MMPHI once again violates the law, “do not know” how to assess the 38 million tender for which it set illegal criteria

The MMPHI procurement, led by Nexhat Krasniqi, has violated the law for the second time in this tender. The first time, because in the tender file, it has set illegal criteria for the evaluation of bids. He's already violated the legal deadline, because he hasn't made the bid assessment yet. At least in the e-procury on MPHI tendersSo far, no document has been charged showing that the bidding assessment has been made, while the tender opening report has been charged since August 24th, where 68 bids have resulted from about 20 consortiums of companies.

The Public Procure Law has clearly determined when the bidding assessment for a tender expires. In fact, this is defined in secondary legislation at “Rules No. 0012022 for public procurement”. Article 40 of this regulation speaks of the Eczamination, assessment and comparison of the Tenders.

Point 40.3 says the “Procedure for testing, assessment and comparison of tenders, and the release of the announcement on the AK decision, will be carried out by the AK within the shortest possible time period and no more than 30 days from the opening of bids. Only in extraordinary and rational cases, in particular for contracts of a complex nature, can this period be extended for an additional 20-day term. The tender assessment process will begin immediately after the end of the tender opening process”.

So, as we mentioned earlier, the opening of offers has been made since February 24 or 70 days. It's going to be 73 days Monday. This contract based on its nature is not complex to require additional terms.

But what is the reason the ministry did not make the assessment even after 70 days?

The odds are that procurement isn't dare to recommend anyone for the contract, because the criteria he has set for evaluation are illegal.

Days ago, Periscopi has done an analysis to selective criteria set by the ministry to determine winners. From the findings, it has resulted that the Ministry's procurement has set the evaluation criteria for contracting that are contrary to the Public Procurement Law.

Unlike at other times, tender Economically more favourable The criteria rarely applied in Kosovo, defined as Thirty-eight million contracting criteria, in which the Infrastructure Ministry in candidate selection claims for a cost-fixing approach instead of just the price for reward of a contract.  

So, the ministry has decided to proceed with the most economically favourable tender (TEMF) and go directly with me. The Value of BidingBut the criteria that he set on Appreciation for Negotiating, are criteria that have to do with another selection process.

The difference between Selective criteria i n Giving Criteria It must be clear, since the two types of criteria are used in different stages of assessment, which serve various purposes.

Criteria should be measured with relative importance, with percentages where all constituent subcreators reach 100 %. So has the ministry.

So, as seen by The tender file, For the evaluation of contracting, 5 more tangible criteria have been set.

But three of them are contrary to the Law's provisions for public procurement and procurement regulations, since they are the criteria for greater appreciation.

The ministry has defined the reward criteria: 1. Price Which will be valued at 60 points, 2. Experiences of Similar Work - Ten points. 3 Experience of Proposed Main Staff4 points Equipment and Mechanization - Ten points and five. Dynamic Plan - Ten points.

And the subcreators that we're going to clear down.

Periscope found that Three out of five criteria for contract assessment, have to do with selection criteria and as such, did not have to decide for assessmentAfter the Ministry has set the record of contract giving.

What assessment criteria are contrary to the law?

Request: “ It was in accordance with the law.

Request “Company experience (references)”  Sets under Article 69 of the Public Procurement Law, it's a criterion of qualifications, and not criteria for contracting.

“ Even this is determined in the 69th article in the LPP and is the qualification criterion.

“ ) is determined in the 69th article at the LPP.

Request for %s “The Dynamic Plan”  It was okay.

Selective criteria They apply to determine which economic operators (the bidders or candidates) are qualified and potentially able to meet the contract. They answer the question: “Who can do the job?”

Giving Criteria They apply to determine which tender which meets specifications and requirements (from those qualified and potentially able to conduct the contract) offers the best solution.

Difference in the middleSelective criteria) and Reward Critters It's very important.

Selective criteria focus on “ferator” and input criteria focus on “ference”. A clear distinction between the two criteria should be maintained throughout the procurement process.

What does the law say? 

At Article 65, 71 of the Public Procurement Law, there are provisions of the law that link to the company's qualifications.

According to Article 25.5 of the procurement rule, Selective criteria In no way could they use contract - giving criteria, no specific weight, and no evaluation requirements.

Giving Criteria It's defined in Article 52 of this law and it links with quality, price, technical, aesthetic merits, and functional characteristics, environmental characteristics, current spending, cost efficiency, post-species services and technical assistance.

Minimum criteria for qualification (choice criteria) are not used as criteria in the contract-making process. So, as we explained earlier, the Ministry of Infrastructure has used Selective criteria for delivery criteria.

