KARACHI: The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) has reprimanded the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) for not issuing a technical evaluation report regarding a dredging contract at the Karachi harbour approach channel.
While the PPRA has asked about the delays in issuing the technical report of the bidders, the KPT has responded that the technical report has been withheld after consultations with one of the four bidders.
The PPRA has said that the KPT was requested to explain the reasons for not issuing the technical evaluation report, which is also non-adherence to the mandatory standstill period of seven days after the announcement of the results of the technical evaluation report.
The PPRA has said that KPT’s response regarding the non-issuance of a technical evaluation report for acceptance/rejection in pursuance of Rule 35 was not tenable.
“Rule 41 requires the procuring agency to keep all information regarding bid evaluation confidential until the time of announcement of the evaluation report under the requirements of Rule 35 and in no way restrain the procuring agency from withholding justification for the acceptance/rejection of the technical/final evaluation report after its announcement respectively,” the PPRA reminder said.
Incidentally, the KPT did not respond to the reminder by the PPRA in this regard.
The reminder was forwarded against the response by the KPT that even stated, “The technical evaluation report was prepared with detailed justification for acceptance or rejection of the bids, while the release of the report has been withheld pending finalisation by the GMs Committee after discussions with the China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC). This approach was taken to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interests of KPT and to ensure timely project execution by May 2025.”
In its response to the earlier letter by the PPRA, the KPT also added that the results of the technical bids have already been announced orally to the four bidders who had submitted their technical bids, and the technical evaluations pertain only to those involved in bids. “Any such notifications made publicly would needlessly disclose sensitive competitive information,” the KPT had maintained.
The four bidders were Jan de Nul- Belgium, NMDC-UAE, Van Oord- Netherlands and CHEC.
The issue emerged as the initial technical evaluation had disqualified the CHEC, but the KPT, in its subsequent meetings, not only endorsed its technical bids but even allowed it to alter its financial bid, making CHEC the lowest bidder.
