Board dismisses firm blocking GDC activities

What you need to know:

  • According to the Board, the bidding form required the name of the authorised representative of the manufacturer, signature and the date when the authorisation was given. Sudi Chemical failed to provide these details.
  • Sudi Chemical Industries had stated that it was a manufacturer of the drilling detergent and thus did not need to submit the manufacturer’s authorisation as required in the tender document which specified that the clause only applied to those who do not manufacture or produce the goods — the subject matter of the tender.

Geothermal Development Company (GDC) has been allowed to proceed with the procurement process for the supply of drilling detergent for geothermal wells.

The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board has dismissed an application filed by Sudi Chemical Industries Ltd, which lost the tender, saying it had failed to meet all the conditions set in the application for tender documents.

According to the Board, the bidding form required the name of the authorised representative of the manufacturer, signature and the date when the authorisation was given. Sudi Chemical failed to provide these details.

“While the board is sympathetic with Sudi Chemical, it is not in a bidder’s interest to ignore a specific requirement in the tender document,” said the Board in their ruling.

Sudi Chemical had instead annexed letters from itself stating that it was a manufacturer. The Board however stated that a letter from a bidder cannot amount to proof that it is a manufacturer.

“There must be an authority charged with the responsibility of certification or any other form of ensuring the quality of the product,” the Board said.

Sudi Chemical Industries had stated that it was a manufacturer of the drilling detergent and thus did not need to submit the manufacturer’s authorisation as required in the tender document which specified that the clause only applied to those who do not manufacture or produce the goods — the subject matter of the tender.

The firm produced several letters showing that it had been supplying the drilling detergent to GDC since 1980 but put emphasis to the letter dated November 8, last year to fortify its position that it was a manufacturer of the product.

In response, GDC however stated that the requirement for a manufacturer’s authorisation was a mandatory requirement and was not discretionary. GDC added that Sudi Chemical Industries’ failure to comply with the requirement amounted to a fundamental breach of the requirements of the tender document and that it was rightly disqualified from the tender process on that account.