QUESTION 1

Case Study

The Central Water Authority (CWA) invited bids for supply of cold water meters. As estimated cost was above the set amount, the bidding documents and procurement notice were cleared by the Central Procurement Board (CPB). After opening of bids, the CPB appointed a Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) to examine and estimate the bids and to make recommendations for the award of contract.

The CPB reviewed the recommendation of BEC and accepted the award of the contract to Bidder X. The CWA proceeded with the notification of the projected award to the selected bidder for the value of Rs33, 580,000 and to the unsuccessful bidders. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CWA to award the contract

Bidder X, Bidder Y challenged the award. In answer to the challenge, the CWA informed Bidder Y that Bidder X was being awarded the pact as it had submitted the lowest evaluated bid. Still not satisfied, Bidder Y filed an application for review at the Independent Review Panel (IRP) against the conclusion of CWA.

In its application, Bidder Y stated: "That Bidder X being a domestic company incorporated in April 2007 dealing in importation of wood and register as such is not and is deemed not to be in the line of business of provider of cold water meters and therefore Bidder Y contends that the CPB has taken into account irrelevant considerations and has overlooked relevant matters whilst reading its decision to award the contract to the said timber Connections Ltd."

The IRP found that BEC had allocated full marks to the selected bidder for past knowledge of 5 years when it had been incorporated only a year ago and no confirmation of past experience had been submitted. furthermore, non responsive bids were evaluated, while responsive bids were ignored.

The IRP recommended the review of the conclusion of the CWA intending to award the contract to Bidder X. Following the conclusion, the CWA referred the matter to the CPB. The latter informed the CWA that after review it has decided to maintain its support for the award of the contract to Bidder X on ground of value for money. Procurement experts argue that although value for money is a prime objective of a public procurement system, it should not be viewed in isolation.

(a) What were mistakes dedicated by the BEC and the CPB in the above case that led to the approval of award to a non responsive bidder and how could they have been avoided?

(b) Was it in order for the CPB to keep its decision on ground of value for money? Give two reasons to support your opinion.

QUESTION 2

Describe the conditions for use of the following procurement methods

a) Restricted bidding
b) Direct Procurement
c) Emergency Procurement

QUESTION 3

a) What is reason of debriefing and when and how is it done?

b) What are the dissimilar notices which are issued and or published during a bidding process?

QUESTION 4

What is reason of a bid security and in what form should it be?

In what situation can bid process is cancelled-

(i) sooner than deadline for submission.
(ii) later than deadline for submission.