Dear Editor,
IN the Stabroek News editorial of Tuesday, August 30, 2022 titled “North Ruimveldt Secondary School Contract”, a request was made for the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) to defend the award of the stated project to the winning bidder, Kares Engineering Inc.

While it is not the policy of NPTAB to justify its awards in a public discourse, the imputation of the editorial deserves this response, so that the factual situation is made known to all.
A few matters of policy and procedures governing the operation of the NPTAB need to be re- affirmed. As clearly stated in the referenced editorial, some of those operational processes and procedures were adumbrated in the Budget Presentation of 2022.

NPTAB selects an independent three member evaluation team from among a list of evaluators nominated to NPTAB by sectoral ministries.
To correct for potential conflict of interest and to establish adequate checks and balances, the Evaluation Committee was remodelled so that those adjudicating on the committee are drawn from persons outside of the procuring entity.
The opening of tenders is public and streamed live, and the minutes of the opening is posted on NPTAB website. This allows all participating bidders to see and hear the tender opening process and to interact with the process if necessary
NPTAB maintain minutes of its board meeting.
The recommendations of the evaluation are considered by the full Board of NPTAB and a decision is taken on the recommendation.
Regarding the procurement under the subject of the editorial, NPTAB states the following:
Tenders for “North Ruimveldt Secondary School” were opened on June 23, 2022
Bids were received as follows:
1. Platinum Investment Inc $ 679,122,111
2. Dry Rock Construction Inc $ 687,163,051
3. QCD Construction Inc $ 521,690,454
4. M&P Investments $ 606,636,675
5. S&K Construction & General Supplies $ 595,000,000
6. Dundas Construction Inc $620,000,000
7. CB General Contracting Services Inc $531, 787,715
8. Builders Hardware General Supplies
& Construction $ 614,853,630
9. Kares Engineering Inc $566,975,350
Evaluation committee, following approved processes and procedures, was empanelled on June 27, 2022. Evaluation report was submitted to NPTAB on August 2, 2022.
Kares Engineering was the third lowest bid. Evaluators found that the Lowest and the second lowest bid were non-responsive as follows:
Tender Submitted by QCD Construction Inc (Bid Price G$521,690,454.00) was the lowest bid but was deemed non-responsive for the following reasons:
a) Evaluation Criterion H required that the bidder “Demonstrate specific construction
experience by providing copies of contracts with previous clients that show the bidder has completed two contracts of similar nature, size and complexity of a minimum value of 50 per cent of Bid Price within the past five years”.
– Bidder failed to submit proof of contracts listed in their bid submission.
b) Evaluation Criterion P required that the bidder “Ownership and or possession of key equipment – the bidder must provide evidence to show that the key equipment are available in the specified number for the project; Ownership and or possession can be demonstrated by providing the licences, purchase documents, registrations, agreement to lease or rent from a recognised leasing agency, and/or affidavit of ownership, an agreement to lease or rent must be dated within one month of the bid opening. Affidavit of ownership must be duly signed by a commissioner of oaths or justice of peace and the list of equipment must be endorsed by same if is it supplied as an attachment to the affidavit.”
– Bidder failed to provide proof of ownership for the equipment listed in their document.
c) Evaluation Criterion J required that the “Bidder must provide a letter of authorisation for the procuring entity to seek reference from the bidder’s bank and/or surety relating to the financial capacity evidence supplied. The document must be dated within one month of the bid opening date and be clearly legible.”
Bidder did not submit letter to seek reference from banking institution”
d) Evaluation criterion I required that the bidder “Evidence of financial capacity representing 25 per cent of the bid price. Bidder must provide a bank statement or LINE of credit from a bank or a recognised financial institution. The document must be dated within one month of the bid opening date and be clearly legible.”
– the bidder failed to establish the required 25 per cent of his bid price. The letter submitted from his bank did not comply with this requirement since it indicated no definite figures. Given that the bidder did not submit a letter giving the agency authority to seek reference from their bank, the evaluation committee was unable to determine their exact financial capacity.
Tender submitted by CB General Contracting Inc (Bid Price G$531,787,715.00) was the second lowest bid but was deemed non-responsive for the following reasons:
a. Evaluation Criterion H required that the bidder “Demonstrate specific construction experience by providing copies of contracts with previous clients that show the bidder has completed two contracts of similar nature, size and complexity of a minimum value of 50 per cent of Bid Price within the past five years. Bidder failed to submit proof of contracts specific in nature to the required amount. Evaluation Criterion I required that the bidder provide “Evidence of financial capacity representing 25 per cent of the bid price. Bidder must provide a bank statement or LINE of credit from a bank or a recognized financial institution. The document must be dated within one month of the bid opening date and be clearly legible”.
– The bidder submitted a letter of credit; however, it did not meet the required 25 per cent of the bidder’s bid price.
b) Evaluation Criterion O required that the “Bidder must provide a letter stating any or no terminated or abandonment of projects within the last three years. The letter must be dated
within one month of the bid opening date”.
– The bidder has an abandoned project which they failed to mention.
Tender submitted by Kares Engineering Inc (bid price $566,975,350) was the third lowest bid, met all the requirements of the bid and was deemed responsive.
It is also important to note that Kares Engineering is not currently debarred from bidding nor as far as NPTAB records go, was never debarred from bidding. Matters that are outside of the Evaluation Criteria cannot be used in adjudicating a bid.
Yours sincerely,
National Procurement and Tender Administration Board