By Joseph Muhozi, Dodoma

The Public Procurement Appeals Authority (PPAA) has given a decision that orders Bank of Tanzania (BOT) to restart the tender for printing of banknotes, after finding inconsistencies in its decision to shortlist four bidders and disqualifying another, TPJ can report.

The decision that was delivered by PPAA, having sat in Dar es Salaam on 20 January 2023 under its chairperson, Justice (rtd) Sauda Mjasiri, reveal inconsistences in the prequalification stage of the tender at the Bank of Tanzania Sub-Head Office Dar es Salaam, that verge on unfairness, as a flaw which was cited in the disqualification of one bidder, also existed in the bids which were shortlisted.

According to the decision, the tendering process, which was conducted through the Tanzania National e-Procurement System (TANePS), saw four bidders out of eight applicants, making a shortlist without the appellant, namely   De La Rue International Limited.

Furthermore, the result of evaluation was communicated to all applicants with the appellant being informed that he was not shortlisted because he failed to meet the requirements of the tender in that he did not submit proof of financial capability – a claim which was disputed by the appellant, prompting him to apply for administrative review.

However, the decision shows that BOT later informed the appellant that the review had concluded that its decision had been fair and that the application was therefore dismissed – which prompted him to lodge an appeal to the Appeals Authority.

In their submission, the appellant claimed that they were a leading printer of banknotes in Africa and elsewhere, and insisted that their bid had met the requirements of the tender, including submission of the financial capability commitment letter from a bank which was going to provide the financial guarantee during their tendering and execution of contract.

The appellant insisted that they indeed submitted evidence of their financial status as was required by the pre-qualification document and that therefore the decision of BOT to disqualify their bid was not justified and requested the Appeals Authority, among other prayers, to suspend the request for proposals, pending the determination of the appeal.

In its response, BOT countered that the particular tender requirement was specific and clear and not too general as was being contended by the appellant and that their commitment letter had a number of anomalies one of which being that it did not specifically state that the bank was committed to guaranteeing them during both the tendering and execution of contract.

However, the Appeals Authority, after ascertaining that indeed the appellant was disqualified on account of failure to provide a letter from a bank that stated it would guarantee the bidder by issuing a line of credit facility at the magnitude to be determined during the tendering process, found that, apparently, for all the applicants, their letters lacked a similarly explicit statement – a finding which was not challenged by the procuring entity.

Noting that in fact none of the bidders complied with that particular requirement, the Appeals Authority allowed the appeal and nullified the pre-qualification process and ordered BOT to restart the pre-qualification process in observance of the law.