Flawed public tenders process

We then learnt to our dismay, that because the other suppliers did not respond to the ministry’s tender invitation, that our tender would be rejected, and as is the ministry’s practice, the other suppliers would be given a second chance to tender.

Having failed to persuade Minister Imbert that this practice is both unfair to Spancrete and breaches the integrity of the public tendering process, I submit the facts hereunder for further public consideration.

The purpose of public tendering is to afford all citizens an equal opportunity to participate in State procurement, and to obtain competitive prices.

Tenders are then opened in public, to assure all suppliers that the process is patently transparent and fair.

As per the ministry’s instructions, our tender was marked ‘‘Tender for traffic barriers,” and presumably all others did likewise.

At the tender opening, only a single official was present, who found about ten envelopes which he opened without any comment. Not much transparency was in evidence, as he announced neither the tenderer’s name nor the tendered prices.

He placed a single tender to one side, separated from all the others, and then announced that Spancrete was the sole tenderer for traffic barriers. The fact that only Spancrete representatives were present would have suggested that only Spancrete had tendered. On our suggestion that Spancrete was the successful tenderer, he then advised that the ministry’s procedure is to re-tender if no one else tendered.

It is usual in public openings for several officials to preside, one opening the tenders, while another announces the contractor’s name and the prices. On this occasion, only one official presided.

Before opening the tenders, all clearly marked ‘‘Tender for traffic barriers,” or whatever, he could have determined that Spancrete alone had tendered, and then returned our tender unopened.

Spancrete’s representatives merely witnessed the opening of envelopes at the “public” opening and we are now left to speculate.

• Was Spancrete in fact the only traffic barrier tender?

• Why did he keep Spancrete’s tender which was rejected?

• Whether our price will fall into the hands of another supplier who has been given a second chance to tender.

• The possibility of collusion between a ministry person and another supplier cannot be excluded.

• What were the other nine tenders for? When was the closing date?

• Why were they opened without those other tenderers present?

As a side issue, I mention that the ministry kindly offered us 15 minutes grace when we were caught up in traffic, but we could not have complained if our tender was rejected for being late, expecting nonetheless that all tenders would be retrieved from the tender box at the same time.

A genuinely transparent and public procedure would eliminate any speculation.

I again submit to Minister Imbert that the “public tendering” as described above is gravely flawed.