US$ 34,300 LC Dec 31, 2006

C 345 Rs 3.45 m IB Dec 30, 2006

D 378 US$ 39,000 BG Dec 30, 2006

E 355 Rs. 3.25 i-n BG Dec 30, 2006

F 353 3.53 (Only a photo copy of a BG, submitted with bid; the original received 2 days later Dec 30, 2006

n m en nnn U,3,D -tZ-,OVV Lku c c - ) I , /-VVO

FT

ens -tc. -)

H 330 Rs. 3.3 m BG Dec. 2, 2006 The TEC recommendation is that the 2nd lowest, "Bidder A ", be awarded since the bidder which submitted the lowest quotation did not submit the Bid Security. Rs. 3.5 rn BG Can the bid "B" be accepted due to following reasons? Dec 29, 2006

I 348

[Note: The rate on Sepbetween 2, 2006 was 99.0 and on December 2, 2006 1.official exchange The price difference the lowest quotation and the 1 was 100.0; 345199 = 3.484848; ; 3781 99 = 3.818182; 423/99= 4.2727271 Which of the above bid securities you consider as acceptable?
BS 7 An in 2nd lowest is Rs.2,330,437.50, for printing of Booklets, which is a substantial. 9

After

2.

The bidder who submitted the lowest quotation subsequently sent a letter invited stating that, he could send the agency quotations from not 7 bidders on National

respect of Printing, Supply and Delivery of Booklets bidding period of 7 days, there were only 3 responses as follows: Bank Guarantee and ready to do so now. Bidder Price Shopping basis (18,750 Nos). 3. The delivery period is 21 days which is considered as a very and bid prices short period TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE

TC 1

A supplier submitted a bid on a piece of equipment which he said fully met the bid specifications and attached a catalogue sheet to his bid submission. There was a discrepancy between the specifications detailed as requested in the in the offer and the specifications printed on the catalogue sheet; those on the latter did not meet the requirements laid out in the bid specifications whereas those stated in the bid complied. The PE disqualified the bid

The Letter

Awas the lowest price) on the 5,455,312 (which grounds that the specifications were B 3,124,875 not met as evidenced by the catalogue sheet. The bidder argued that his C 5,462,859 did comply as lie had undertaken in his offer specifically to supply lowest bidder "B"'s did not submit a Bid Security of according Invitation. to the technical specifications in the bid document and the catalogue sheet was only a reference material. Therefore, he said he should be awarded the contract as the lowest evaluated bid.

What should the Purchaser do? TC Z An implementation agency called for bids for a container crane with a minimum lifting capacity of 40.6 metric tons. A bidder quoted his price

i iuf we standard container crane tie manufactures, which has operating capacity of 40 metric tons. The executing agency decided to disqualify the bidder because it did not meet the minimum specified lifting capacity.

an

Is the bid substantially responsive and acceptable? TC 3 For a transmission line project, a PE invited bids for 100 km of aluminum core steel reinforced conductors. The bid specification stipulated, among other things, that the aluminum should be a minimum of 95% purity. When the bids were evaluated, the PE proposed award to the to deduct the evaluatedbidder value of these features B's price. deduction second lowest on the from argument that This he offered made B's bid lower than A's and the PE recommended that contract conductors with 97% purity, and the additional cost was morethe than be awarded to reduced B. balanced by the losses in conduction. The bidding documents is this the correct treatment of thefor bid? merely specified the minimum threshold purity. TC 5 A project included the procurement of 4wheel drive vehicles to be

10

How will you address this issue? Type 4 wheel drive TC 4

The bidding documents for some process equipment included a capacity Fuel Diesel and performance specifications. During the evaluation process, the PE found that the two lowest responsive bids (from Firms A and B) met all the technical requirement but that theat second lowest bidder (Firm B) Engine 175HP 4500 RMP had included some features which the PE considered non-essential and over and above those called for in the specification. The PE proceeded Wheel Base 21 feet 6 inches Suspension Fuel Tank Ground Clearance Transmission Heavy Duty 70 liters 15 cms. Standard Shift

Eight bids were received with the required bid security and required documents. The PE, as a result of bid evaluation, rejected all but the highest bid on the basis that the, failed to comply with one or more of the technical specifications listed above. Question:

Do these specifications meet the concept of good equipment specs? BID COMPARISION BC 1 b) What should the bidders have done when they received the 1. The five bids for construction of the hospital, clinic and powerhouse bidding documents? werec) after technical evaluation: If you had received a query from the bidders, what would you have done? d) If you had t o r1pnr thic hid wcu!d yc~u no objection to issue the bid documents?
4

a)

Z:vz

scn',

',Lc

TC 6 US$ In an agricultural project in Latin America, the PE invited bids for a plant for producing sugar cane juice from sugar cane. In the detailed specifications, it was stated that the be crushed using steel Foreign Company 1 cane should 1,820,000 rollers powered by an A.C. electric motor operating at 220 volts SO cycles; there should be three stages of rollers. The first stage with rollers diameter of 200 cm rotating second stage with Foreign Company 2 at 5 rpm and the 1,890,000 rollers of 100 cm rotating at 25 rpm and the final stage with rollers of 10 cm diameter rotating at 100 rpm.

