After having analyzed in depth the protests of a company, namely J. Dookhun & Sons Ltd, in relation to a call for tenders from the Road Development Authority (RDA) for maintenance and minor repairs on the roads in across the country, the Independent Review Panel (IRP) has decided to give this operator a second chance.

He had submitted a global proposal of Rs 801,998,717 for all five zones of the country (North, East, Central, West, South) identified by the RDA. On March 29, five companies were selected to divide the contract.

In its judgment, delivered in mid-May, the IRP re-examined the entire process at the request of J. Dookhun & Sons Ltd. He came to the conclusion that a re-evaluation of this company's proposal “must be made by a Bid Evaluation Committee constituted otherwise”. In addition, the IRP specifies that “If the conclusions of this new Bid Evaluation Committee are different from the first committee, thus causing the decision taken by the Central Procurement Board (CPB) to be reviewed, we recommend that the RDA, as a parapublic body , adjusts and reviews its decision expressed on March 29, 2024.”

In other words, the contract is on hold while waiting for the new Bid Evaluation Committee to re-examine the file, to see if J. Dookhun & Sons Ltd is ultimately the most deserving, and submit its conclusions.
The call for tenders was launched by the GDR on August 28. At the close of the financial year on October 16, seven companies had submitted offers. A little over six months after the end of the bidding exercise comes the verdict. Safety Construction Co Ltd, Gamma Construction Ltd, Square Deal Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd, General Construction Co Ltd and Transinvest Construction Ltd. Two companies, including the protester, therefore did not receive their part of the contract.

On April 4, J. Dookhun & Sons Ltd officially protested to the CPB. He argues that his proposal was the third cheapest for the West and South zone and also highlights several technical aspects. In her eyes, she should therefore also have had part of the contract.

On April 15, she contacted the IRP. In its file, the company maintains, by providing specific elements, that certain contractors were chosen even though their proposals were less valid than its own. She also does not understand why the CPB chose three contractors for each zone and only two for the South zone. This makes the exercise “suspicious”.

The IRP, after analyzing the data and hearing the different parties, draws several conclusions. Among other things, he believes that the Bid Evaluation Committee “did not follow the usual procedure expected under the law”. “We express the hope that such confusion will not occur in the future, and that the diligence and fairness, which we expect and appreciate from procurement exercises managed by the CPB, will be maintained.”

Leave a reply below

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Contact Business

Captcha Code