THE several commentaries in the local print media over the last few days, following the announcement of the Cabinet’s no objection to the Award of the Specialty Hospital to Surrendra Engineering Limited, is characterized by mis-information and an orchestrated effort by Fedders-Lloyd to besmirch the work of the Evaluation Committee set up by the NPTAB to assess the lowest evaluated bidder from among those who tendered for the design, build and equip contract. The salient facts are as follows:-
* 34 companies registered in India was “long listed” for the contract.
* 15 companies were shortlisted.
* 6 companies expressed interest in the project by purchasing bid documents.
* 5 companies submitted bids.
The record of the opening of the bids was subject to the usual public process.
All bidders, except one, met all the requirements at the time of the opening of the bids.
Fedder –Lloyd, through its company officials, has been engaged, since the opening of the bids, to seek to prejudice the outcome of the tender. It would be recalled that immediately following the opening of the bids, and even while the tenders were referred to the confidentially process of evaluation, Fedder-Lloyd provided interviews with the Kaiteur News, ascertaining that they were the frontrunners in the process, merely because they provided a discounted price of 23% on their original bid price. Much has been made by Fedder-Lloyd concerning this discount. The most recent lobby by Fedder – Lloyd is contained in the Stabroek news of August 27, when they moved to the next level by politicizing the process.
The fact would show that the Evaluation Committee did not reject the Fedder-Lloyd bid on the grounds of the discount per se, and or that they were guilty of “double pricing” the bid. This is an affront by Fedder –Lloyd, who is guilty of gross mis-information and deliberate machinations to cast aspersions on the integrity of the transparency of the public procurement process. Fedder-Lloyd and their political mouthpiece must know that the process of adjudication is circumscribed by rules and procedures, and these are adhered to throughout the process. What Fedder-Lloyd did not “tell” the evaluators in their bid submission is where they intend to take the discount from. Government appoints technically competent engineers and other qualified personnel officials to assess the bid, using common evaluation criteria. There is no guess work. The process cannot assess intention, only what is contained in the bid presentation.
The second scapegoat that Fedder-Lloyd  sought to cast over the process is the issue of the bid bond being issued by a local bank versus the bond being issued by a Bank in India. Fedder-Lloyd and their political spokesman quoted the “general conditions” of the bid document to substantiate their erroneous claim. Neither of these claimants is either familiar with standard procedures in these matters and is maliciously bent on politicizing the process for partisan political motives. Standard procedures in these matters will inform the virtual complainants that “general conditions” or any other “instructions to bidders” are superseded by “specific conditions” and or PRE-BID meetings. In this particular case, the issue of the bid bond was raised officially at the pre-bid meeting and the answer was provided at that meeting. The minutes of the pre-bid meeting was supplied to all prospective bidders whether they attended the pre-bid meeting or not. The minutes of the pre-bid meeting constituted a most pertinent component of the instructions to renderers’, and the issues raised and answers contained in the minutes of the pre-bid meeting are binding on the renderers’, notwithstanding, whatever else is contained in the “instructions to bidders” or the “general conditions” of the bid. What baffles reason, however, is that Fedder-Lloyd was present at the pre-bid meeting and participated fully in the discussions and decisions taken at that meeting. The facts of the matter is that it was made abundantly clear and the records of that meeting recorded accurately the decision that the bid bond will be from a Bank in India.
Fedder-Lloyd and their political spokesman also seek to make the point that Fedders-Lloyd’s bid is superior in two components of the bid, being technical expertise and financial.  How Fedder-lloyd has been able to acquire the bid proposals of the four other bidders in order to compare their proposal against the others is a matter that Fedder-Lloyd should make public. That, nothwithstanding, it is imperative to indicate categorically that there are in fact three levels of bid responsiveness before the evaluation committee can ascertain the “lowest responsive bidder”. They are in order of priority: Administrative, Technical Capacity and Financial. Each tender must be “responsive” to these criteria in the order listed before they advance to the next level. The evaluators have not found that Fedder-Lloyd was substantially responsive to the set criteria. As can be ascertained from the above, awards are not made to the “lowest priced bid” unless that bid also passes the acid test of responsiveness to the other components of the evaluation criteria.
Fedder-Lloyd and team also pointed out that other bidders did not provide “models” for the proposed project. The bid that was invited was for “design, build and equip” the facility. There is no requirement for a model, and apart from the added advantage of facilitating the evaluators to “visualize” the drawings, there is no added points to be scored for providing this “model”. It is the technical specifications contained in the technical design drawings that the engineers will evaluate, not some “unscaled visualization” of what is intended to be built.
Finally, there is no mechanism for the evaluators to assess the work of Surendra Engineering on the GuySuCo Facility. That is tantamount to assessing the competence or incompetence of Fedders-Lloyd being an air conditioning sales agent or being an over the counter drugs salesman in order to determine if they are competent to design, build and equip a specialty hospital for Guyana.
This sleight of hand by Fedder-Lloyd ( and their political spokesperson) is clearly what it is, a political gimmick to mis-lead and mis-direct the public. It is clear that this is yet another instance of the Alliance for Change lobbying for special interests, given that Fedder-Lloyd’s lawyer is that party’s leader, in much the same manner as that party has consistently opposed the Marriott project as a result of the support it receives from the owner of the Pegasus Hotel.