OPR terminates $15.1m Valsayn bridge contract

THE Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR) has ordered the National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd (Nipdec) to terminate the multi-million dollar contract for the Ministry of Works and Transport’s Valsayn Avenue Bridge.

The order was made on October 18, by an OPR tribunal, comprising Sparkle Kirk Selman as chairman and David Charlerie and Herdis Lee Chee.

Nipdec was ordered to terminate the contract “with immediate effect for contravening” the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act, “by using evaluation criteria not disclosed to proponents in the evaluation of the technical proposals submitted” for the project.

The challenge before the OPR was initiated by contractor Kall Co. The tribunal had previously suspended the award of the contract to Maraj Hill General Contractors Company Ltd until Kall Co’s challenge of the procurement process was determined.

In its challenge, on September 19, Kall Co asked the OPR to review the award of a contract for the Valsayn Avenue Bridge reconstruction and associated works undertaken by the ministry’s Project Management Unit under the Programme for Upgrading Roads Efficiency (PURE).

Nipdec awarded the $15.1 million contract to Maraj Hill on September 9.

However, in its challenge, Kall Co Ltd alleged tender rules were not observed and Nipdec did not properly, fairly, competently, and lawfully assess its technical bid.

It also contended the award of the contract “was not done following good procurement practices."

In June, Nipdec invited tenders for the project and nine companies submitted bids but one did not submit valid compliance certificates.

Documents showed that Kall Co’s bid was the second lowest at $13,213,752.75. Other unsuccessful bidders included Junior Sammy Contractors and Lutchmeesingh Transport Contractors Ltd.

Nipdec indicated that Kall Co failed the technical approach, methodology and programme of execution of works. It further stated that the firm provided generic information related to the key components of the works.

“Information regarding shoring, demolition of the existing bridge, construction of the abutment base and other area of the scope such as installation of drainage layer behind abutment and retaining wall, structural backfill behind abutment and retaining wall, and erosion control measures was either vague or not mentioned,” Nipdec said.

While the minimum score for this category was 34 points, Nipdec said Kall Co scored 27.75, while Maraj Hill scored 90.5 points out of 100 in the technical/financial evaluation.

However, Kall Co contends that that Nipdec’s decision to “fail” them was not properly explained and/or particularised and its assessment of the company’s technical approach is subjective, erroneous, unlawful and not in keeping with the obligations expressed and/or implied under the tender obligations.

Kall Co further claimed that Nipdec did not reasonably seek clarification on the “purported vagueness or anything being generic” under Section 33 of the Public Procurement Regulations.

Kall Co was represented by attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh, Stefan Ramkissoon and Karuna Maraj.