Local/Foreign 3 Foreign Company 4

1,970,000 2,247,000
11

Four bids were received. In the evaluation, the PE rejected the lowest bid from Australia and Company proposed award to the second lowest bid from Foreign 5 2,647,000

Brazil. The Australian bidder protested claiming that he had offered a 2. The Government's estimate for the work was US$1,200,000. The well proven machine widely used all over Asia. Bank queried the PE who

done in this case:

Question:

becauselow it used two stages of steel rollers instead of three and with At least bid only is therefore 50% higher than had been expected. different diameters and speed, and hence, failed to comply with the bid specification. Moreover, the PE had no prior experience with such a machine. three alternatives are open to the Government as to what should be How do you analyse ?

(a)

Reject all bids and call for new bids; (b) Award the contract to the low bidder but cut down the work called for in the contract, to somewhere nearer US $1,200,000; or (c) Reject all bids and enter into negotiations with the low bidder or a few low bidders to find out why they have come in so high and try to alleviate that problem. 3. Keeping in mind (i) the time delay and additional cost in going out difficulties in "redesigning" the

for new bids, (ii) the technical

project so an award could be made on a slimmed down basis, (iii) the lack of competition in awarding the contract according to the "new" design, and (iv) the possibilities for unfair pressure on

bidders, and the potential for lack of competition in a negotiation situation: (a) None Which of the three courses set out above would you follow,
26 M C 24 M B 26 M

and why?
5

(b) i f awarded If you chose (a) above what steps would you take to 9/o discount expedite the new bidding? and If you chose course (c) above which company or companies 27 M
12

within 90 days 22.8 M

(c)
10

% discount with a

modification letter would you invite to enter into negotiations, and why? submitted along with the BC 2:bid. 24.3 MThe bidding documents require that the bid should be valid for a period

Discount E of 90 days from the deadline for submission of bids. Five bids have been
25.8 M 12% discount with a letter,

received by the Agency. Some of the bidders offered discounts in registered on the day before the submission of
bid but Purchaser receive one day after bid close 22.7 M

different manner as follows.

Name
Agency processed the evaluation expeditiously within 30 days of bid 9 1

Original Bid Price

Condition Bid price if Discount is opening and determined the bidder E at a contract price of 22.7 M as the considered
lowest responsive after taking into account the discount of 12 % along

with the discounts offered by other bidders. a)

Is the decision of the Agency Correct?

25 M

6 % discount if awarded within 60 days 23.5 M

b)

Which of the above bids that you consider as substantial

responsive?

c) BC 3:

What is your recommendation for the award of contract?

Loading The bid documents for water pipe and fittings contained alternate
f...

After adjustment of the bid prices quoted by bidders Nos.1 and 2 for -Ccncrctc ai-id st&z:: P;Ytf, '1111JUJIfir, the requirements steel pipes, Bid No.3 became the lowest evaluated bid. The Executing

for internal and external coating. bidsof were ofBidder which the Agency, accordingly, proposedSix award the received, contract to NO 3. threeQuestions: lowest were close, varying from (local currency units) 5.3 million of 5.6 million, as follows: Do you agree with the evaluation of bids by the Executing Agency? Bidder No.1(steel pipe) 5.3 million If not, which bidder should be awarded the contract? Bidder No.2(steel pipe) 5.5 million Assuming that cathodic protection of steel pipe was needed, how Bidder No.3(Concrete pipe)Agency 5.6 million should the Executing proceed to procure it? During POST QUALLIFICCATION evaluation, the Executing Agency decided that cathodic POQ 1: The PIU using NCB method issued standard BD for works for patching 13 potholes and repairs for an urban road with an estimated value of about It, therefore, adjusted the bids for steel pipe by adding to the bid price $200,000. Evaluation of bids was to be based on a post qualification

protection should be provided if steel pipe were selected.

process of the bids using the standard criteria provided in the Bank BD documents neither required cathodic protection to be included in the for small works. By bid closing date, five bids were received and the prices quoted for steel pipe nor stated that it would be used as a factor lowest priced bid was lacking data on audited financial statements. You in the evaluation of bids. are the chairman of the evaluation committee. The Executing Agency based its decision on the statement in the bid Should this bidder be recommended for award of the contract documents POO. 2: that "to determine the lowest responsive bid, operation and On an NCB procurement, for the procurement of civil works for the

maintenance

of river embankments, estimated to cost US$3.3 million, costsreinforcement will also be considered". the Employer received a complaint from a bidder, ANDERSON, that it

had submitted the lowest-priced bid but that the TEC had rejected its bid incorrectly. Upon reviewing the bid evaluation report prepared by the TEC, the PC f3ur,d ANDERSON ;idd, indeed, submiiied me iowest-priced bid but

that the TEC had rejected its bid on the grounds that ANDERSON did not possess the required experience, as defined in the bidding documents, namely that "bidders should have completed at least two contracts of similar nature and complexity in the past five years".

