrative review process and falls short of the standards expected from a constitutional agency.
By way of background – the Office of the Prime Minister issued an invitation to bid for line hardware in March 2023 with the bid opening slated for April 2023. Five bids were returned, and unsurprisingly the lowest bid by Akamai Inc. was the only bid deemed non-responsive. Akamai Inc. by the way is the sole distributor of the requested line hardware; hence it was expected that the company would submit the lowest bid.
The evaluation committee deemed Akamai Inc. non-responsive because it was claimed that:
- a) the bidder failed to submit documentary evidence to demonstrate supply of similar goods in at least 1 contract in the last two (2) years to a minimum value of G$5M and
- b) the bidder failed to provide a letter stating that the company had no terminated projects.
This is where it becomes interesting. There was no prescribed format for the submission of evidence of previous projects, and hence Akamai Inc. submitted a spreadsheet detailing all their previous contracts, detailing the procurement agencies as well the contract sums (see attached). However, not surprisingly, in an effort to deem the bidder non-responsive, the procurement agency found this detailed listing unacceptable.
Additionally, a simple conversation with the bidder revealed that he did in fact fulfill the second requirement which the evaluation committee deemed non-responsive – which was a letter addressed to the procuring entity stating specifically that none of their projects was ever terminated (see attached) – clear evidence that this information was fraudulently omitted by the evaluation committee or ignored.
In arriving at its report to support the award, the PPC never contacted the bidder, seeking clarifications on the claims for debarment made in the evaluation report, as is standard when reviewing complaints, whereby all parties to the complaint should be given an opportunity to defend their position. The PPC simply adopted a defective report, performed no investigative analysis and rubberstamped the award.
When contacted, the AFC nominated commissioner within the PPC highlighted that a) both opposition commissioners found the submission of the list of projects comprehensive and acceptable and b) that they were unaware that the bidder had actually submitted the claimed missing letter regarding terminated projects. The AFC nominated commissioner also informed that she recommended that natural justice procedures be adopted, whereby all parties should be given an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made by the commission, however this was overruled by the majority vote of the Commission.
Strangely, but not unsurprisingly, the PPC failed to highlight that section 5 (5) (a) of the Procurement Act specifically states “a procuring entity may not disqualify a supplier or contractor on the ground that information submitted concerning the qualifications of the supplier or contractors was inaccurate or incomplete in a non-material respect.” The claimed incomplete information as supplied by this contractor are all non-material in every respect, and in accordance with the Act, such non material deficiencies can be remedied.
The PPC, a constitutional agency with an annual budget of almost $300M has taken eight months to respond to the bidder’s complaint, and in the end simply rubber stamped a defective and possibly fraudulent evaluation report, without even giving the complainant the opportunity to prove otherwise.
The public would have been mistaken if they assumed that any investigation by PPC, would have been in-depth, whereby a review of the entire bidding process would have been conducted, including a full review of all documents submitted by all bidders, review of the responsiveness of the bidders and then a final determination of who is deemed successful.
I anticipate a similar rubber stamping of NPTAB’s award of the Belle Vue pump station, when or if, the PPC ever responds to a complaint lodged since October 2023. I also expect a similar undemocratic rubber stamping to the complaint on the award of the Bamia Secondary school lodged since February 2023 as democratic structures and institutions in our nation continue to falter and become unrecognizable.
Yours truly,
David Patterson
