Complacency Allegations in Contract Awards, IRP Critiques Public Authorities

The awarding of the contract for the reconstruction of the Beau-Champ bridge in Bel-Ombre to Sinohydro Corporation has sparked controversy. The Independent Review Panel (IRP) has condemned what it describes as “widespread complacency” among public authorities in managing public contracts.

The IRP’s criticisms highlighted significant deficiencies in transparency and communication regarding decision-making processes.

This criticism followed a challenge to the contract awarded to Sinohydro Corporation Ltd, amounting to Rs 162,537,053.65, on September 19.

The panel’s latest statement drew attention to ongoing issues within public entities’ practices, specifically pointing out their general complacency in managing public contracts.

In their announcement, the IRP emphasized that while they have repeatedly notified public bodies of the importance of adhering to regulations and procedures outlined in the Public Procurement Regulations—particularly concerning transparency and fairness in contestation and review processes—they feel compelled to focus on complacency once again.

The panel clarified that this issue of complacency is not confined to specific areas but is prevalent throughout how public authorities handle contestation and review processes, including compliance with timelines and the procurement of pertinent information from the Central Procurement Board for major contracts.

This scrutiny occurred from the contract awarded for the reconstruction of the Beau-Champ bridge, which was granted by the Road Development Authority (RDA) following a tender process initiated earlier in the year.

At the end of the bidding phase on July 8, only two submissions were received: one from Sinohydro Corporation Ltd and another from General Construction.

On September 19, the RDA notified both bidders that Sinohydro had secured the contract for Rs 162.54 million.

On September 25, General Construction formally contested this decision, citing several points of concern, including a purported lack of transparency in the contract awarding process.

They noted that, during their extensive experience, it was unprecedented for the technical and overall scores to not be disclosed before the contract was awarded.

After reviewing all relevant documents and hearing both parties involved, the IRP concluded that the RDA failed to adequately justify why General Construction was not awarded the contract, highlighting that it is a legal obligation under the Public Procurement Act to provide reasons for such decisions.

The IRP pointed out that had this information been provided during General Construction’s challenge, the company might have made a more informed decision regarding whether to proceed with its appeal.

Ultimately, after thorough consideration, the IRP rejected General Construction’s appeal, stating:

“The panel finds no basis for the current request and thus rejects it. Half of the deposit paid will be returned to the petitioner,” it concluded.

Source: Defi Media