I. Approved, as partly grounded, the complaint of the EO KOMTEL PROJECT. ENGINEERING SH.P.K POSLOVNA INTELIGENCIJA D.O.O Prishtina-Zagreb,

Transcription

1 P.SH 406/14 PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL, appointed by the President Pursuant to the article 105 point 1 and 2 and article 106 of the Law on Public Procurement in Kosova no. 04/L-042, consisting of: Mr. Hysni Hoxha-President, Mr.Ekrem Salihu-referent, Mr. Tefik Sylejmani-member, Mrs. Vjollca Kurtishaj- member, Mr. Bajram Zogiani- member, deciding on the complaint lodged by the consortium KOMTEL PROJECT ENGINEERING SH.P.K POSLOVNA INTELIGENCIJA D.O.O Prishtina-Zagreb, regarding with the procurement activity Development of a storage system data (data warehouse) for the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Kosova, with procurement no.201/14/002/212, initiated by the Contracting Authority Central Procurement Agency (procurement for CA), on the 11 of November 2014, has issued this: DECISION ON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE EO KOMTEL PROJECT ENGINEERING SH.P.K POSLOVNA INTELIGENCIJA D.O.O IN PRISHTINA/ZAGREB WITH NO.406/14 OF THE 10 OF OCTOBER 2014 I. Approved, as partly grounded, the complaint of the EO KOMTEL PROJECT ENGINEERING SH.P.K POSLOVNA INTELIGENCIJA D.O.O Prishtina-Zagreb, regarding with the procurement activity Development of a storage system data (data warehouse) for the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Kosova, with procurement no.201/14/002/212, initiated by the Contracting Authority Central Procurement Agency (procurement for CA). II. Cancelled the procurement procedure of the Contracting authority/central Procurement Agency (procurement for CA), regarding with the procurement activity with title Development of a storage system data (data warehouse) for the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Kosova, with procurement no.201/14/002/212, as ungrounded. III.Ordered Contracting authority /Central Procurement Agency (procurement for CA), that the procurement procedure with title Development of a storage system data (data warehouse) for the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Kosova, with procurement no.201/14/002/212, to cancel and the same to return for re-tender, if the CA has still interest for this procurement activity. IV. Non-compliance with this decision obliges the Review Panel conform with the legal provisions of article 131 and article 25 point 8 of the LPP no. 04/L-042 to take action against the Contracting Authority, that doesn t respect the decision of the review panel defined in this Law. V. Contracting authority is obliged that within 10 days to notify the review panel for all actions taken with regard to this procurement activity.

2 V. Since the complaining claims of the complaining economic operator KOMTEL PROJECT ENGINEERING SH.P.K POSLOVNA INTELIGENCIJA D.O.O Prishtina/Zagreb - are partly grounded, conform article of the LPP it is returned the insurance fee of the complaint in the amount of (five hundred euro). REASONING Complaining Consortium KOMTEL PROJECT ENGINEERING & POSLOVNA INTELIGENCIJA SH.P.K DOO -Zagreb/Croatia, as the aggrieved party has lodged a complaint in the PRB, on the 10 November 2014 with no. 406/14, against the notice for non qualification of this EO, regarding with the procurement activity Development of a storage system data (data warehouse) for the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Kosova, with procurement no.201/14/002/212, claiming that contracting authority has done a violation of the provisions of the LPP no. 04/L-042, such as: Article 56 of the LPP - General Provisions on the Selection of Participants and Contract Award Article 59 of the LPP - Examination, Evaluation and Comparison of Tenders; Article 69 of the LPP - Technical and / or Professional capacity; Procurement Review Body after receiving the complaint, pursuant to article 113 of LPP no. 04/L-042, has authorized expert to review the procedure developed regarding this procurement activity and the validity of all claims of the complaining party. PRB experts have explained that from 7 economic operators bidders, 6 of them are qualified for the next stage, while only complaining EO is not qualified. Also explained that CA, has enabled complaining EO to have access to this procurement activity, except to the documents that relevant EO claimed as business secret. PRB experts have explained that it is sustainable the complaining claim of the complaining EO IN2 has not attached in the bid any certificate as proof for the qualification of the personnel that are required by the contracting authority. PRB experts have also explained that it is sustainable the complaining claim of the complaining EO Kosova Information Technology & Comarch for staff members of Jacek Sitkieëitz, did not present the certificate and it is not clear for which position is proposed, for the person Leszek Krasoëski, did not provide the relevant certificate for business intelligence and reporting system development and Dardan Fejzullahi has not attached certificate as proof of the qualifications required by the CA and it is not clear for which position is proposed. PRB experts have evaluated that the certificates as proof of the qualifications of the personnel that are required by the contracting authority, did not bring either companies: Antika Technologer & Teradata Bilisim Sistemleri, NTP Jolix.

