Design/build tender sent to 7 firms
The Sunday Express learned the request for proposals for the project was design/build.
Investigations revealed tender TT-99-110583 for the interior design and furnishing of the temporary Ministry of Local Government’s office at 1 Alexandra Street was prepared and sent out on September 14, 2011, to seven contractors that were selected by the Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Ltd (PSAEL) board. They were:
• Action Marketing Ltd
• COSL Office Supplies
• ECCA School and
Office Supplies Ltd
• 2S Enterprises
• Ramdeen’s Industrial
• Elvis Marketing Ltd
• Next Generation
The pre-bid meeting, the Sunday Express learned, was held at Alex-
andra Street site on September 20, 2011.
Only five contractors attended the pre-bid meeting.
Due to written requests from bidders, the Ashmeed Ghany-led board at PSAEL took a decision to extend the initial tender closed date from October 12 to October 27, 2011. However, bidders were also unable to meet the deadline and a second extension was granted up until November 17, 2011.
A public tender opening was held on the same day at PSAEL’s Pointe-a-Pierre office.
Only three bidders were able to meet the deadline. They were:
• Elvis Marketing Ltd
• COSL Office Supplies Ltd
• 2S Enterprises
However, the Sunday Express learned only Elvis Marketing Ltd and COSL Office Supplies Ltd met the complete guidelines as outlined by PSAEL.
According to PSAEL’s evaluation report dated November 29, 2011, obtained by the Sunday Express, the representative of 2S Enterprises Company Ltd arrived at 10.20 a.m. and the bid was not accepted because the tender box was closed at 10 a.m.. Elvis Marketing Ltd, the evaluation report said, did not submit a bid security and as a result was not further assessed.
Companies were required to submit a $100,000 bond with their proposals. The evaluation report said COSL Office Supplies Ltd met the key components for the job and as a result was also evaluated in the technical category.
COSL Office Supplies Ltd received 76.9 per cent out of 100.
In its request for consideration, PSAEL, in the evaluation report, said: “It is concluded that the sole qualifying bidder for the technical evaluation was COSL. COSL’s technical proposal met most of the critical project requirements and has been determined to be substantially responsive.
“It is therefore recommended that the board of directors review the above findings and give directive to allow the evaluation committee to open and review the financial bid for COSL only while the financial bid for Elvis Marketing Ltd is to be returned unopened to the bidder as per tender policy.”
However, the Sunday Express learned the bid package was not returned to Elvis Marketing Ltd, and by letter dated January 20, 2012, the company’s CEO, Elvis Seelochan, queried the reason for the tender being disqualified.
The letter obtained by the Sunday Express read: “Further to our letter dated December 6, 2011 when we raised a suspicion that our tender document may have been tampered with. We now enclose a copy of the bond document from GTM Insurance Company Ltd in the amount of $100,000, which was submitted with the tender documents.”
The Sunday Express obtained a copy of the bond document number A064749, dated November 2, 2011.
Contacted yesterday, Seelochan said, to date, the tender package has not been returned to his company.
Asked if Elivis Marketing Ltd was given reasons for the tender being disqualified, Seelochan said: “I have been trying to get the truth but PSAEL is not co-operating. We are in March of 2014 and the tender package has not been returned to Elvis Marketing Ltd. We submitted all documents as requested.”
The evaluation team consisted of several staff members of PSAEL and a ministry representative:
Dianne Arjoon (management accountant,
finance)—financial evaluation only
Indranee Rodriguez (accountant, finance)—
financial evaluation only
Lynda Mahabir (supervisor, PEMD)
Hugh Aberdeen (project engineer, PEMD)
Jason Farrell (engineer, Ministry of local govt)
Sizwe Jackson (project manager)—(observer)
The criteria for the technical
category were as follows:
Section I: Experience of the
Section II: Technical approach,
work plan, staffing—60 points
Section III: Key professional staff
Section IV: Financial stability