A gap of about 20% between the lowest and second lowest bidder was recorded at the time of opening bids, which translated into a whopping Rs346.9 million.
PHOTO:FILE
In blatant violation of the Pakistan Public Procurement Rules (PPRA), Wapda did not issue a mandatory bid evaluation report and instead hastily awarded the contract to a Chinese company, according to documents available with The Express Tribune.
“A serious violation has been committed in this case as per rule 35 of PPRA,” said officials familiar with the development. “Wapda has to announce the results of the bid evaluation in the form of a report, giving justification for acceptance or rejection of bids at least 10 days prior to the award of the procurement contract.” Officials revealed that the lowest bidder had been informed about the bid result in a letter, prompting the company to lodge an official notice for grievance review as per rule 48 of PPRA.
Work on dams to start in middle of next year
Responding to the allegations, Wapda denied any wrongdoing. It claimed that the lowest bidder did not follow contractual terms and conditions. However, Wapda spokesman did not share any precise technical reason for terming the bid non-responsive. Wapda, in its response, also did not deny that mandatory detailed evaluation report has not been issued. Furthermore, Wapda did not oppose the notion that the contract of project has already been awarded without resolving grievances of the rejected bidder. The bid of the American company was substantially lower than that of the second lowest bidder, officials claimed. A gap of about 20% between the lowest and second lowest bidder was recorded at the time of opening bids, which translated into a whopping Rs346.9 million.
The American company claimed that while corresponding with Wapda it was fully compliant with the scope of the project work, proposing that all the equipment being offered is fully approved by the authority. It also cited its proven track record for carrying out such work. The company further claimed that it had fulfilled all the conditions of the tender as listed under the rules.
WAPDA blames water crisis on devolution
It is stated that as per PPRA Rule 4, the procuring agency is required to ensure a fair and transparent procurement process. When contacted, Wapda spokesman clarified that the lowest bidder made departure from the contractual terms and conditions, which are major deviations, because there exists no provision in the bidding documents by virtue of which such like deviations can be considered. He continued to say that since most of these deviations are not quantifiable, cost impact thereof cannot be assessed but rectification/adoption of these deviations would not only affect in substantial way the scope of services, limits the employer’s rights or the bidder’s obligations but may also unfairly affect the competitive position of the other bidders presenting substantially responsive bids.
As such on account of material deviations by the lowest bidder were considered not in order and inconsistent with the bidding documents, Wapda spokesman claimed. Therefore, he added, the lowest cost bidder was held non-responsive under the provisions of the bidding document.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 12th, 2018.
Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