it should establish procedures

nice6boyt7

…No due diligence was conducted The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) has been flagged for several improprieties in the latest report by Auditor General (AG), Deodat Sharma.Sharma said that each Ministerial, Departmental and Agency Tender Board shall nominate for consideration by the National Board, qualified evaluators to serve on Evaluation Committees.However, Sharma said in his 2014 report that a pool of evaluators was created and evaluation committees were formed to adjudicate on procurement subject to its jurisdiction.He said that the NPTAB did not exercise due diligence to ensure that the persons appointed as evaluators had the expertise and experience as specified in the Procurement Act.In its defence, the NPTAB told the AG that its Chairman explained that a letter has been issued by the National Board, to all Regional, Ministerial, Departmental and Agency Tender Boards drawing to their attention Sections 20 (1) and 23 (1) of the Procurement act 2003.Those sections require each Regional, Ministerial, Departmental and Agency Tender Board to nominate for consideration by the National Board, qualified evaluators to serve on Evaluation Committees; and requesting that they submit for the Board’s scrutiny, the qualifications and/or experience of the persons nominated by them to serve on Evaluation Committees.The AG however emphasized on its recommendation to the NPTAB that in appointing Tender Evaluators, the National Board should ensure that Ministries, Departments, Agencies and Regions undertake checks to ensure that candidates have the necessary expertise before nominations are made to the National Board. Equally, Sharma said that when directly appointing evaluators, the National Board should keep documentation to provide evidence of the checks undertaken.Pointing to another impropriety, Sharma said that as part of its mandate, the NPTAB is required to establish a Bid Protest Committee to deal with alleged breaches of the Act by procuring entities.He said that this Committee’s role also included the review of complaints by aggrieved suppliers and contractors who were dissatisfied with a procuring entity’s response to a complaint.Sharma stated that no committees were formed during the period of the audit although there had been breaches of the Act by procuring entities.In light of this observation, NPTAB said that its Chairman explained that all steps which form part of the protest mechanism are followed by the procuring entities and the National Board.It said that most protests have been resolved without having to invoke the Bid Protest Committee mechanism and to the satisfaction of the tenderers who sought the reviews.  The Board said that in a few instances the aggrieved party tookthe matter to court.In spite of this response, the Auditor General still insisted that in the interest if ensuring transparency in the procurement process and the fair treatment of suppliers, the National Board should ensure that all complaints are dealt with formally, and in strict compliance with Section 53 of the Procurement Act 2003. He said, too, that in the absence of the Public Procurement Commission, it should establish procedures, to comply with section 17(2) (f) of the Procurement Act, which speaks to the Bid Protest Committee so as to enable them to effectively adjudicate on debarment proceedings.