adminHerald Reporter
A local firm, BT Critical, has appealed to the Administrative Court after the State Procurement Board awarded a TelOne tender to a foreign firm that charged way more than what it offered.
BT Critical is arguing that apart from offering the lowest price, it also met required specifications.
The SPB awarded a tender for supply, installation and commissioning of a solar hybrid management and monitoring solution to an Israeli company, AIO A. D Systems Limited in October last year.
As a result, BT Critical’s lawyers Mambosasa Legal Practitioners sued the SPB, TelOne and the Israeli company.
“The decision of the first respondent (SPB) was irrational and or unreasonable in that it awarded the tender to the third respondent (AIO A. D Systems Limited) notwithstanding the fact that the appellant (BT Critical) met all the specifications and had a far much lower cost of $650 030.60 than the third respondent who bid for $891 468.50 or any other bidder,” said the law firm.
“The decision of the first respondent was irrational and or unreasonable in that in adjudicating the tender, the first respondent included factors that were not specifically mentioned in the tender invitation so as to provide the third respondent with an unfair advantage.”
To address the anomaly, they implored the court to set aside the tender awarded to AIO A. D Systems Limited.
“That the above mentioned tender be and is hereby awarded to the appellant,” said the lawyers.
“First and second respondents to pay costs of suit on an Attorney-Client scale jointly and severally the one paying to absolve the other.”
The SPB said in its defence that everything was done above board.
“First respondent argues that the tender adjudication process was fair and square,” said the SPB.
“There are no factors which were not specifically mentioned in the tender invitation which were ever taken into consideration so as to provide the third respondent with an unfair advantage.
“Appellant should, therefore, be specific to point out which other factors were considered outside the tender invitation.
“The first respondent maintains that the third respondent was the lowest bidder top specification at the sum of $891 469, 50.”
On its part, TelOne said: “It is submitted that the first respondent was not obliged to award the tender to the appellant, because at law, a call for tenders is not an offer, but a mere request to submit offers, with each tender being an offer which the advertiser may accept or reject.
“The advertiser is not obliged to accept any tender be it highest or lowest.”
Bongani Ndlovu
Online Reporter