- Bidders decry unfair evaluation - Aggrieved bidders submit a complaint against the Accounting Officer's decision
Controversy has emerged around the Government of Enterprise Architecture tender worth millions of Pula for the detailed design, implementation, and support of the Government of Botswana Enterprise Architecture (GBEA).
The ongoing controversy surrounding Tender No: MCKT 240/6/1B/2023-2024 (5) has unveiled a myriad of alleged procedural inconsistencies, casting doubt on the transparency and fairness of the awarding process. The tender was awarded at P103, 050, 172. 32.
From discrepancies in date specifications to purportedly wrong tender requirements, flawed technical evaluations, flawed tender document, the integrity of the entire procurement process appears to be under scrutiny.
While some complaints seem deeply rooted in valid concerns, others might be arising from disgruntled entities. The Ministry of Communications, Knowledge and Technology had not responded to a questionnaire sent to them last week.
Stakeholders have raised concerns about the tender having irrelevant requirements, while omitting essential ones. There are also reports that vital addendums were not appropriately gazetted, leading to further discrepancies.
According to documents seen by Botswana Guardian, a company that is aggrieved has made an official complaint regarding their financial and technical evaluations, hinting at a lack of transparency in the assessment. Most alarmingly, there are murmurs suggesting that the entire tender may have been crafted to favour a specific company, raising concerns of bias and potential impropriety. A source familiar with the tendering process shared their concerns about the recent proceedings. The source stated, "According to our procurement law, once the technical evaluation scores are released, there's a clear mandate that companies be debriefed about their respective technical scores.
“Following this, a 10-day cooling off period must be observed to ensure transparency and allow bidders a chance to reflect on the feedback. Shockingly, this rule was blatantly bent. Our financial offers were hastily opened, completely bypassing the cooling off period.
“Such a lapse not only undermines the laws set in place but also seriously questions the transparency of the entire procedure." A bidder has recently voiced concerns regarding perceived irregularities in the technical evaluation phase of the tender process, leading to a temporary suspension of the procurement proceedings. However, an insider relayed to this publication that these disruptions might prove inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
The source stated, "While the complaints have momentarily halted the process, it's quite possible we won't see any significant alterations to the outcome. There's a growing understanding that the tender was intended for a specific company right from the start."
This revelation, if substantiated, could cast a shadow over the fairness and transparency of the entire tendering procedure. Additionally, Botswana Guardian has been informed by a reliable source that another company has raised grievances regarding the tender, even demanding a refund. However, this company's contention appears to hold little weight in the larger discourse.
As per the source, "The other companies claim for a refund might be viewed with some skepticism in the ministry. Their submitted bid was a mere few pages, bordering on a joke." It seems that while there are genuine concerns surrounding the tender process, not all complaints may be rooted in substantive issues. In one of the letters dated 20th September 2023, Acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Communications, Knowledge and
Technology, Cecil Masiga stated that in line with Public Procurement Regulation 173 (1) the procurement process of the above mentioned tender has been suspended pending the resolution of the complaint lodged against the Accounting Officer.
This publication has learnt that the organisations interested in bidding had expressed concerns about the relevance and accuracy of the tender requirements outlined in the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) code 317-SUBCODE 01.
According to a formal complaint received, the code in question incorrectly specifies Management Consultancy Services as the necessary criteria for the tender, which is a mismatch for the specialised skill set needed for the project.
The complaint suggests that Enterprise Architecture, which is distinct from Management Consultancy Services, demands in-depth expertise in designing, implementing, and supporting a comprehensive Enterprise Architecture framework, with codes such as 319 Consultancy Services 01 - ICT System Development, 03 - ICT Security Management being the more relevant codes. The complaint had proposed the inclusion of more relevant codes that accurately represent the project's needs, which revolve around Information and Communication Technology (ICT) system development, network and facilities management, ICT security, and ICT risk management.
An issue has also surfaced regarding the mandatory clarification meeting, which was scheduled for May 22, 2023. Moreover, the tender notice was issued on May 15, leaving a five working days’ gap between announcement of the tender and the date for the mandatory site visit, an allegedly unreasonable short period of time.
The tender listed the date for the site visit as Thursday 22-May 2023. However, a cursory check reveals that this date does not fall on a Thursday. What amplifies the concern is the absence of any formal addendum issued to address and correct this oversight. Procedure demands such discrepancies to be rectified through an addendum and subsequently gazetted, ensuring clarity and transparency.
This oversight raises questions about the meticulousness and credibility of the tendering process. This oversight or irregularity has allegedly disadvantaged potential bidders, who claim that the truncated timeline prevents them from adequately preparing for the project and attending the site visit informed. The issues with the process do not seem to end as the publication has learnt that the provided declaration form for tendering purposes, reportedly does not conform to the updated, standardised format encompassing beneficial ownership and explicit declarations from directors and shareholders.
