JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, July 20, 2025

OPR tribunal suspends $15M contract for Valsayn bridge

by

296 days ago
20240927

Sascha Wil­son

Se­nior Re­porter

sascha.wil­son@guardian.co.tt

The award of a mul­ti-mil­lion dol­lar con­tract for the Min­istry of Works and Trans­port’s Val­sayn Av­enue Bridge project to Maraj Hill Gen­er­al Con­trac­tors Com­pa­ny Ltd has been sus­pend­ed by the tri­bunal of the Of­fice of Pro­cure­ment Reg­u­la­tions (OPR).

On Wednes­day, the OPR’s hear­ing pan­el, com­pris­ing Sparkle Sel­man, David Charlerie and Joy Joseph-Lara, up­held an ap­pli­ca­tion brought by Kall Co Ltd against the Na­tion­al In­sur­ance Prop­er­ty De­vel­op­ment Com­pa­ny Ltd (Nipdec) chal­leng­ing the pro­cure­ment process. Le­gal sources said this was the first sus­pen­sion of an award of a gov­ern­ment con­tract by the OPR since the new pro­cure­ment leg­is­la­tion took ef­fect ear­li­er this year.

On Sep­tem­ber 19, Kall Co, through its at­tor­neys, asked the OPR to re­view the award of a con­tract for the Val­sayn Av­enue Bridge re­con­struc­tion and as­so­ci­at­ed works un­der­tak­en by the Min­istry’s Project Man­age­ment Unit un­der the Pro­gramme for Up­grad­ing Roads Ef­fi­cien­cy (PURE).

Nipdec award­ed the con­tract to Maraj Hill ear­li­er this month, but Kall Co Ltd is not con­vinced that the prop­er pro­cure­ment pro­ce­dure was fol­lowed.

In June, Nipdec in­vit­ed ten­ders for the project and nine com­pa­nies sub­mit­ted bids but one did not sub­mit valid com­pli­ance cer­tifi­cates. On Sep­tem­ber 9 Nipdec in­di­cat­ed that Maraj Hill had been award­ed the con­tract for $15,118,140.88.

Doc­u­ments show that Kall Co’s bid was the sec­ond low­est at $13,213,752.75. Oth­er un­suc­cess­ful bid­ders in­clud­ed Ju­nior Sam­my Con­trac­tors and Lutch­meesingh Trans­port Con­trac­tors Ltd.

Nipdec in­di­cat­ed that Kall Co failed the tech­ni­cal ap­proach, method­ol­o­gy and pro­gramme of ex­e­cu­tion of works. It fur­ther stat­ed that the firm pro­vid­ed gener­ic in­for­ma­tion re­lat­ed to the key com­po­nents of the works.

“In­for­ma­tion re­gard­ing shoring, de­mo­li­tion of the ex­ist­ing bridge, con­struc­tion of the abut­ment base and oth­er area of the scope such as in­stal­la­tion of drainage lay­er be­hind abut­ment and re­tain­ing wall, struc­tur­al back­fill be­hind abut­ment and re­tain­ing wall, and ero­sion con­trol mea­sures was ei­ther vague or not men­tioned,” Nipdec stat­ed.

While the min­i­mum score for this cat­e­go­ry was 34 points, Nipdec said Kall Co scored 27.75, while Maraj Hill scored 90.5 points out of 100 in the tech­ni­cal/fi­nan­cial eval­u­a­tion.

In their com­plaint, Kall Co is con­tend­ing that the ten­der rules were not ob­served and Nipdec did not prop­er­ly, fair­ly, com­pe­tent­ly, and law­ful­ly as­sess its tech­ni­cal bid.

The firm fur­ther claims that Nipdec’s de­ci­sion to “fail” them was not prop­er­ly ex­plained and/or par­tic­u­larised and its as­sess­ment of the com­pa­ny’s tech­ni­cal ap­proach is sub­jec­tive, er­ro­neous, un­law­ful and not in keep­ing with the oblig­a­tions ex­pressed and/or im­plied un­der the ten­der oblig­a­tions.

Kall Co fur­ther claimed that Nipdec did not rea­son­ably seek clar­i­fi­ca­tion on the “pur­port­ed vague­ness or any­thing be­ing gener­ic” un­der Sec 33 of the Pub­lic Pro­cure­ment Reg­u­la­tions.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored