PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS AUTHORITY

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS AUTHORITY REPORT ON THE APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN RESPECT TO THE TENDER BY RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AGENCY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 33KV MEDIUM VOLTAGE LINES AND ASSOCIATED LOW VOLTAGE NETWORKS UNDER LOT 1 MUBENDE- KYENJOJO ENTITY: RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AGENCY APPLICANT: M/S OMEGA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED DECEMBER 2011 Page 1 of 16

ACRONYMS AAR - Application for Administrative Review AO - Accounting Officer EC - Evaluation Committee ITB - Instructions to Bidders MAC - Management Advisory Committee PDE - Procuring and Disposing Entity PDU - Procurement and Disposal Unit PPDA - Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority PPDA Act - Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 PPDA Regns. - Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations REA - Rural Electrification Agency Page 2 of 16

ANNEXTURES: Annex 1: Best Evaluated Bidder s notice dated 17 th October 2011. Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6: Application for Administrative Review by M/s Omega Construction Limited to the Accounting Officer dated 26 th October 2011 Accounting Officer s decision to M/s Omega Construction Limited dated 11 th October 2011 Application for Administrative Review to the Authority by M/s Omega Construction Limited dated 23 rd November 2011 but received on 24 th November 2011 Index List on page 2 of M/s Omega s bid indicating that they had included a Tax Clearance Certificate (2011) Transaction Tax Clearance Certificate addressed to REA No. 0255410 dated 2 nd June 2010. Annex 7: Two completion certificates dated 22 nd December 2007 and 5 th November 2007 from M/s Caltex s.a.r.i ( Rwanda) in respect to construction of HV power line to oil installation in Gatsata and Kabuye respectively. Annex 8: UMEME completion certificate dated 11 th November 2005 in respect to completion of construction of a single phase high voltage power line at Kalisizo, Masaka. Annex 9: Annex 10: Letter dated 2 nd June 2011 from M/s Omega Construction Limited addressed to the project Manager, REA in respect to construction of electricity power networks Lot 4 Hoima and Nakasongola districts. Application statement for certificate No.3 for construction of electricity power networks Lot 4 Hoima and Nakasongola districts. Page 3 of 16

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Government of Uganda represented by Rural Electrification Agency of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development received funds under Grant financing from the Royal Norwegian Government and intends to utilize part of the financing to be used for construction of 33Kv Medium Voltage Lines and Associated Voltage Networks under: i. Lot 1: Mubende-Kyenjojo; ii. Lot 2: Rakai-Isingiro; Lumbugu-Lyantonde, Sembabule-Lwemiyaga, Lyantonde-Lwebitakuli; iii. Lot 3: Kabale -Kisoro 1.2 On 29 th July 2011, the Contracts Committee approved the following: i. Use of the open domestic bidding method; ii. The invitation to bid notice; iii. The bidding document; iv. Price of the bidding document; and v. Evaluation Committee comprising of Mr John A Turyagenda, Ms Flavia Uwayezu, Ms Emily Mbabazi and Mr Henry Aine. 1.3 Using the open domestic bidding method, the Entity published the notice of invitation of bids for this tender in the daily monitor newspaper dated 2 nd August 2011 on page 26 and in the East African Newspaper of 8-14 August 2011 on page 45. 1.4 According to PP form 30, the following thirty four (34) firms were issued with the solicitation document: i. M/s Ambitious Construction Company Limited; ii. M/s Meridian Sales & Services Limited; iii. M/s Azz Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited; iv. M/s China Jiangxi Corporation Limited; v. M/s National Contracting Company Limited; vi. M/s LTL Projects Limited; vii. M/s CPCC International Co Limited ; viii. M/s Ferdsult Engineering Services; ix. M/s Chint Electric Co Limited; x. M/s Paje East Africa ; xi. M/s C& G Adijes Group Limited; xii. M/s Spencon Services; xiii. M/s Marma Technical Services; xiv. M/s NASB/NIROO CO; xv. M/s Omega Construction Limited; xvi. M/s Sterlight Electrical Installation Limited; xvii. M/s Umakho Power Projects Pty Limited; xviii. M/s Technofab Engineering Limited; Page 4 of 16

xix. M/s Dott Services & Utility Engineering Services Limited JV; xx. M/s KEC International Limited; xxi. M/s Hydro Power Corporation xxii. M/s Teracom Limited; xxiii. M/s Reime Uganda; xxiv. M/s Rousant International ; xxv. M/s Woodmore Energy; xxvi. M/s Planbuild Technical Services; xxvii. M/s Avic International Project; xxviii. M/s Supreme & Co PVT Limited; xxix. M/s Shyam Indus Power Solution; xxx. M/s Power Line Africa; xxxi. M/s Megatron Federal; xxxii. M/s Coil Limited; xxxiii. M/s Power Engineers Limited; xxxiv. M/s EKA Chakra Projects. 1.5 The Entity held a pre-bid meeting on 12 th August 2011. 1.6 On 9 th September 2011, the Entity received sixteen (16) bids and the bids were opened on the same day. The following were the particulars read out according to the record of bid opening: No. Bidder Bid Security submitted (Ug Shs /USD) 1. M/s Azz Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited 2. M/s Spencon Services Page 5 of 16 Bid Price (Ug Shs/USD) USD 120,000 USD 6,704,0601 Lot 3 USD 120,000 USD 8,690,732.84 Lot 3 3. M/s China Jiangxi USD 185,000 USD 14,235,301.58 Lot 2 Corporation Limited 4. M/s Reime Uganda USD 110,000 USD 6,524,053 Lot 1 5. M/s Technofab Engineering Limited 6. M/s Dott Services& Utility Engineering Services Limited JV, 7. M/s KEC International Limited USD 120,000 USD 13,786,464 Lot 2 USD 110,000 USD 9,394,680.08 Lot 1 USD 185,000 USD 11,880,206 Lot 2

No. Bidder Bid Security submitted (Ug Shs /USD) 8. M/s Megatron Federal 9. M/s Ferdsult Engineering Services Bid Price (Ug Shs/USD) USD 110,000 USD 15,299,838.60 Lot 1 USD 185,000 USD 10,109,405.30 Lot 2 10. M/s LTL Projects Limited 11. M/s CPCC International Co Limited 12. M/s C& G Adijes Group Limited 13. M/s Avic International Project 14. M/s Chint Electric Co Limited 15. M/s Omega Construction Limited 16. M/s Meridian Sales & Services Limited USD 185,000 USD 7,988,127.06 Lot 2 USD 185,000 USD 10,588,866.18 Lot 2 USD 110,000 USD 7,012,230 Lot 1 USD 185,000 USD 39,844,799.30 Lot 2 USD 185,000 USD 13,884,119.33 Lot 2 USD 110,000 USD 5,921,540.03 Lot 1 - USD 9,234,969 Lot 3 1.7 Out of the sixteen bids received, five(5) bids were in respect to Lot 1( See column 5 in the above table) which is the subject of the Administrative Review. 1.8 The Evaluation methodology approved by the Contracts Committee for this procurement was Technical Compliance Selection (TCS) where bids are first subjected to a preliminary examination, then technical evaluation and finally financial evaluation. The best evaluated bid has to be substantially responsive to the commercial and technical requirements of the procuring and disposing entity and is the lowest priced. 1.9 According to the Evaluation report the following two (2) firms failed the preliminary evaluation due to the reasons stated in the table below No Bidder Reason for Disqualification at Preliminary Evaluation 1. M/s Reime (U) Limited -Failure to submit preliminary description of the proposed work method and schedule including drawings and charts as necessary; -Failure to submit major items of equipment for Page 6 of 16

