Referred to as: Vimtsire Protection Services · Vimtsire Protection Services CC · bidder 2 · Bidder 2
No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Bidders number 2 and 21 were found non-compliant at site inspection stage despite BAC requiring an addendum report to ensure completeness.
“independent individuals ... confirm that two bidders, 21 and 2, are not compliant at this stage ... BAC had referred this report back and required an addendum report ... that this matter had indeed been completed”
Bidder 2 was initially disqualified due to erroneous conclusion by the probity team that audited financial statements for the last three years were not submitted.
“the probity team erroneously concluded that the bidder did not submit audited financial statements for the recent three financial years ... bidder 2 was disqualified”
Subsequently it was discovered that bidder 2 had actually submitted the audited financial statements, leading to their evaluation in Stage 2 and 3 and qualification for award recommendation.
“following further engagement and reassessment ... it was discovered that bidder 2 had submitted the audited financial statements ... we evaluate bidder 2 in respect to Stage 2 and 3 ... bidder 2 qualified to be recommended for the award”
There was confusion and lack of clarity on how the errant decision to disqualify bidder 2 for not having a five-ton truck was reversed, with the BAC accepting the reversal without clear basis.
“it is not clear how the basis for reversing the decision about having a five-ton truck ... the BAC seems to have accepted this as having cleared the thing”
Initially, the probity team did not visit or validate the possession of a five-ton truck by bidder 2 but later confirmed it after the Stage 3 inspection, which was after the bidder was previously disqualified at Stage 1.
“in their earlier report they say they did not even go out ... they did not go out at this time because they were disqualified on that basis ... later went out and confirmed”
The BAC relied on the confirmation from the bid adjudication process review that the mandatory requirement of a five-ton truck had been met by bidder 2, putting their trust in this confirmation as resolving previous conflicts or concerns.
“The BAC placed reliance on this as a confirmation to resolve ... there are areas of concern that was picked up ... the BAC placed reliance on this as a confirmation to resolve”
External consultants confirmed error in probity team which wrongly concluded bidder did not submit audited financial statements for three years and incorrectly stated bidder lacked a 5 ton truck.
“We confirm at the time of the initial review of the tender documents, the probity team erroneously concluded the bidder did not submit all annual audited financial statements for three years... it was erroneously stated that bidder 2 did not have a 5 ton truck.”
The bidding company was disqualified at stage 1 due to inability to find annual financial statements, but there was a 5 ton truck present during inspection unlike the probity report stating otherwise.
“they disqualified them on stage 1 due to inability to find the annual financial statements... they say erroneously that this bidder did not have a 5 ton truck... BEC says... the 5 ton truck was there whilst the probity says it was not.”