Zimbabwe’s State Procurement Board (SPB) has been summoned by parliament to clarify an error it had made on awarding Helcraw Electrical a contract for the 120MW emergency Mutare Peaking Plant.
The Herald reported that earlier this week parliament requested SPB to explain how it could have made the mistake to grant Helcraw Electrical the contract for the plant, when the specifications stated that the qualifying firm should provide between three and four units with generation capacity between 30MW and 40MW per unit.
Helcraw Electrical exhibit variations
According to the media, the company only offered to provide two units, with each one producing 58MW. Upon that revelation, the committee argued that Helcraw Electrical should have been disqualified after this new information was revealed.
Responding to the committee, SPB board chairperson ambassador, Buzwani Mothob, stated that they will revisit the tender submissions and rectify the error.
The Herald also reported that the tender was supposed to have been awarded to Pito Investments, which was recommended by the Zimbabwe Power Company on the strength of its submissions, promising to supply between three to four units of either 30MW or 40MW per unit to guarantee at least 80MW in the event of one unit failing.
State Procurement Board clarify the error
Explaining the events leading to the selected preferred bidder, SPB acting principal officer, Samson Mutanhaurwa, said five of the nine bidding companies, including Helcraw Electrical and Pito Investments, were technically-compliant.
“The natural process from there was to proceed with the five technically-compliant bidders to the next stage of evaluation,” he said.
Mutanhaurwa continued: “Of the three envelopes, two envelopes were considered at the first stage, which is the funding and technical. At the financial stage, the challenge was that, when evaluating prices, there are basic rules that we have to follow.
“First is to list the tender sums in order of hierarchy from the lowest to the highest. It’s the rule of the thumb. The next thing is to see whether the price is compliant to tender requirements.”
He added: “In this instance, the price of the lowest was seen to be based on the wrong quantities of certain units. They had quoted in their financial proposal two instead of three units, which were in their technical report.”