This deviation directly contravenes Section 56 of the PPRA Act, calling into question the lawfulness of the entire tender. Such a lapse, if validated, could seriously undermine the credibility and legal standing of the tender process if taken to court.
The ongoing controversy surrounding Tender No: MCKT 240/6/1B/2023-2024 (5) has unveiled a myriad of alleged procedural inconsistencies, casting doubt on the transparency and fairness of the awarding process. The tender was awarded at P103, 050, 172. 32.
From discrepancies in date specifications to purportedly wrong tender requirements, flawed technical evaluations, flawed tender document, the integrity of the entire procurement process appears to be under scrutiny.
While some complaints seem deeply rooted in valid concerns, others might be arising from disgruntled entities. The Ministry of Communications, Knowledge and Technology had not responded to a questionnaire sent to them last week.
Stakeholders have raised concerns about the tender having irrelevant requirements, while omitting essential ones. There are also reports that vital addendums were not appropriately gazetted, leading to further discrepancies.
According to documents seen by Botswana Guardian, a company that is aggrieved has made an official complaint regarding their financial and technical evaluations, hinting at a lack of transparency in the assessment. Most alarmingly, there are murmurs suggesting that the entire tender may have been crafted to favour a specific company, raising concerns of bias and potential impropriety. A source familiar with the tendering process shared their concerns about the recent proceedings. The source stated, "According to our procurement law, once the technical evaluation scores are released, there's a clear mandate that companies be debriefed about their respective technical scores.
“Following this, a 10-day cooling off period must be observed to ensure transparency and allow bidders a chance to reflect on the feedback. Shockingly, this rule was blatantly bent. Our financial offers were hastily opened, completely bypassing the cooling off period.
“Such a lapse not only undermines the laws set in place but also seriously questions the transparency of the entire procedure." A bidder has recently voiced concerns regarding perceived irregularities in the technical evaluation phase of the tender process, leading to a temporary suspension of the procurement proceedings. However, an insider relayed to this publication that these disruptions might prove inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
The source stated, "While the complaints have momentarily halted the process, it's quite possible we won't see any significant alterations to the outcome. There's a growing understanding that the tender was intended for a specific company right from the start."
This revelation, if substantiated, could cast a shadow over the fairness and transparency of the entire tendering procedure. Additionally, Botswana Guardian has been informed by a reliable source that another company has raised grievances regarding the tender, even demanding a refund. However, this company's contention appears to hold little weight in the larger discourse.
As per the source, "The other companies claim for a refund might be viewed with some skepticism in the ministry. Their submitted bid was a mere few pages, bordering on a joke." It seems that while there are genuine concerns surrounding the tender process, not all complaints may be rooted in substantive issues. In one of the letters dated 20th September 2023, Acting Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Communications, Knowledge and
Technology, Cecil Masiga stated that in line with Public Procurement Regulation 173 (1) the procurement process of the above mentioned tender has been suspended pending the resolution of the complaint lodged against the Accounting Officer.
This publication has learnt that the organisations interested in bidding had expressed concerns about the relevance and accuracy of the tender requirements outlined in the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) code 317-SUBCODE 01.
According to a formal complaint received, the code in question incorrectly specifies Management Consultancy Services as the necessary criteria for the tender, which is a mismatch for the specialised skill set needed for the project.
The complaint suggests that Enterprise Architecture, which is distinct from Management Consultancy Services, demands in-depth expertise in designing, implementing, and supporting a comprehensive Enterprise Architecture framework, with codes such as 319 Consultancy Services 01 - ICT System Development, 03 - ICT Security Management being the more relevant codes. The complaint had proposed the inclusion of more relevant codes that accurately represent the project's needs, which revolve around Information and Communication Technology (ICT) system development, network and facilities management, ICT security, and ICT risk management.
An issue has also surfaced regarding the mandatory clarification meeting, which was scheduled for May 22, 2023. Moreover, the tender notice was issued on May 15, leaving a five working days’ gap between announcement of the tender and the date for the mandatory site visit, an allegedly unreasonable short period of time.
The tender listed the date for the site visit as Thursday 22-May 2023. However, a cursory check reveals that this date does not fall on a Thursday. What amplifies the concern is the absence of any formal addendum issued to address and correct this oversight. Procedure demands such discrepancies to be rectified through an addendum and subsequently gazetted, ensuring clarity and transparency.
This oversight raises questions about the meticulousness and credibility of the tendering process. This oversight or irregularity has allegedly disadvantaged potential bidders, who claim that the truncated timeline prevents them from adequately preparing for the project and attending the site visit informed. The issues with the process do not seem to end as the publication has learnt that the provided declaration form for tendering purposes, reportedly does not conform to the updated, standardised format encompassing beneficial ownership and explicit declarations from directors and shareholders.
This deviation directly contravenes Section 56 of the PPRA Act, calling into question the lawfulness of the entire tender. Such a lapse, if validated, could seriously undermine the credibility and legal standing of the tender process if taken to court.