No Bidder Reason for Disqualification at Preliminary Evaluation carrying out the works; and 2. M/s Omega Construction Limited - Failure to submit audited final accounts for the last three years as required -The bidder submitted an Income Tax Clearance Certificate issued on 2 nd June 2010 discharging any tax liabilities for the year 2009; - The works submitted are not similar in nature and complexity to the works under this procurement 1.10 During the detailed evaluation, M/s Dott Services & Utility Engineering Services Limited JV was eliminated because they did not submit manufacturer details for the Electricity Distribution Ready Board. 1.11 M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited provided manufacturers technical specification for all the required major construction equipment and was considered for financial evaluation. M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited was also subjected to arithmetic checks for any errors and a minor error of USD 19.34 was found. 1.12 The Evaluation Committee on 19 th September 2011, recommended M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited as the Best Evaluated Bidder for this tender with a total contract price of USD 7,012,249.61 inclusive of 18% VAT and 10% contingency. 1.13 On 26 th September 2011, the Contracts Committee approved M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited as the Best Evaluated Bidder for this tender with a total contract price of USD 7,012,249.61 inclusive of 18% VAT and 10% contingency. The negotiation plan and team was also approved on the same day. 1.14 According to the post qualification evaluation report dated 30 th September 2011, M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited, passed the post qualification criteria as set in the bidding document. 1.15 Negotiations were held between M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited and the Entity on 3 rd October at the Entity s Board room. 1.16 On 17 th October 2011, the Best Evaluated Bidder s notice was displayed showing M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited as the best evaluated bidder with a total contract price of USD 7,012,249.61 inclusive of 18% VAT and 10% contingency. The removal date was 28 th October 2011. Annex 1 1.17 On 25 th October 2011, the Entity applied or clearance of the draft contract in respect to this tender. Page 7 of 16

1.18 On 26 th October 2011, M/s Omega Construction Limited applied for Administrative Review to the Accounting Officer. Annex 2. 1.19 The Accounting Officer issued his decision to M/s Omega Construction Limited in a letter dated 11 th November 2011. Annex 3 1.20 On 15 th November 2011, the Solicitor General cleared the contract in respect to this tender. 1.21 On 17 th November 2011, the Entity and M/s C & G Andijes Group Limited signed a contract. 1.22 On 23 rd November 2011, M/s Omega Construction Limited being dissatisfied with the Accounting Officer s decision, applied to the Authority for Administrative Review. Annex 4 1.23 On 25 th November 2011, in accordance with Regulation 347 (4) (a) and (b) of the PPDA Regulations 2003, the Authority informed the Accounting Officer of the Application for Administrative Review by M/s Omega Construction Limited and directed the Entity to suspend the procurement process and submit the procurement action file to the Authority. 1.24 On 28 th November 2011, the Accounting Officer submitted the procurement action file to PPDA. 1.25 On 29 th November 2011, in accordance with Regulation 347 (4) (c) of the PPDA Regulations 2003, PPDA communicated to all the bidders who participated in the above procurement process and invited them to submit relevant information. 2.0 LEGAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE 2.1 The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act No. 1 of 2003. 2.2 The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations No. 70 of 2003. 2.3 The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Procurement Guidelines 3.0 METHODOLOGY In investigating the Application for Administrative Review the Authority adopted the following methodology: 3.1 Analysis of the following documents: a. Bid Notice/Advert. b. Bidding document. c. Record of pre-bid meeting Page 8 of 16

d. Record of bid opening. e. Bid proposals submitted by all bidders. f. The evaluation report. g. Minutes of the Evaluation Committee. h. Minutes of the Contracts Committee. i. Record of Negotiations j. Notice of the Best Evaluated Bidder. k. Application for Administrative review by M/s Omega Construction Limited to the Accounting Officer l. Decision of the Accounting Officer to M/s Omega Construction Limited m. Submissions of M/s Omega Construction Limited at the Administrative review hearing: n. Submissions from other bidders who participated in the above tender. 3.2 PPDA convened an Administrative Review hearing on Thursday 1 st December 2011 and the hearing was attended by officials from Rural Electrification Agency and M/s Omega Construction Limited. In attendance were the officials from M/s C& G Andijes Group Limited. They included the following: NAME TITLE FIRM / INSTITUTION 1 Mr G.R Turyahikayo Executive Director REA 2 Mr Werikhe Godfrey MPDM REA 3 Mr Muganzi Medard M/ERT REA 4 Mt Turyagyendo John Senior, Project Engineer REA 5 Ms Barbara Asiimwe ABS REA 6 Ms Nantume Deborah SCE REA 7 Ms Emily Mbabazi Procurement Officer REA 8 Ms Byansi Lillima Head, PDU REA 9 Ms Comas Elotu Managing Director M/s C&J Andijes 10 Mr Kabega Musa Advocate M/s C&J Andijes 11 Mr Abbi Gabriel Technical Manager M/s C&J Andijes 12 Mr Pius Mugalasi Managing Director M/s Omega Construction 13 Mr Joseph Mukasa Surveyor M/s Omega Construction 4.0 FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITY ON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPLICANT In the Application for Administrative Review to the Accounting Officer dated 26 th October 2011, M/s Omega Construction Limited stated that: i. There was breach in the basic principles of the procurement process which relate to transparency, accountability and fairness, maximizing competition and achieving value for money, efficiency and evaluation on the basis of the criteria in the bidding document Page 9 of 16

as specified under Sections 45, 46, 48 and 52 of the Act as manifested by the failure of the Procuring Entity to meet the requirements of the procurement regulations; We indeed submitted Income Tax Clearance Certificates from URA in the form TTCC No. 0279265 dated 15 th June 2011 addressed to REA which includes submissions for 2010/2011, TTCC No. 0255410 dated 2 nd June 2010 addressed to REA which includes submissions for 2010; The Certificates were issued by the competent body and can be crosschecked with URA if need be. In addition the same certificates have been submitted earlier in lieu of the tender for Lot 1 Katuge Kinyogoga-Kiweweta with tee off at Ngoma with REA We confirm that we submitted a number of projects which confirms to the requirements of the EMC as regards the nature and complexity of the works. It is a rule in the engineering field to which the project conforms, that complexity does not have anything to do with the size of the project and the same applies to the nature of works The Accounting Officer in his decision to M/s Omega Construction Limited dated 11 th November 2011stated as follows: i. It is not accurate to say that there was breach of Sections 45, 46, 48 52 of the Act as alleged by the bidder. All the instructions given under this tender upheld the basic principles of procurement; ii. iii. There is no evidence to suggest that the Income Tax Clearance No. 0279265 dated 15 th June 2011 was attached in the same bid submission for M/s Omega Construction Limited. PDE was not obliged to cross check any issues outside EMC. The bidder did no comply with EMC 3.2 ( c); From the information submitted in the qualification form, there is no evidence that the bidder executed works in the last 5 years of the nature and complexity equivalent to the works in this procurement and thus the bidder did not comply with Article 5.3(b) of part 2 section 3 C of the EMC On 24 TH November 2011, M/s Omega Construction Limited applied for Administrative Review to PPDA stating as follows: i. We contend that we submitted Income Tax Clearance Certificates from URA in the form TTCC NO. 0279265 dated 15 th June 2011 addressed to REA which includes submissions for 201/2011 and TTCC No. 0255410 dated 2 nd June 2010 addressed to REA which includes submissions for 2010; Page 10 of 16

ii. iii. iv. Regulation 186(4) provides that the PDE shall verify the accuracy, validity and authenticity of the eligibility documents provided by the bidder. We believe this was or should have been done with the issuing body which is URA; Regulation 186(9) provides for requests for clarifications where the omission of nay documentary evidence to certify eligibility is determined to be a non-material omission; We note from the BEB notice that the second reason why our bid was rejected was lack of similar works in nature and complexity to the project under procurement. This could only have been done at the stage of determining commercial and technical responsiveness after passing eligibility and administrative compliance; v. We can confirm that we submitted a number of projects which conform to the requirements of the EMC as regards the nature and complexity of the works based on the scope and material requirements laid out in the solicitation document. 4.1 Ground One We indeed submitted Income Tax Clearance Certificates from URA in the form TTCC No. 0279265 dated 15 th June 2011 addressed to REA which includes submissions for 2010/2011, TTCC No. 0255410 dated 2 nd June 2010 addressed to REA which includes submissions for 2010. Findings of the Authority Under the preliminary examination criteria, stated in Section 3, sub-section 3.2 (c) of the bidding document, it was a requirement for bidders to submit a valid copy of the Bidder s Income Tax Clearance Certificate or equivalent. On review of a copy of M/s Omega Construction Limited s bid, which was received from REA, the Authority noted the following: i. Under the Index List on page 2 of M/s Omega s bid (Annex 5), the bidder indicated that they had submitted an Income Tax Clearance Certificate for 2011; ii. iii. M/s Omega submitted an Income Tax Clearance Certificate to REA from URA, No. 0255410, dated 2 nd June 2010.(Annex 6)This Income Tax Clearance Certificate was not valid in accordance with requirement set in the bidding document; and There was no evidence that M/s Omega Construction Limited submitted an Income Tax Clearance Certificate for 2011. At the hearing, PPDA verified the following documents in the presence of all the parties: i. The original bid of Omega submitted by REA to PPDA; On review of this bid, it was noted that the bid had only one Income Tax Clearance Certificate addressed to REA, No. Page 11 of 16

