Companies suspiciously tender over half a million euros in Interior Affairs Ministry

Three economic operators that have offered in this tender have filed their complaints to the Public Procureing Organisation (OSHP), or the Tender Court, as it is otherwise known. Two of the operators claim they were eliminated from the race in opposition to the Tent File requirements and the Public Procureing Rules.

But their claim has rejected O The EPS, paving the way for the ministry to recommend for contracting the company that has offered the price of about 200,000 euros higher than the company with the freest offer.

After O's decision KPS, Interior Ministry recommended the company's contract Infosoft Systems, which had offered an estimated 572 thousand euros.

Three other companies had offered cheaper prices. The company that had offered the cheapest price was “Noovus”, which had offered 369 thousand euros, or 200 thousand euros cheaper.

Currently, the tender is not finalised overall, since no contracts have been signed.

On August 31, 2022, MPB has opened the capacity building tender in the infrastructure of the state data centre, worth 580 thousand euros. Although the tender has not yet been finalised, the contract has been awarded to the second company at the most expensive bidding price.

The tender was aimed at increasing space in the system of the State Data Centre, within the framework of Social Information Agency (ASHI).

This would enable various state agencies, ministries and other state bodies to place their services in a joint infrastructure that leads to facilitating integration and efficient data management.

A total of five (5) companies applied in this tender, as follows:

On September 9, 2022, The MPB had suspended this tender, since the company “Novus” had applied for review. “Novus”, among other things, had required that a specific set up for a certified device configuration expert, as well as to set the required specifics to two LOTs.

This request MPB rejected it on September 13th, 2022, and continued with the tender procedures. Then, “Novus” was addressed O The E.P. with the same claim, which the latter had refused based on the expert's decision.

On November 22, 2022, this tender was suspended again, due to complaints from companies Infoft and Virtwa.

Both complaints have been rejected, and yet MPB has continued with tenders, while companies have continued complaining at O. The E.P.

Suspicions for the tender

The company “Virto” has complained that it has been eliminated because it has not provided “Dell” equipment, as is the platform of this entity.

In response to the MPB's request for additional information to the company “Virtu”, it said that the requirement is to increase the existing capabilities fortorage and Backup, this does not mean that existing equipment should be expanded, but other products that are compatible with platform “VxBlock 1000”.

The VxBlock1000 platform is made up of “Dell”. A matching Authority at the moment when it drafts the technical specifics of a tender, does not dare to specify any particular insides, since it appears to fit specifics for a certain manufacturer or supplier.

In the concrete case, the Accounting Authority or MPB, in the tender file, did not mention that the equipment should necessarily be of the Dell manufacturer's existing infrastructure, but in the response offered to the company “Virtu” has said the device may also be of some manufacturer other than the one of “Del”, but in order to be compatible with the <x> platform. VxBlock 1000”.

The Tennder Court has Reject “>Virtu”-with the reasoning that with the equipment offered insides such as “Hitachi” and “Cohesity” and despite the possibility of communicating via check protocols, there are no compatible devices in existing infrastructure, because they are not in the list of certified devices working with <x> VxBlock 1000”

On list “Dell” Certificate tools working with “VxBlock 1000”, it's only equipment produced by itself “Dell”.

In this regard, O was asked The report is that since only this manufacturer's list of “Dell” has only the equipment of this manufacturer, does it suggest that there are specifics adaptations, as well as why only this manufacturer was asked where the interest in this case is, and why other producers that the company has offered are not officially questioned about whether their compatible equipment is with the platform.

In response, O The appears have “turned the ball” to experts specified in handling the complaint, saying he trusts them as professionals and independents.

O The EP has “prefigured” that in connection with this tender, it will act with professional law integrity.

“O The EP considers that in the concrete case we are dealing with technical specifications for which they have given their professional opinion to two experts with whom the O panel is hired The E.P. But O panel reviewer The EPS will operate on professional integrity and conform to pre-determinacies” reported in their response.

What say experts engaged by O HOP?

Experts Assigned by O The times to address the complaints of the two companies have been Ilir Halili and Ernest Krkeli.

Experts report acknowledges that equipment provided by “Virtu” has access to platform “VxBlock 1000”, but according to them, they're not compatible because they're not on the factory list “Dell”.

“The anxiety of “Virtu” is not based because the equipment offered as “Hitaki” and “Cohesity”, even though it is not compatible equipment with existing infrastructure, because it is not in the list of certified devices working with <x> VxBlock 1000”” says the findings made by experts in the report submitted to the OSHP Board.

O The EP has not answered the question of why the producers are not asked, as well as whether they have access to the specifics, considering that experts are based on the list of producer “Del<x>, which is a pair of interest.

With the case of deployment in this case, the panel has considered that the thought given in the expertise report is acceptable and, as a result, the expert's opinion is considered independent opinion of the O panel reviewing HOP” says in response to O The E.P.

On February 23rd, 2023 company “Infosoft” at the bidding price of 572 thousand and 137 euros has been recommended for the contract, while on March 2023, this company has been awarded contracts. The signing of the contract was envisioned on March 24th, but until the publication of this article on the procurement platform, no signing notice was published.

Company “Infoft” is second in the highest bidding price.

The company “Novus” has been eliminated with the reasoning that it is irresponsible and “Virtu” has been eliminated because the offer has been named technically unacceptable due to the equipment offered. “Botek” bid has been named technically unacceptable, while “Asseco” has been eliminated because it has not been the bidder at the lowest price. /Cashho. com

Declaration Denial:

This article is published within the project “good governance: advanced public procurement and political procurement”, implemented by EU-funded Democracy Plus (D+). The contents of this scripture are the sole responsibility of the author and in no way can I present the views of the D+ or the European Union.