The Caribbean Export Development Agency (Caribbean Export) in cooperation with the European Union commenced a 3-day workshop to train Country Advisors from OECS countries on the Direct Assistance Grant Scheme (DAGS) at the Trade Winds Hotel, St. John’s, Antigua yesterday, April 4, 2018.
The Agency announced last month that grant funds would be provided to CARIFORUM businesses via the DAGS and they would be accepting proposals from businesses from April 23, 2018. A key component to maximise the utilization of the grant funds allocated under the 11thEDF Regional Private Sector Development Programme (RPSDP) is through ensuring companies understand the application process and the procedures. Country Advisors are being trained across the region to provide assistance to companies during the application and reimbursement stages of the programme.
DAGS is a reimbursement grant funding facility specifically designed to provide financial assistance to legally registered firms and individuals with the potential to export their products and services. Under the new DAGS programme grants from a minimum of €10,000 and to a maximum of €50,000 are available to CARIFORUM firms.
Speaking at the opening of the workshop, Min. Asot Michael congratulated the Agency for the timely and crucial programme to support the region’s private sector encouraging firms to participate in the programme.
… more
Image: Cytonn Photography (Pexels)
Read more
Preparing a response to a solicitation can be a time consuming and nerve wracking affair. Depending on the size of the project, there can be several moving parts, along with specific requests and requirements that ought to be satisfied. Hence, regardless of whether your proposal, quotation, or bid is less than five pages long, or over 50 pages, it is crucial that all ‘i’s are dotted and ‘t’s are crossed, in order for your submission to be either shortlisted for further consideration, or to be awarded the project.
However, two common problems with submissions that tend to challenge a favourable evaluation are, incomplete submissions, and flawed submissions. Although the terms seem self-explanatory, for too many Consultants and Vendors find their submissions being marked down considerably, or even disqualified.
Incomplete Submissions
In a nutshell, submissions are referred to as ‘incomplete’ when all the stipulated material – that ought to be included as part of the submission – have not been provided. For example,
- confirmation of eligibility to participate in the tender process, such as a specific authorization, or a compliance certificate (in the case of Jamaica), is not included
- the bond is missing
- reference letters are not provided
- forms are incomplete
- evidence of insurance is not supplied
- inadequate or no details on the subcontractors or project associates have been included, although specifically requested
- prices or rates not prepared as requested, such as itemized, or in a specified currency, or including (or not including) sales or other value added tax.
In some instances, and the solicitation document should indicate, there are circumstances under which a submission could be considered ‘non-responsive’. Essentially, these mandatory requirements or information, which a submission should contain, are being used as gating criteria. If they have been included, the submission will proceed to the evaluation stage; if any are absent, the entire submission can be considered non-responsive and, most likely than not, rejected.
Flawed Submissions
Although an incomplete submission can be considered flawed, a flawed submission might include all of the stipulated material, but still have significant faults or errors (flaws). A submission can usually be identified as incomplete through just a cursory scan of the documents. On the other hand, a flawed submission tends to be recognized as such during the evaluation process, when all submissions are being carefully examined. In the case of the latter, the focus is on the quality of the material submitted, rather than on confirming whether the required material has been provided.
Some examples of when a submission might be considered flawed include:
- mathematical errors in pricing calculations
- forms are not clearly or completed properly
- parts of the submission are not signed or the company seal is not clearly affixed (as would be the expected practice).
Generally, when a submission is considered flawed, the evaluators may find it difficult to review – and understand – its contents. In instances when the errors or deficiencies are significant, or of the contents cannot be understood, considerably lower scores may result.
Summary
To a considerable degree, an incomplete submission can be avoided if you carefully review the solicitation documents to ensure that you are aware of all of the all the material requested, and that you confirm their inclusion before the package is sealed and dispatched. With regard to reducing the chances that your submission would be considered flawed, a careful review of the actual contents of the submission ought to be undertaken. Ideally, that review should be conducted by someone who has not been intimately involved in the submission’s preparation, and so can be more objective on matters related to clarity and the quality of the information that will be provided.