0255410 dated 2 nd June 2010. There was no Income Tax Clearance Certificate for 2011, though M/s Omega officials insisted that the 2011 Income Tax Clearance Certificate had been submitted in the bid; and ii. The copy of the bid presented by officials from M/s Omega Construction Limited. On review of this copy, it was noted that the bid had two Income Tax Clearance Certificates. i.e. one dated 15 th June 2011 and the other dated 2 nd June 2010. The former was NO. 0279265. REA officials, however, insisted that the 2011 had not been included in the original bid submitted by M/s Omega Construction Limited. The Authority could not ascertain the claims by M/s Omega Construction Limited that they submitted two Income Tax Clearance Certificates since the original bid as submitted by the Entity had only one Income Tax Clearance Certificate dated 2 nd June 2010. Moreover, M/s Omega Construction Limited could not explain why they had submitted two Income Tax Clearance Certificate yet the entity had requested for only one, which was valid. With regard to M/s Omega Construction s claim that the Entity should have verified on the Income Tax Clearance Certificate submitted in their bid, the Authority wishes to draw the attention of the Complainant to PPDA Regulation 181(2) (a ) which states that for avoidance doubt clarifications are a process used during evaluation to clarify details that a bidder included in the original bid. Decision of the Authority on Ground One In light of the above findings, the Authority did not find merit in Ground one as raised by the complainant. M/s Omega Construction did not prove to the Authority that they had submitted a valid copy of the Bidder s Income Tax Clearance Certificate or equivalent in accordance with the requirements set in the bidding document; 4.2 Ground Two We confirm that we submitted a number of projects which conform to the requirements of the EMC as regards the nature and complexity of the works. It is a rule in the engineering field to which the project conforms, that complexity does not have anything to do with the size of the project and the same applies to the nature of works Findings of the Authority Under Section 3, page 2 of 7 of the Bidding Document, it was stated that the detailed evaluation criteria and specifically, the technical assessment of the responsiveness would consider the following criteria: Evidence of past specific jobs that have been successfully handled as the Prime Contractor in the field of Electricity Power Line Construction, over the last five (5) years. This shall be in form of at least three completion certificates (issued by Clients) for some of the works mentioned. The Page 12 of 16

volume of works completed should be of the nature and complexity equivalent to the works of this procurement. For on-going works to comply with this requirement, works cited should be at least seventy percent (70%) complete. Evidence of the 70% partial completion should be submitted. On review of M/s Omega Construction s Bid, the Authority noted that the bidder attached two completion certificates from M/s Caltex (Rwanda), UMEME completion certificate, letter dated 2 nd June 2011 from M/s Omega Construction Limited to the Project Manager, REA and Application statement for certificate No.3. The Accounting Officer, in his decision to M/s Omega, stated that: i. The payment certificates did not constitute partial completion certificates as required in the solicitation document; ii. iii. iv. M/s Omega Construction Limited was required to provide partial completion certificates clearly stating the percentage of completion for the projects; The Entity verified M/s Omega s claim that at the time of bidding, on going works awarded to them by REA, were at least 70% complete. The Entity found that M/s Omega had not achieved the 70% completion on the said projects. In this regard, the Accounting Officer dismissed M/s Omega Construction Ltd s complaint. On review of the documents submitted, the Authority noted that the entity had put up a BEB notice showing that M/s Omega Construction Ltd had failed because the firm didn t meet the requirements of the volume of works completed and the nature and complexity equivalent to the works of this procurement. However, the evaluation report indicated that the firm had failed at preliminary level, having failed to meet the requirements of Administrative Compliance. The Accounting Officer erred by indicating requirements related to technical evaluation on the best evaluated notice as reasons for disqualifying M/s Omega Construction yet the bidder had failed eligibility. The Accounting Officer s claim that this was done under Administrative Compliance cannot be accepted due to the following reasons: i. In M/s Omega Construction Limited qualification form, the bidder filled in the issues with regard to volume of construction work performed in each of the last five years; ii. With regard to the work performed as a prime contractor on works of a similar nature, volume over the last five years and the major items of equipment proposed for carrying out the works and the qualification and experience of key personnel the bidder indicated these had been attached. Annex 7; Page 13 of 16