In its bid, Anderson provided a list of the following contracts to demonstrate its past experience: Name of Contract Year of

Contract

Price (m) Completion on ANDERSON - BOB's experience in attempting to demonstrate its own experience. In its letter of complaint, ANDERSON protested that, for the Reinforcement of River because it fully owns ANDERSON - Civil BOB,Works its experience should be US$4.0 counted as ANDERSON's experience and that ANDERSON should, 2002 therefore, be awarded the contract.
Question

14

Embankments

POQ 3: An Agency invited bids for 100 PCs for supply to an education institution. Civil Works for the Reinforcement of River US$4.5 Procurem 2003 that In respect of post qualification criteria, bidding document required ent of the bidder shall be original manufacturers and the PC offered shall be a Embankments Computer model which is mass produced, has been previously supplied, and in use s in an Asian country, and has a proven experience of at least 24 months. However, ANDERSON's bid indicated that the two contracts cited had, in Five bids were received. In its evaluation PE rejected iected bid K, L and M and fact, been performed by a company, ANDERSON -BOB, which is a recommended award to P on the grounds that Bid K was not submitted by a manufacturer, Bid L had not supplied in Asia and Bid M did not fulfill the minimum Bidder M protested the PC companyproven wholly experience. owned by ANDERSON, although that it is a separate legal offered by him was indeed in proven service for 28 months on the date entity. of evaluation even though it was in proven service for only 23 months on the date of bid opening. The TEC's bid evaluation report recorded that, because ANDERSON Bid K LKR 10. 5 m CIP Colombo BOB is a separate legal entity from ANDERSON. ANDERSON cannot rely Bid L Bid M Bid N Bid P LKR 10.9 m LKR 10.7 m LKR 11.8 m LKR 11.3 m CIP Colombo CIP Colombo CIP Colombo CIP Colombo

To whom you will award the contract? CONTRACT AWARD CA 1: A number of responsive bids at reasonable prices from various suppliers were received through ICB. However, the PE found subsequently that he could buy the item tor which bids were caked from a iocal 1 -11111 (wlmm had not bid) at a price lower than any of the bids received. The PE proposed to reject all bids and procure this item (without any change in the specifications) through direct purchase from the local firm.

Is

this a good proposal?

Is it

acceptable

under Procurement

Guidelines? CA 3: During a post audit for procurement for rehabilitation of 10 schools Analyse the case give recommendation estimated at Rs and 30 m the your following was observed: for future CA 2: Three bids received: Government of Ruritania in July 2008, using NCB method issued Bank Unbalanc of a Teacher Training standard BD for small works for construction ed Bid 15

Center estimated to cost about $150,000. By bid closing date, two bids were received and the lowest evaluated bidder had submitted a bid that was 40% less than the Engineer's estimate. You are the chairman of the evaluation committee. Should this bidder be recommended for award of Bid A: Rs 26 m the contract? Bid B: Bid C: Rs. 27.4 m Rs. 27.5 m

All three bids were substantially responsive.

In the BC)Q for Bid A, the unit price quoted for windows was substantially lower than the other three bids and the estimated cost of the Engineer The TEC was concerned about the low rate and worried about that Bidder A will not complete the work satisfactorily

The TEC requested the bidder to substantiate the cost of replacing windows, giving the breakdown of labour and material. The breakdown rate was higher than that was in the bid TEC did not want to take a risk and awarded the contract to Bidder B at Rs. 27.4 m CAD 1: Pursuant to CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
an

ICB process, an Agency placed a contract on a supplier in

Incoterm Germany for laboratoryequipment for delivery CIF Incoterms at

CU'10111'00 FOrL.

Payment was to be made on the basis of a Letter of Credit on presentation of Clean Bill of Lading, and other documents. Goods were air-freighted and the bidder submitted the Airway Bill, country of origin certificate, invoice to the bank, which paid the contract price."The Agency refused to take delivery [since the equipment was no more required by him] and sued the bank for refund of the money since the LC did not permit airway bill. Question - Is the bank right in having paid ? CAD 2: incoterms 16 Messrs Lemunge & Sons, a Tanzanian construction company, has ordered from Fibro A/5, a Danish manufacturer of building materials, 10,000 fiber boards of certain dimensions, Ex Works Aalborg, Denmark,