ISLAMABAD: In the aftermath of emergence of controversy over committing typo mistake for track and trace system, the FBR has decided to award contract to the lowest bidder after 10 days in line with complying Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) rules.
“We will award contract to the lowest bidder on October 24, 2019 as under PPRA rules it is mandatory to place evaluation report of all bidding parties on website for 10 days.
The aggrieved party could approach Ministry of Law, PPRA or Court of law for getting permission to entertain their typo mistakes as the FBR cannot allow anyone to make changes in its offer bids because we cannot afford to face leveling of allegation to favor any party”, top FBR official confirmed to The News here on Tuesday.
Pakistan has already missed the deadline of end September for awarding of contract of track and trace system under the IMF targets. After emergence of new controversy, it is not yet known how this project will be implemented without facing any litigation.
The Evaluation Report of Track and Trace System placed by the FBR showed that the lowest evaluated bidder is National Radio Telecommunication Corporation (NRTC). The invitations were sought for Licensing for IT-based solution for Electronic Monitoring (Track and Trace System) for tobacco products.
NRTC: The bidder has offered price of Rs.0.731 with the unit of 1000 stamps. However, the bidder claimed that this price quoted is per one stamp and not per quoted 1000 stamps. As per Annex-6 of IFL, the bidder was required to offer rate per 1000 stamps and not per stamp. Therefore, the rate quoted in the bid is to be taken such i.e. 0.731 per 1000 stamps.
However, if contention of the bidder is accepted, the cost comes to RS731 per 1000 stamps. Apparently the bidder has violated Annex-6 of the IFL and if the bidder does not agree to Rs0.731 per 1000 stamps, the next lowest responsive bidder (i.e. NIFT) may be offered the license.
SICPA SA/Arwentec: The following 03 conditions, among others, have been submitted in the financial offer, which render the bidder disqualified because it has made with conditional financial offer:-
(I) All prices quoted above are only valid for the annual total volume communicated by FBR and mentioned in Annex-6
(2) As described in the Technical proposal, stamps are assumed to be delivered in reels of 40k dry stamps and the production control equipment to be installed on a maximum of 67 lines across 18 sites.
(3) SICPA reserves the right to modify the pricing accordingly should above conditions change.
DE LA RU & NTL: The bidder has offered proposal of GBP Pound 4.56 with the conversion of Pak Rs193.499 per Pound as on 26.09.2019, which equates the offer to Rs882.36 per 1000 stamps. TFL, bidder was required to offer price in Pak rupees and not in foreign currency, which does not remain static due to fluctuation of foreign currency rates.
The bidder has also stated in his quoted bid that "proposed to agree with manufacturers along with all other terms and conditions, that the Invoice Price for any payments which are not in GBP will be determined by multiplying the price of Pound 4.56 by the appropriate currency spot rate versus GBP at the time of each order."
That renders the bid to be disqualified for making it conditional and not quoting the unqualified price. The firm has also raised certain other conditions at Annex-C. All these in toto render the bidder disqualified.
Synavos Solutions (Pvt) Ltd: A number of missing documents were requisitioned vide letter dated 2nd October, 2019 latest by 1300 hours on 07.10.2019. The company failed to submit none of the documents within the given time.
Beijing Santel Technology & Trading Co: M/s Santel Technology Pakistan (Pvt) responsive Ltd, a company incorporated with SECP, is not a partner in the JY Agreement while all other partners are foreign companies. Thus, the company has not fulfilled the requirement of sub-rule (h) of Sub-rule (2) of 150ZK of Sales Tax Rules, 2006 as amended vide SRO 250(1)/2019 dated 26.02.2019.
Ora-Tech System Pvt Ltd: A number of missing documents were requisitioned vide letter dated 2nd October, 2019 latest by 1300 hours on 07.10.2019. Although company submitted some documents but has not submitted following four (04) mandatory documents within the given time:-
(a). Documents showing relevant experience in Track and Trace;
(b). Complete history of activities undertaken;
(c). Annex-2 additional technical requirements;
(d). Annex-5 Bidding process & evaluation criteria;
Eagle Fly –Capital Services System: Consortium Agreement filed with the bid has three partners and none is registered/incorporated with SECP. In response to Board's letter instead of submitting incorporation certificate of the existing partners, the company formed altogether a new consortium with a fourth partner, which is incorporated with SECP. New consortium agreement cannot be accepted under PPRA Rules, 2004 as it is changing the bid materially. Hence the bid cannot be considered.
CRPT (MMT&T) Associates: After evaluation of the documents filed in respect of FBR's letter dated 02.10.2019 as well as practical demonstration given by the company on 09.10.2019, the Licensing Committee has found that as per Part 2-A of Annex-5 to the Invitation for License (IFL) Track and Trace System and in terms of Rule 150ZL(2)(b) of Sales Tax Rules, 2006 as amended vide SRO 250(1)12019 dated 26.02.2019, they do not possess the requisite experience and capability (which carries 35 marks). As a result, the Licensing Committee has found that the company is not technically qualified.
As per evaluation criteria under the procedure for grant of license by the FBR, the procedure for grant of license will be followed as per Rule 150ZM under SRO 250(I)/2019, dated 26th February 2019.
2. The Licensing Committee shall evaluate the application on the basis of applicant experience, capability, features, functionality and cost.
3. During the technical evaluation no amendments to the technical requirements shall be permitted;
4. Applicants will have to make a live fully functional demo of the system and present a production specimen of their unique identification markers.
5. The demonstration will need to be undertaken at a place to be decided by the licensing committee.
6. Any application for grant of licence found not technically compliant shall be rejected, and reasons of rejection shall be recorded.
7. The application(s), for grant of licence found to provide the high combined score of the technical and the financial requirements as per the evaluation criteria shall be recommended to the Board for issuance of Licence.
8. The applicant proposal shall comprise a single package containing two separate envelopes. Each envelop shall contain separately the financial proposal and the technical proposal. Technical proposals shall firstly be evaluated in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria. Financial proposals shall be evaluated upon successful technical evaluation.