3 PRB experts also evaluated that CA in the TDS, at the requirements on technical and / or professional capacity, demanded, among other things that one of the human resources should be qualified with the certificate Business Intelligence and development of reporting system (1 certified person minimum). And have explained that the certificate for Business Intelligence and reporting system development no EO has in their offer, some EO have certificate for the business intelligence, but do not even have to develop reporting system (as required ). But PRB experts, based on some research about this certificate, have evaluated that there is no such certificate with this label. PRB experts have evaluated that CA in the TDS, at the requirements on technical and / or professional capacity, Request 2. Economic operators must possess qualified human resources for carrying out the following activities: - Development and management of database software (2 certified persons minimum) - Redesign of business processes (1 person minimum) - Business Intelligence and reporting system development (1 certified person minimum) - Construction of a software system; development and operation (3 certified persons minimum) - Project Manager (1 person minimum) - Quality Management System and Operation (1 person minimum) PRB experts have explained that for point (2) - redesign of business processes (1 person minimum), contracting authority has not clarified, what qualifications should have qualified persons for this procurement activity. Therefore EO bidders have offered various certificates in connection with this area, while CA, has taken as valid those certificates, or training courses. Regarding the claims of the complaining EO, PRB experts thought that the complaint of the complaining EO is partly grounded and have thought that in this procurement activity is not respected article 27 of the LPP and article 17 of OGPP, since the tender dossier is not well prepared. Also is not respected article 56 and 59 of the LPP, during the examination, evaluation and comparison of tenders. PRB Experts, based on the findings outlined in the report, they thought that the Contracting Authority - Central Procurement Agency, for the procurement activity Development of a storage system data (data warehouse) for the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Kosova, with procurement no.201/14/002/212, has not fully respected the provisions of LPP. So they have proposed the review panel to approve as partly grounded the complaint of the complaining EO, and have proposed that this procurement activity to be canceled and re-tendered, if CA has still interest for this procurement activity. PRB experts have clarified that CA should clearly specify the requirements and qualifications of professional staff in the tender dossier, since the tender dossier is a basic material, according to which economic operators will create their tenders.

4 Complaining consortium with the memo of the 06 of November 2014 stated that it agrees with the report of experts of the PRB. CA, with the memo of the 07 of November, said he does not agree with the experts' report of the PRB. During the hearing session of the main review, held on the 10 of November 2014 were present by members of the review panel, review expert, technical expert, representative of the complaining EO, representative of the CA. At this session were reviewed the case files by checking and reviewing the documentation for the procurement procedure which consists of: authorization of the initiation of the procurement activity, the contract notice, the decision on the establishment of the bid s evaluation committee, evaluation report of the bids, the complaint of the economic operator, review expert's report, the memo of the CA, the memo of the complaining EO. During the presentation at the hearing, the representative of the complaining EO stated: since the declaration was very important in an area that has little experience in the region, we requested from Microsoft to recommend us partner with experience and references in this field, and the only one that we recommended was Poslovna Inteligencija doo. Documentation we have prepared very well with respect to each point of the requirements by analyzing and trying to fully meet. After the opening to see the list of participants, we have been convinced that we meet the criteria, but for the surprise we see that are choosing 6 EO, and only we, are not shortlisted. Then we requested access to the documentation, to see if other EO best meet the requirements. CA has enabled us access, but only in the documentation of the two EO, with the excuse of filling the declaration of confidentiality of four other EO, and not given access. The part that interested us was fulfilling professional and technical criteria required in the dossier. During the continuation of the presentation, the representative of the complaining EO stated: one of the issues that has been pretty difficult to meet, has been the demand for professional capacities, where is required that EO have 9 people, of whom 6 expressly is required to be certified in different segments of IT. In the first case, so in the first part that we had access to EO IN2 has not presented any certificate. Another EO Kosova Information technologie & Comark for a part, for some positions presented certificates, and for some not presented any certificate. Although we did not have access, during the conversation - discussions we have seen that other EO, as for example an EO has introduced 8 or 9 completely foreign names that we know and are not employed by EO and EO does not have those people. Let me stress one thing, the issue is to develop a project is not the consultancy, implementation is a team work. The other question was about the reference value, the justification given that we have not had sufficient value references. Whereas we have shown exactly those sought by the CA for references, and our partner has a reference to public enterprises worth over 500,000. So for us has been a surprise as a reference are accepted projects that we have nothing to do with the subject of this procurement activity, from automobile sales, equipment, etc., but not the sale and development of this field very specialized. At the end we propose the review panel, to approve the complaint as grounded and propose that the case to be re-evaluated. During the presentation at the hearing, the representative of the CA stated: regarding access to the documents have to declare that CPA complaining economic

