19.2 C
Sierra Leone
Wednesday, February 8, 2023

Moyamba CDC Ordered to Refund Aggrieved Bidder

HomeBusinessMoyamba CDC Ordered to Refund Aggrieved Bidder

Moyamba CDC Ordered to Refund Aggrieved Bidder


Related stories

Petty traders call on parliament to tackle price hike in cooking condiments

Some petty traders who spoke to AYV have appealed...

ARISE IIP Founder and CEO Assures Sierra Leoneans of Massive Investments

By Amadu Lamrana Bah reporting from Benin The Founder and...

$3.2M from USAID to Combat Hunger in Sierra Leone

In order to provide emergency food and development assistance...

Afrimoney, Skye Bank Unveil ‘Push & Pull Service’

Afrimoney, an appendage of Africell Sierra Leone and Skye...

Afrimoney, Easy Solar Digitalise Payment

One of the leading mobile financial service providers in...

By IPRP Communications Unit

The Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP) has in a ruling ordered the Community Development Committee (CDC) which comprises Moyamba, Bonthe and Bo District Councils to refund DEE PEE Investment over Ninety Million Leones (Le90,000,000) on allegations bordering on procurement irregularities.

An allegation was filed in by DEE PEE Investment against the CDC of the Moyamba district on December 15, 2020 to the IPRP.

The CDC was tasked with the responsibility of procuring for the service of consultant for the construction of 100 beds hospital in Ngolala Upper Banta chiefdom Moyamba district as a corporate social responsibility project by VIMETCO Mining Company.

The IPRP is a creature of Section 65 (1) of the National Public Procurement Act No. 10 of 2016. The IPRP is charged with the responsibility to review complaints/appeals from dissatisfied bidders, private contractors about decisions of a procuring entity in the public procurement process.

Furthermore, the procurement process of Sierra Leone is governed by the NPPA Act No.10 2016 and the Regulation Statutory Instrument No.17 of 2016.

After the bid process, including bid opening, the Appellant (DEE PEE Investment) was issued a letter of regret on the 15th November, 2019 stating that his entity did not qualify as the most responsive bidder.

According to Section 64 (1) of the Public Procurement Act of 2016, the Appellant appealed internally asking for a review of decision by the respondent.

The Panel realised that after the Appellant appealed to the CDC, there was no communication from the committee.

Moreover, the Panel was suspicious of foul play and that was a gross violation of the procurement processes and requirement for a technical advice to be sought in complex and technical procurement process.

According to the Appellant, the Respondent hired a consultant to oversee the procurement for a consultant in public procurement is a step meant to aid non-technical members of the procurement committee to reach a technical decision. In this case, a consultant was hired to advice on the technicality of the construction of a building contract under review.

The consultant, after having participated with the procurement committee recommended that the Appellant be awarded the contract. According to report dated 24th July 2019, the Appellant was the most responsive of the bidders. The consultant submitted his report to the Committee. The Committee rejected the report and rather set up a new Committee to da a procurement assessment

During the hearing to the appeal, the Panel noted that the contract had been awarded to KAM Enterprise (third party’s involvement) and this put the Panel in a difficult situation in reversing the entirety of the contract marred with procurement irregularities.

Moreover, when the thirty party has incurred financial loss and will be detrimental to their credit record with creditor.

In conclusion, after an enquiry of the matter, the entire procurement process was marred with procurement irregularities; the notification letter lacks sufficient details as required by law, it was wrong for the Committee to ignore the advice of the consultant and take upon themselves to sit on technical   project   without any specialist background.

After deliberation, the Panel therefore, ordered that the Appellant bid document purchasing cost be refunded in full in the sum of seventy Million Leones (Le70,000, 000), and a compensation of Le25,000,000 be paid to the Appellant for loss of income.

Business News


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once