Home » Legal and Judicial Affairs » Solar Firm’s Court Appeal Dismissed With Costs

The Administrative Court has dismissed with costs an appeal by a local firm, BT Critical, challenging the State Procurement Board’s decision to award a TelOne tender to a foreign firm that charged more than what the local firm quoted. BT Critical argued in the appeal that apart from offering the lowest bid, it also met TelOne’s specifications.

The SPB awarded a tender for the 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.

SPB was cited as the first respondent, TelOne as the second with the Israeli company, AIO A. D Systems Limited, as the third respondent.

Last Friday, Administrative Court judge Justice Herbert Mandeya dismissed the application saying BT Critical did not meet the required specifications to be awarded the tender.

“Appellant (BT Critical) was one of the 13 bidders that participated in tender number FT 9860 for the supply, installation and commissioning of solar hybrid management and monitoring solution.

“The evaluation of the bids was done in three stages: preliminary evaluation, technical evaluation and financial evaluation. Appellant and four other bidders successfully went through the preliminary evaluation stage,” he said.

Justice Mandeya said at the technical evaluation stage it was observed that the equipment offered by BT Critical failed to meet specifications. He said some of the specifications were that the design offered was limited to solar array, load and battery which did not depict the coordination of other sources of power such as generator and commercial power. “Secondly, the offer by appellant did not address how lightning and surge protection of equipment as required in the technical specifications would be achieved. This was evidenced by the total absence of lightning and surge protection equipment in appellant’s bill of quantities,” he said.

Justice Mandeya said BT Critical, in its heads of argument, had said the equipment complied with lightning and surge protection because it had inbuilt lightning and surge protection and should not be included in a bill of quantities.

“This argument is an admission that appellant’s bill of quantities did not include any equipment for lightning and surge protection. The essential point to make is that the specifications for this tender required bidders to provide for lightning and surge protection. By failing to provide for lightning and surge protection of the equipment, appellant failed to meet a specification that needed to be met,” he said.

Source : The Herald

Archives