Image: Alpha Stock Images
Read more
Dear Editor,
“Under the law, we can initiate parking meters in Georgetown, and we will. No matter how many people you bring to gather and make noise outside, that doesn’t change the position of Council. Council has a right and Council will carry out that right.” – Oscar Clarke, PNCR Councillor. This arrogant and distasteful statement sums up the contempt that the Mayor and City Councillors hold for the citizens of Georgetown who for months stood up for their right to reject this most corrupt and despicable contract with Smart City Solutions. From the utterances of Oscar Clarke who is one of the fantastic four that went on the all-expenses paid jaunt to Mexico at the behest of SCS, one would believe that only the M&CC has rights even if it means strangling the working class citizens of Georgetown.
It has already been established that the contract the M&CC signed with SCS has breached all the local procurement laws and Section 231 of the Municipal and District Councils Act Chapter 28:01 which clearly states that contracts in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars must be advertised for public tendering. The Government of Guyana through its Ministry of Finance also acknowledged this breach in their June 23, 2016 review of the SCS contract when they stated inter alia that “government procurement procedures may have been violated, in that a tender was not advertised and bids reviewed for acceptance’” and recommended that the project be “re-tender[ed](assuming that it was done before…).”
Notwithstanding all of this, the M&CC seems proud that they have accomplished the impossible, which is to have successfully renegotiated an illegal contract. This is comedy at its best. How can an illegal contract be renegotiated? What’s more, this renegotiation was done by none other than the newly anointed deputy Mayor. One wonders, is the deputy Mayor qualified to renegotiate a multi-million dollar, forty year contract? Was legal representation present during the renegotiation? Were the feasibility and social impact studies, which are key prerequisites for contracts of this nature and magnitude produced for scrutiny? Who reviewed these studies? In the absence of these studies to determine the levels of fees and fines, one can only assume that the new rates were pulled out of a hat and the so called renegotiation is nothing but a sham.
The consequences of the parking meter project are far reaching. It will impact negatively on businesses and reduce the disposable income of the average worker who already faces severe economic conditions. Low disposable income means lower sales for businesses and lower VAT and other tax payments to GRA. Would poor sales be the final straw for businesses that are already struggling in an anaemic low growth economy to start laying off staff? It was recently announced that the economy only grew a meagre 2.1% in the first quarter of this year, well below the projected target. Do the Mayor and Councillors who voted for the resumption of the project truly understand the hardships that their actions are going to impose on the ordinary Guyanese who are trying to make a living?
… more
Image: Pixabay (Pexels)
Read more
Puran Brothers and Cevons have submitted a joint bid for the operation of the Lusignan Sanitary Landfill.
Multi- million dollar bids were also submitted to the Guyana Energy Agency for the supply, installation and commissioning of grid-connected and hybrid photovoltaic systems.
The bids were received in three lots and opened yesterday at the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board at the Ministry of Finance at Main and Urquhart streets.
The companies and their bids are as follows:
… more
Image: Prylarer (Pixabay)
Read more
Dear Editor,
I was most appalled to read a letter written by Mr Julius Williams published in the Guyana Chronicle on April 14, under the headline ‘Education Ministry should re-tender those bids’.
Williams’s letter exposed the flagrant breach of proper procurement procedures by the Ministry of Education in the handling of tenders for security services. An obscure security firm with no track record in the business won the contract, while upstanding security firms were sidelined. How does the ministry explain that other bidders were omitted from the process? How come only Neville Spence and Inter Service Enterprise Security attended the bid opening, much to the surprise of other security company representatives who only discovered that there was another open competitive bidding when they went to witness the opening of sealed bids for the provision of security services for the Dependents Pension Fund?
RK’s Security Services was one of the security firms that discovered this irregularity at that same time. What justification can the ministry come up with to explain what happened? Was this intended to deprive bidders of the opportunity to get the contract? Did someone benefit from inside information about this tender?
RK’s Security has had its share of experience with the Ministry of Education. In 2017, we successfully bid for a contract with that ministry and, after being told we were successful, spent huge sums of money preparing to fulfil our responsibilities. We engaged and recruited security officers, bought uniforms, provided quality training and obtained a performance bond. But after all our expenditure, we were told that the contract had been terminated for ‘convenience’ with just a few hours’ notice given before we were to commence. Utter and gross disrespect! This matter is now before the Supreme Court.
I am inviting all the other security companies affected to contact me so that we can organise a class action lawsuit against the Ministry of Education and the Government of Guyana. I have a feeling that if we band together and present a united front we can win this case. Think of how interesting it would be to get the ministry’s Permanent Secretary, Mr Vibert Welch in the witness box.
… more
Image: Bryan McDonald (flickr)
Read more