SQARATIONS: 

LPP-Deposits Article 51 of the LPP: Recognition Criteria Report

The contracting authority should highlight in announcing the contract and determine in the overall tender file all the selection criteria an interested economic operator must meet to consider as qualified: (i) in case of open procedures and price quota procedures for making a contract; or (ii) in case of limited procedures or competitive negotiations procedures, to accept an invitation to tender. All selection criteria should be limited to the necessary criteria to ensure that only economic operators possessing the necessary professional, financial and technical skills to meet the terms of the corresponding contract will be considered qualified to obtain such a contract or receive a tender invitation. In no case, the contracting authority should include, correct or use selection criteria based on considerations other than those allowed by provisions of the 65-70 articles of this law.

LPP's Article 52: Proliferation Criterations

Only the measurable and preset criteria in the tender file can be used for evaluation. The contracting authority can only use criteria that are directly relevant to contract materials. Such criteria are but are not limited to: quality, price, technical, aesthetic merits, and functional characteristics, environmental characteristics, current spending, cost efficiency, post-species services and technical assistance.

Procurement Adjusts: Article 25 Selective Criteria

 25.1 According to LPP Article 56, an OE will be considered qualified for participation in procurement activity if:

1. An OE proves appropriate according to LPP's 65th article by offering required evidence from contracting authority and
2. Such an OE, in the event the AK has set the minimum requirement for qualifications, meets such requirements and testifies to it by providing required evidence from the contracting authority in compliance with the articles 64 to 69 of the LPP.

25.2 Observation requirements should always be met by OE.

25.3 The minimum requirements of qualification can be determined by the AK when the AK finds it necessary to ensure that only OE, who possess certain professional, financial or technical skills, will participate in contract competition.

25.4 “Criterity adaptation” and “minimum qualifications” together are characterised as “rs of selection”. The Selection criteria are the requirements an OE must meet to consider qualified to give the public contract.

25.6 all minimum qualifications requirements will be direct relevant and proportional to the contract object in question.

25.5. Selective criteria:

1. could not be used as contract-giving criteria.
2. can't have certain weights;
3. Those are assessment requests, Kalon/Do not pass.

27,3 If the criteria are economically more favourable, the contract should be given to the tender, which best meets the relevant criteria. Besides the AK price may include other relevant contract subject criteria, such as:

1. Quality Characteristics
2. Operative costs, maintenance and other costs of length
3. Functional, technical, environmental, aesthetic or similar characteristics
4. Post-Sitage and Technical Assistance Service

27.10 minimum criteria for qualification (choice criteria) did not apply as criteria in the contract-making process. The tenders will be considered to have met the minimum requirements in terms of their capacity to perform the contract, which means that the criteria regarding the company's preliminary and historical experiences will not be seen as criteria in the contract-making process.

D KA UNPTURE EXPLAY? 

So, as the Ministry of Infrastructure has seen, Selective criteria and no Giving criteria of: “Experience for similar jobs”, “Experience of the proposed main staff”. In the DT the experience of the best valued bidder and leading professional staff after graduation for the highly esteemed bidder.

The question can be put forward here, even if this criterion is allowed to assess points, By what criterion would it be valued? Which one is best valued?

Also, in the criteria that will have 10 points “Pajises and mechanization”, which is opposed to the 69 LPP article, the DT checks Pass and mechanization of the most owned bidder. Even if this criterion was allowed to be valued, for what devices?

So criteria are defined contrary to the provisions of the Law and the regulation of procurement.

If the law is violated, it will enable the ministry to be very subjective.

If continued with this rating formula, there will be losses in the budget, because favourable companies will be rewarded because the assessment will be subjective and illegal.

Although companies have had many requests for clarification regarding the criteria set out in the tender file, none of them have complained about the contract-giving criteria. That's probably because companies don't have much knowledge about the criteria- the reward “The most economically favourable Tent”.

But in other complaints, which mainly concern the machine, the ministry has responded positively, making the required changes.

After the winner's proclamation, there is expected to be many complaints in the Procureing Organization O The EPS because only after the assessment/reward will companies understand the ministry's game.

Accounting Authority - MMPHI has also placed in the Criteria, which will also be weighed and eventually collected.

It's about the qualifications of the proposed main staff: Project manager -30 points, head of the workshop -25 points, hydrotechnics Engineer - 15 points, Geodesti -15 points, communications engineer - 10 points, electrotechnics Engineer, 5 points. All personnel have been asked: References to previous jobs in the required permit issued by employers specifying business wine and time period. In either of the points, the number of references, the value of reference, the time period has not been highlighted.

Who would take points in this case?

Already the ministry has accepted dozens of bids for the tender.

The problem is that the Public Procure Law does not allow any changes to the criteria (appreciating), conditions, or whatever the tender element will be after the bidding is opened. In this situation, the ministry must cancel this procurement procedure. The necessary corrections must be made, according to the legislation in force, and followed by the beginning of the newest. /Mentor Buzhala -Periskopi/