Source: Stabroek News

-rejected bidder says contractor unfairly selected

The government and the Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL) are being asked to defend their decision to award a $4.6B contract to a Chinese group for the rehabilitation of the power company’s low and medium voltage distribution network, which one of the bidders says was “improperly” done.

Acting Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards has ordered the government and GPL to show why the High Court should not hear the application by rejected bidders Fix-It Depot, which is contending that the contract was awarded to China National Machinery Import and Export/China Sinogy Electric Engineer-ing Co. Ltd “in flagrant breach” of the Procure-ment Act and the bid invitation as it did not meet the tender evaluation criteria.

In a supporting affidavit for a Notice of Motion filed by his attorney Devindra Kissoon, Paul James, of Fix-It Depot, also contends that his company’s bid, which was the lowest, was unfairly rejected and that GPL set out a vague criteria for the award of the contract and even then did not apply it.

As a result of James’ application, Justice Cummings-Edwards has ordered that the Ministry of Public Infrastructure, Senior Minister David Patterson, Permanent Secretary Balraj Balram, GPL, and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) and their representatives show why an order should not be issued for the court to review the decision and quash the rejection of the Fix-It-Depot’s bid as well as the award of the contract to the Chinese group.

The case comes up for hearing again tomorrow in Chambers.

The rehabilitation of 328 km of GPL’s low and medium voltage network, including the procurement and installation of smart meters throughout the network, is part of the Power Utility Upgrade Pro-gramme, which is intended to enhance the company’s operational efficiency. It is being funded through an Inter-American Develop-ment Bank (IDB) loan.
The engineer’s estimate for the project was $3.8B, while Fix-It-Depot’s bid was $3.5B. According to James, based on the criteria in the Procurement Act and in the IDB Procurement Policy, not only did his firm, in a joint venture with Colombian civil engineer Enrique Lourido Caicedo, submit the lowest evaluated tender but it had also submitted the lowest evaluated cost.

“The decision to award the contract to [the Chinese group] in no way benefits the public since the tendered sum is G$1,093,737,993 higher than the Applicant’s tender, that amount resulting in a waste of tax payers’ funds, being approximately 25% higher than the Engineer’s estimate…,” he says in his supporting affidavit, filed on January 31, 2017.
In the document, he explains that the invitation for bids (IFB) stipulated that in order to qualify for the award, bidders, among other things, would have to have experience as a prime contractor in the construction of at least the number of works of “a nature and complexity” equivalent to the planned works and that these should be at least 70% completed.

Further, he says that the Bid Data Sheet also stipulated a minimum qualifying criteria for bidders, including experience as a main contractor, with works at least 70% completed in a five-year period.

Financials

James notes that the Chinese group had submitted financials from the same subcontractor that he listed in his company’s tender, Ramoutar and Sons.

He contended too that Caribbean Engineering and Management Consultants Inc (CEMCO) issued a report to GPL on November, 2014, in which it criticised the Chinese group’s past performance and it specifically cited it for installing “non-conforming, non-compliant and defective equipment,” including corroding workstations throughout Guyana. He also cited the report’s conclusion on the selection of the Chinese group for the previous project, where CEMCO stated, “The firm selected for this substantial contract is not a construction company being mainly a trading company for the export of Chinese engineering products; it appears that pre-qualification or post-qualification assessments [were] either not done or adequately performed during the tendering or selection phase of the project. The Contractor engaged other Chinese firms to perform all aspects of the contracts save for purchasing of goods for the contract and even this aspect was not adequately performed, evidenced by shortage of materials and factory defects.”

He also cites another report to GPL, done by Powerline Wireless Communications and dated December 9, 2016, where it was found that effectiveness of the configuration and operation of the equipment installed by the Chinese group on seven GPL substations was not more than 49% for all.

As a result, James says it was clear that the Chinese group did not satisfy the evaluation criteria set out in the bid invitation, “it not having the experience to satisfy the bid requirements.” As a result, he argued that the decision to award the contract was “irrational, unlawful and a manifest error.”

According to James, GPL said Fix-It-Depot was disqualified as a bidder because it “did not satisfy evaluation criteria for experience in similar works of the nature and complexity to be undertaken” but no explanation was given as to how that decision was reached.
He says too that GPL also advised that the terms of the loan contract mandated that the IDB procurement policy be used, thereby “ousting” the terms and regulatory oversight of the Procurement Act.

Additionally, he says that an explanation for the rejection of his tender, given by the IDB’s Office of Institutional Integrity also ended up highlighting the flawed decision making process and the lack of specific evaluation criteria.

James maintains that the award violated the terms of the Procurement Act and argues that even if the IDB procurement policy prevails, GPL failed to follow its evaluation process and properly apply the evaluation criteria. He adds that he has been advised that the bid invitation failed to sufficiently disclose the contract award criteria and weightings in advance, which was a breach of both the IDB policy and the GPL’s duty “to fairness, equality and transparency,” thereby making the entire tender award process “flawed and illegal.”