iii. iv. The Evaluation Committee should have just noted the content of the qualification form and the attached certificates of completion. However, the Evaluation Committee went ahead and evaluated the completion certificates as evidenced by the best evaluated bidder s notice and the decision of the Accounting Officer; In accordance with PPDA Regulation 187, administrative compliance is determined by measuring whether a bidder has conformed satisfactorily to the basic requirements detailed in the solicitation document; v. Under PPDA Regulation 187(2), it is stated that the examination of administrative compliance shall always be conducted on a pass or fail basis and any bid which is not substantially compliant shall be rejected and not evaluated further. The Entity evaluated requirements of technical evaluation at preliminary evaluation (Administrative compliance) instead of just pass/ fail basis relating to whether information had been filled in the table or not. The above notwithstanding, the Authority wishes to respond as follows with regard to the completion certificates submitted by M/s Omega Construction Limited; i. UMEME completion certificate dated 11 th November 2005 in respect to completion of construction of a single phase high voltage power line at Kalisizo, Masaka; Annex 8 At the hearing, M/s Omega claimed that the defects liability period which was part of the contract expired in November 2006 and hence the certificate was within the last five years. The Authority does not agree with this since a completion certificate that was attached within the bid was of 2005. Therefore this completion certificate was issued outside the five year period requirement as stated in the solicitation document. ii. Two completion certificates dated 22 nd December 2007 and 5 th November 2007 from M/s Caltex s.a.r.i ( Rwanda) in respect to construction of HV power line to oil installation in Gatsata and Kabuye respectively; Annex 9 The Accounting Officer stated that the certificates, submitted by Ms. Omega, had no details with regard to nature and complexity of work. The amount of money paid for these works looks small compared to the requirements of the bidding documents, especially in relation to nature of work. The Authority agrees that the two certificates qualified since the minimum requirements in terms of the volume and complexity was not set in the solicitation document, iii. Letter dated 2 nd June 2011 from M/s Omega Construction Limited addressed to the project Manager, REA, in respect to construction of electricity power networks Lot 4 Hoima and Nakasongola districts and the application statement for certificate No. 3. Annex 10 Page 14 of 16

According to the Accounting Officer, the payment certificates did not constitute partial completion certificates as required in the solicitation document. The Accounting Officer in his decision stated that M/s Omega Construction Limited had not achieved 70% completion with regard to on-going works with REA. The Authority reviewed the bid submitted by M/s Omega and did not find evidence of partial completion of works under implementation with REA. In summary the Authority noted that M/s Omega did not show enough evidence of this requirement of the bidding document. In totality, the attached certificates did not meet the requirements of the volume of works completed and the nature and complexity equivalent to the works of this procurement as required. Decision of the Authority on Ground Two The Authority did not find merit in Ground Two since Omega s submission did not meet the requirements in the bidding document on evidence of past successful handled jobs as a prime contractor. Ground Three There was breach in the basic principles of the procurement process which relate to transparency, accountability and fairness, maximizing competition and achieving value for money, efficiency and evaluation on the basis of the criteria in the bidding document as specified under Sections 45, 46, 48 and 52 of the Act as manifested by the failure of the Findings of the Authority Under Part IV, the basic principles of public procurement are non-discrimination, transparency, accountability, fairness, competition, confidentiality, economy and efficiency. M/s Omega Construction was not clear on which of the above principles were breached by the Entity. On review of the documents submitted by the Entity, the Authority did not find evidence of breach of any of the above basic principles of public procurement. 5.0 DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY In accordance with Section 91 (4) of the PPDA Act the decision of the Authority is that the Application of Administrative Review by M/s Omega Construction Limited should be rejected due to the following reasons: i. M/s Omega Construction did not prove to the Authority that they had submitted a valid copy of the Bidder s Income Tax Clearance Certificate or equivalent in accordance with the requirements set in the bidding document; Page 15 of 16

ii. iii. M/s Omega s submission did not meet the requirements in the bidding document on evidence of past successful handled jobs as a prime contractor; and On review of the documents submitted by the Entity, the Authority did not find evidence of breach of any of the abovementioned basic principles of public procurement. The Entity should proceed with the procurement process. Page 16 of 16