The Public Procurement Appeals Authority (PPAA) has dismissed an appeal case No. 127 of 2012 lodged to it by M/S Kachu Uhandisi & Ujenzi Co. Ltd against the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC). This came to light following PPAA decision whose copy was made available to TPJ. In the said appeal which M/s Beda Trading Ltd joined as an interested party, was in respect of tender no. PA/031/2011-12/Q/W/03 for the maintenance of TPDC Staff Housing- Mikocheni Estate.
According to the facts of the case, M/s Kachu Uhandisi & Ujenzi Co. Ltd was dissatisfied with the reasons given by TPDC for disqualifying its tender. TPDC disqualified the company’s tender at preliminary stage because neither business license, TIN certificate nor VAT certificates were attached. Furthermore, a completion period of 10 weeks was indicated contrary to the required period of two months specified in the tender document as well as evidence of recently performed contracts of similar nature.
Having gone through the documents and submission by the parties, PPAA considered two issues; whether the company was unfairly disqualified and to what relief, if any were the parties entitled to. In addressing the first issue, PPAA observed that the company neither submitted a valid business license nor VAT and TIN certificates. PPAA concluded that the disqualification of the tender for failure to attach a business license and VAT and TIN certificates was proper in the eyes of the law.
PPAA was of the opinion that, specifying a completion period of 10 weeks contrary to the period of two months specified in the tender document should not have been used as a ground to disqualify the tender, since the company was not subjected to detailed evaluation. PPAA therefore concluded that, it was wrong for TPDC to include reasons for disqualification of the tender on criteria which were not evaluated at preliminary stage of evaluation.
During the hearing it was revealed that no evidence of recently performed contracts of similar nature was attached in the disqualified tender. PPAA therefore concluded that the tender did not comply with the requirements of the tender document hence the tender was fairly disqualified.
On the relief the parties were entitled to, PPAA was of the settled view that M/S Kachu Uhandisi & Ujenzi Co. Ltd was not entitled to any relief and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. PPAA dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.