James adds that based on information contained in the CEMCO report, had GPL followed the evaluation process and equally and fairly applied the evaluation criteria, it would not have awarded the contract to the Chinese group, which did not meet the minimum requirements for bidders.

As a result, James has asked the court to prohibit the respondents from concluding, entering into, or bringing into force, any contract with the Chinese group, to order that they reissue the bid invitation with clear criteria or to reconsider his bid on the basis that the award to the Chinese group was unlawful. He noted that up to January 18, 2017, no money had been advanced to the group and no contract was yet in force.

LHC founding partner Devindra Kissoon was invited to speak to the Energy Chamber of Trinidad and Tobago on the practical realities of doing business in Guyana during their recent visit here. Speaking to a well attended audience consisting of mainly Trinidadian Oil and Gas businessmen, Mr. Kissoon delivered the attached presentation.

Source: Kaieteur News

The legal challenge to the sale of plots of land at Pradoville 2 took a surprising turn when Attorney for Ramesh Dookhoo and Florrie Ramnauth, Devindra Kissoon, intervened in the proceedings and filed an application to dismiss the case instead of defending the matter.
A group headed by former APNU Member of Parliament Desmond Trotman moved to the High Court last September seeking, among other things, to have the sale of the land declared null and void. They argued that the sales were done surreptitiously at undervalued prices to former government Ministers, officials and cronies of the PPP/C.

Trotman and the Committee for the Defence for the Constitution Inc, represented by Senior Counsel Rex McKay and Neil Boston, Bettina Glasford and Brenden Glasford, filed the constitutional action claiming that they were discriminated against in violation of Article 149 of the Constitution, seeking ten declarations to have the court declare the transfer of lands unlawful and asking the Court to set aside the “purported sale and transfer to the putative owners” of the said parcels of land and an order directing each owner that the legal and beneficial ownership of the lands vest in the Minister of Finance.
Both Ramesh Dookhoo and Florrie Ramnauth purchased lands in Pradoville 2 in 2010. Ramnauth later constructed a house.

Kissoon, in filing his application to dismiss, argued that the action “Constitutes a gross abuse of the Court’s process, being filed more than five years after the passage of title to the Intervenors, this in ordinate delay alone as a matter of law being sufficient to dismiss the Applicants’ motion.”

Kissoon argued that if the Court grants the reliefs sought, the intervenors would be deprived of their property in violation of the constitution without just compensation. Kissoon also argued that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that they are true comparators to the purchasers of the Pradoville 2 land, that they have failed to properly state how they have been discriminated against, there being no proof that they even attempted to purchase the lands, and that there is a separate procedure under the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purpose Act which provides the only constitutional basis upon which land can be seized from a private citizen.

Kissoon argued that the Trotman-led applicants were laboring under the “misconception that the Constitution is panacean in character, capacitated for the eventual solution of all legal problems.” Kissoon’s motion to dismiss comes up before Chief Justice Yonette Cummings on Tuesday.

Source: Stabroek News

City Hall has been called upon to reverse a published decision to provide housing for its staff on a property in Bel Air Park.

Attorney Devindra Kissoon, of London House Chambers, representing several property owners in the vicinity of the open space that is R3 Eping Avenue, has written City Hall asking that it confirm that the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) has no plans to develop the property and that it commit to maintaining the property for the benefit of the residents of Bel Air Park.

In a letter to Town Clerk Royston King, dated February 17, 2016, Kissoon said that the property forms part of the mandatory open space requirements necessary for Bel Air to remain a residential community.

According to the letter, these requirements were established by the Town and Country Planning Act, the Housing Act and the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, each of which stipulates the need for open spaces to be identified in any community.

Kissoon said the residents further support their claim with a transport, dated October 6, 1958, in which the tract cited a block R3 is part of a section of what was the Bel Air Plantation identified as “reserved for community purposes.”

According to the transport, “no building or erections shall be built or placed on said block unless they have been approved of by the Country authority of Bel Air Park.”

City Hall has, however, professed ownership of the space and has contracted attorney Nigel Hughes of the law firm Hughes, Fields and Stoby to respond to the residents.

In his response, dated February 19, Hughes maintains that the land is owned by the city. He goes on to state the city is “unaware of any of the restrictions expressed and/or implied in the letter sent to the council. He further undertakes to respond in detail to Kissoon’s correspondence in seven days. The seventh day is today.

In January of this year, City Hall had told the public through the state-owned Guyana Chronicle that lands owned by the council and underutilised in Guyhoc, South Ruimveldt and Bel Air had been identified for the creation of housing schemes to provide housing to council workers.

The legal correspondence from Kissoon on behalf of the residents cite this and other published reports. He said the announcements and other actions which appear to be in support of the council’s intention have been done “in error’ and requested written confirmation within three days of receipt of the letter that council will not move forward.

He also called on council to remove a guard hut which has been erected on Eping Avenue, while saying it is both illegal and a hazard for drivers and residents.

City Hall, however, denies this.

A source told this newspaper that the hut has been erected to prevent untoward use of the space. The source said that the city found evidence of dumping at the property and has erected the hut to prevent same from continuing.