5 operator has given limited access in the documents, because 4 EO including the complaining EO claimed as confidential business data on their offers. For this we have sought clarification from the project PLANET, and we got the answer that you have to be carefull towards access to the documents, which means that the project is pretty delicate and we are dealing with very important documents - ie not give access and that big of these EO. As you have seen in response of the expertise to the points of objection that are dealing with the complaint of the complaining EO, complaining EO is damaged in the required criteria, complaining EO was eliminated in the assessment, and is not the fault of the tender dossier, but to the evaluation commission. We are to reconsider the case, and not re-tender, since the error was by the evaluation committee, not in the tender dossier. During the continuation of the presentation, the representative of the CA stressed that: points that we oppose of the PRB experts are reporting system, it has been written wrongly, but there was no doubt about any EO, as they had it clear that it is about the Business Intelligence including reporting system. We need a lot this project, because is not damaged any EO and there was no question or dilemma for evaluation criteria that the case goes on reassessment since there are sufficient EO that meet the criteria, and complaining EO is damaged, not because the evaluation criteria of the bid. On the question of the President of the review panel, addressed to the representatives of CA, what means business intelligence and are required proof - the certificate for this intelligence from CA? In response, the representative of the CA stated: the request of the CA was certification in Business Intelligence and reporting system, so he has a certificate for business intelligence it is known that has reporting system. In this case complaining EO has had this certificate and no EO is eliminated because of this criterion. Chairman of the Review Panel, following the representative of the CA which was the request of CA, for human resources - evidence for these resources? In response, the representative of the CA, stated: the request of the CA was: a staff of 9 persons qualified to degree. For three persons were not sought certification, enough to have a diploma, for other 6 are required to be certified by the appropriate certification authority. So I propose the review panel to approve as partly grounded the complaint of the complaining EO, and because the mistakes during the evaluation phase of the evaluation were at the evaluation committee, we propose the panel that the case to be returned for the Reassessment, in order to correct the evaluation errors. During the presentation in the session, review expert stated: here are two contentious issues from CA, about the person certified for business intelligence and reporting system, here the representative of the CA, also the representative of the complaining EO mentioned, that to be certified for business intelligence and reporting system, people should have the knowledge or any module or two to be certified. We have not noticed that EO bidders have certificate in connection with this application as it is named in the tender dossier. If it would be requested the certificate only for business intelligence then would imply that these persons have knowledge for reporting system. According to the review expert, the next question for the qualification of a person to redesign business processes, in the tender dossier has not been defined that this

6 person, what qualifications should have, diploma or certificate or any kind of training, but it is noted, only needs to be qualified. Here is an explanation not by CA, what direction should be qualified. Regarding with this request EO bidders have offered various certificates and are regarded as valid by the CA, although is not clearly explained qualification regarding this request. These two points were the main reasons that we both experts have considered that this procurement activity must return to retender and a revision of the requirements and to clarify ambiguities and dilemmas in the tender dossier. Following the technical expert, declared that I stay entirely at the findings and recommendations we made in our report dated: In closing speech, review expert stated: during the consultations that I had with the representative of the complaining EO, the same agreed that they do not have adequate certificates in connection with the redesign of business processes. In the final words representative of complaining EO stated: we offered something closer to what is required, otherwise I said earlier that there is no decisive expressly certificate for the redesign of business processes. It should be more evaluated the experience in that segment, that any certification. So I propose the review panel that the complaint to be approved as grounded and the case to return for reassessment. In the final words the representative of the CA stated: we have been aware that for the position redesign business processes has no concrete certificate and for this reason we have not requested such a thing. The review panel, after reviewing the case files, the evaluation report of the evaluation committee of the CA, reviewing the claiming points of the complainant, findings, concrete analysis and recommendation of the PRB experts mentioned in the report, discussions and screening of the evidence as a whole during the main hearing, ascertained that CA in the prequalification document, in article 8.1 regarding the requirements on technical and / or professional capacity, at the request with no two, provides as follows: Economic operators should possess qualified human resources for carrying out the following activities: Development and administration of database software (2 certified persons minimum) Redesign of business processes (1 person minimum) Business intelligence and reporting system development (1 certified person minimum) Building software system; development and operation (3 certified persons minimum) Project Manager (1 person minimum) Quality management system and operation (1 person minimum). The review panel finds that CA has not clarified and specified what qualifications should have the person to redesign business processes, therefore orders the contracting authority in the future to clarify the qualifications required in details, since the tender dossier is the basic material and should be prepared in such a way that as a principle rule to not have a need for additional clarifying information, as provided in article 27 of the LPP and article 17 of the Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement (OGPP).

7 The review panel also comes to the conclusion that none of the EO bidders did not possess a certificate with the name of business intelligence and reporting system development as requested CA, but they provided a certificate for business intelligence, so is ordered CA that in future the requirements related to the certificates are adequate and whether there is no certificate with that label, not to request. Based on the above facts, the review panel ascertains that the examination, evaluation and comparison of tenders, is not made in conformity with article 56 and 59 of LPP and is not respected article 27 of the LPP and article 17 of OGPP, since the tender dossier is not drafted in conformity with the aforementioned articles and therefore is ordered that this procurement activity to be canceled, and return for re-tender, if the CA has still interest for this. Therefore, Review panel based on article: 117 of LPP and what was said above, decided as in the provision of this decision. Legal advice: Aggrieved party can not appeal against this decision, but it can file charges for damage compensation within 30 days, after the receipt of this decision with the lawsuit In the Basic Court In Prishtina at the Department for Administrative Affairs. President of the Review Panel Mr. Hysni HOXHA