By IPRP Communications Unit
The Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP) has on Friday 14th July, 2023, in a ruling cautioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MoFAIC) to be seen practicing and adhering to public procurement laws to avoid evaluation processes that are not in tune with the 2016 Public Procurement Acts and Statutory Regulations 2020.
The Panel further advised there is need for proper documentation of processes and training of staff on public procurement issues.
A complaint was filed by Fayia Unity Garage to the Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP) on alleged Procurement Irregularities in the procurement process.
Based on the summary of facts, the (MoFAIC) advertised a bid in local newspapers, requesting for a Framework Contract for the supply of Spare Parts and Maintenance of Vehicles (Lot 1).
The Appellant submitted a bid expressing interests in executing the task, and the complainant was notified by the procuring entity that he was unsuccessful during the Evaluation Stage.
The Procuring Entity cited poor maintenance of vehicles as well as during the cause of repairs seven vehicles had been grounded among which were VIP vehicles.
The Appellant claimed that his garage was providing similar service to the MoFAIC for which he had never defaulted and was baffled to receive a notification letter from the procurement Committee that his garage was unsuccessful.
The Appellant filed in a protest letter to the procuring entity expressing their dissatisfaction of the outcome of the evaluation process, and claiming that the MoFAIC only responded to their letter after the mandated 5 day period has elapsed.
The Independent Procurement Review Panel is a creation of section 65 (1) of the Public Procurement (PPA) No.10 of 2016. The IPRP is charged with the responsibility to review complains/ appeals from dissatisfied bidders about decision of a procuring entity.
A day hearing was held for both parties in the said matter and panel ruled:
That the Appellant was not successful during the evaluation process on the bases of failing a technical assessment, rather he was evaluated on an alleged damaged vehicles which had no bearing to the bid requirement.
The Panel finds that the Appellant’s garage space can only house eight vehicles at a time and the recommended winner of the bid had a more spacious garage. The roads leading to the Appellant garage was not in good conditions.
In addition, the Panel finds that the Appellant had all documents required, coupled with his lowest bid but was evaluated on the status of his garage and its evident that his garage is not spacious even though he has been providing services of maintenance and supply of spare parts since 2016 without query.
The Panel therefore recommends for the MOFAIC to proceed with the contract and award the winner.
Copyright © 2023 Politico Online
