Multi-billion WB project hangs in balance

By Steven Candia

A multi billion shilling component of a World Bank funded project meant to enhance trade is lagging behind after being hit by a procurement controversy.

Whereas Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania have made strides in implementing the East Africa Trade and Transport Facilitation Project (EATTFP), Uganda is yet to take off, with only 16 months left to the expiry of the credit.

An aide memoire of the 12th Supervision meeting held between February13 and 17, 2012, that the New Vision has seen rates Uganda’s performance as moderately satisfactory and in some instances unsatisfactory.

One of the components of the five year project to be implemented by the Ministry of Works and Transport and Uganda Revenue Authority through Project Implementation Teams was the construction of One Stop Border Posts (OSBP).

The five year $26.4m (about sh68.64b) was scheduled to run from April 2, 2007 and close on September 30, 2014, with a project age of 51 months, with only 25% of the credit disbursed as of February 15, 2012. “The slow disbursement is attributed to the delayed implementation of the key sub components whose value constitutes over 76% of the project cost,” the aide memoire notes.

A works ministry progress report on the project, dated May 2012 acknowledges the delays. “The five year project which became effective 2nd April 2007 experienced a major challenge of keeping its implementation schedule,” it reads in part.

Uganda was to construct one stop border posts at Mutukula on the Uganda-Tanzania border and Busia and Malaba on the Uganda-Kenya border. Civil works on the border posts, according to documents available, should have commenced by July 2012.

Contractors petition

The controversy has left a number of contractors crying foul, culminating in a number of petitions for administrative review.

Consequently the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) has been forced to cancel the award of the contract to Cementers Uganda Ltd., in association with Cementers Ltd.

The development comes after M/S Prism Construction Company Ltd., in March lodged an application to the authority for an administrative review, disgruntled by an earlier review by the works and transport ministry that upheld the decision of the evaluation committee.

In a report dated April 8, the authority upheld the application for administrative review, saying it found merit in the grounds raised.

In its report the PPDA noted that Cementers Uganda Ltd., in association with Cementers Ltd, just like the other contractors did not meet the eligibility requirement stipulated in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB).

The Ministry of Works and Transport initiated procurement for the jobs in January 2012 but later transferred the process to Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA). Consequently the evaluation of the bids was done by a six member team, comprising of four members of UNRA and two consultants.

“The evaluation committee did not treat the bidders fairly on the requirement of the project completion time frame for Malaba and Busia border posts; and M/S Cementers (U) Limited in association with Cementers Ltd., did not meet the eligibility requirement under ITB 4.1,” the report signed by Cornelia Sabiti, the PPDA boss states.

In the report addressed to the works and transport ministry Permanent Secretary, Charles Muganzi who also doubles as the accounting officer, the authority directed for a re-evaluation of all bids received to construct the Malaba and Busia border posts “using a new evaluation committee.”

“If the re-evaluation exercise is to be undertaken in UNRA, like the earlier one was done, the UNRA Contracts Committee is advised to apply the mechanism of the accredited Independent Parallel Bid Evaluation to provide credibility to the outcome of the re-evaluation process.”

The authority also ordered the works ministry to refund the Administrative Review fees of sh3m paid by the complainant for an earlier review before it petitioned the PPDA.

Ministry responds

Works ministry spokesperson Suzan Kataike said: “I am aware that the re-evaluation of the bidders has begun though I don’t know how long it will take,” Kataike said.

Sources however intimated that the works ministry had also appealed against the decision of the PPDA.

Procedurally an aggrieved party is to petition the accounting officer of a procuring entity for an administrative review and only resort to the PPDA if it is disgruntled with the review by the accounting officer.

In this instance, both Ms Excel Construction Ltd., and Ms Prism Construction Ltd., in January and February this year applied for an administrative review to the accounting officer, citing a number of irregularities following a notification of the best evaluated bidder notice displayed on January 16, that declared Cementers as best evaluated bidder for the One Stop Border Post facilities at Busia and Malaba and MS Coil Ltd., in joint venture as the best for the post for Mutukula.

Muganzi in his report found no merit on almost all grounds raised by the complainants, upholding the position of the evaluation committee, resulting in the complainants forfeiting sh3m each to the procurement entity, culminating in the petition to the PPDA by Ms Prism.

The procurement process was initiated in January 2012 with advertisements for invitation for bids and a submission deadline extended from April 6 to 20, 2012.

Although 26 firms obtained bidding documents in relation to the border post facility at Malaba, only nine bidders’ submitted bids by deadline time.

However, at the end of the preliminary and technical evaluation for firms, Prism inclusive reportedly did not qualify for evaluation of the financial bids and Cementers (U) Ltd., in association with Cementers Ltd., of Kenya was recommended as the best evaluated bidder at sh15,708,759,759.62, thus the application by Prism on two grounds.

One of the grounds was that it had been denied a signed review report by the works ministry and the other being the project completion duration of 17 months as indicated by Prism in the line bar as opposed to the 12 months that had been stipulated, leading to its disqualification.

On the ground of being denied a signed report, the PPDA found no merit after it emerged that the complainant was given one later.

On the ground of 17 months indicated by Prism in as far as completion of the work was concerned, the PPDA found that the complainant was unfairly treated given that both the complainant and Cementers (U) Ltd., / Cementers Ltd., exceeded the stipulated 12 months completion time under the schedule of activities, though under their method statements, both stated that they would complete in 12 months.

“It is a cardinal principle of public procurement that a procuring and disposing entity should treat bidders with fairness.

The Evaluation Committee should have accorded both parties an opportunity to clarify their construction schedules instead of treating the non compliance by the applicant to the requirement as a material deviation and yet treated it as an issue for clarification for the best evaluated bidder.”

In as far as the Busia post is concerned, 12 out of the 31 firms that picked bidding documents submitted bids by deadline time, among them Cementers bidding (sh15.8b) and Prism (sh13.3b).

All the 12 were found to be compliant at the preliminary stage and consequently subjected to a commercial and detailed technical evaluation in 6 were disqualified and Cementers (U) Ltd., in association with Cementers Ltd., of Kenya recommended as best evaluated bidder.

Prism’s bid was thrown out on two grounds that they provided an alternative project completion duration of 17 months instead of the specified 12 months and that some of their personnel did not meet the personnel requirement. Aggrieved, Prism petitioned the PPDA.