এশিয়ান ডেভেলপমেন্ট ব্যাংক (ADB: ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK) তার সদস্য দেশগুলিতে উন্নয়ন প্রকল্পের জন্য ঋণ এবং ইক্যুইটি বিনিয়োগ প্রদান করে। ব্যাংকটি প্রকল্প এবং কর্মসূচির জন্য প্রযুক্তিগত সহায়তা প্রদান করে।
ADB সম্পর্কে আরও জানতে দেখুনঃ বাংলাদেশে এডিবির অর্থায়নের পোর্টফলিও
এডিবি’র নতুন ক্রয় কাঠামোতে তার ঋণগ্রহীতাদের জন্য ক্রয় নীতি এবং ক্রয় বিধিমালা (Procurement Policy and Procurement Regulations) প্রণয়ন করেছে। তার আলোকে বিভিন্ন ক্রয় প্রক্রিয়া পরিচালিত হয়ে থাকে।
ADB’র ক্রয় কার্যক্রম পরিচালনায় বিভিন্ন কেস স্টাডি (Case Study) আছে। তার কিছু এখানে আলোচনা করা হলো।
এডিবি’র ক্রয় প্রক্রিয়ার ক্ষেত্রে দরপত্রে আর্থিক মূল্যায়ন (Bid Evaluation – Financial) সংক্রান্ত কেস স্টাডি দেখতে লগইন করুন।
Bid Evaluation – Financial
Case Study 54: Price Bid in Pencil
During the price bid opening of a single, technically responsive bidder, the bidder’s representative was asked to sign the original price bid to make it responsive. The prices in the bid were written in pencil. The executing agency recommended awarding the work to this single bidder, stating the above case as a minor deviation.
Is this a minor deviation?
Suggested Approach
It was noted that these are major deviations from the bid stipulations as ITB Clause 20.2 mentions: “The original and all copies of the bid shall be typed or written in indelible ink and shall be signed by a person duly authorized to sign on behalf of the bidder….” The executing agency was advised to reject the bid of the single bidder and re-bid the package.
Case Study 55: Bill of Quantity Items Left Blank in Price Bids
After opening the price bids of technically qualified bidders, the executing agency noticed that one of the bidders, “ABC Constructions,” did not quote the price of two items out of a total of 36 bill of quantity (BOQ) items. However, “ABC’s” total bid price was the lowest among all the bidders.
What would be the appropriate action by the executing agency?
Suggested Approach
ITB Section 1 mentions that if any bidder does not quote the rate of any BOQ item, leaving it blank, then it will be considered that the bidder has included the cost of left out items in the other BOQ items. For evaluation and ranking purposes, the executing agency can consider loading “ABC’s” bid price with an amount equivalent to the highest quoted price of those two items by any other bidder. After the evaluation, if “ABC” still happens to be the LESR bidder, he will be awarded the contract, but the above two items will have to be provided free of cost.
Case Study 56: Non-quotation of Individual Items
After opening the price bids of technically qualified bidders, the executing agency noticed that one of them, “XYZ Construction,” did not quote the price of any individual BOQ item but mentioned the total bid price. However, “XYZ’s” total bid price was the lowest among all the bidders.
What would be the appropriate action by the executing agency?
Suggested Approach
Since “XYZ Construction” quoted the bid price on a lump sum basis instead of a unit rate basis, it will be treated as a major deviation as per bid conditions. During execution also, the executing agency will not have any basis for payment for running an account bill submitted by the contractor.
Case Study 57: Incomplete Quotation
The executing agency invited bids for a goods procurement in April 2022. One bid was received by the date of submission of the bids. During technical evaluation, the executing agency noted that the bidder had indicated “not quoted” for certain items.
Suggested Approach
As per ITB 14.8 of the bid document: “Unless otherwise indicated in the BDS, prices quoted shall correspond to 100% of the items specified for each lot and to 100% of the quantities specified for each item of a lot.” As the bidder clearly indicated “not quoted,” clarifications were not required, and the bid was non-compliant to the bid document.
Case Study 58: Taxes and Duties in Bid Evaluation
The executing agency invited bids for a plant, using SBD in accordance with ADB’s 1S2E procedure. All the bidders offered plant and mandatory spare parts from within the employer’s country. The price bid evaluation was done by the executing agency, including the sales tax and other taxes, as indicated, by the bidders. However, the EQC required the evaluation of bids excluding taxes and duties. Upon a complaint by one bidder, the bid evaluation was revised, excluding taxes. The LESR bidder’s ranking changed due to the exclusion of taxes and duties.
The executing agency revised the bid evaluation considering the advice and, as per the EQC of “as-issued” BD. It also sought clearance from its bid evaluation committee on the revised PBER.
Suggested Approach
The bidding forms for the financial proposal are:
(i) Schedule No. 1: Plant and mandatory spare parts supplied from abroad.
(ii) Schedule No. 2: Plant and mandatory spare parts supplied from within the employer’s country.
(iii) Schedule No. 3: Design services.
(iv) Schedule No. 4: Installation and other services.
The employer’s evaluation of a bid will exclude and not take into account taxes and duties indicated at Schedule 1 and 2.
Case Study 59: Change in Bill of Quantity Rates by the Bidder During Clarifications
The executing agency opened the price bids after ADB’s “no objection” to the technical bid evaluation. During financial evaluation, the executing agency found that the bid of the lowest quoted bidder was 19.51% above the engineer’s estimate and there were high unit rates (+75%) in as many as 21 items of works in the bid of the lowest quoted bidder. The bidder was asked to submit an analysis of rates for these items in order to justify the high rates. To clarify, the bidder submitted the rate analysis, which didn’t justify the quoted rates. The executing agency then requested the bidder to revise the bid, considering the rates derived from the analysis. Accordingly, the executing agency evaluated and accepted the revised BOQ price received from the LESR bidder and recommended awarding the contract to the LESR bidder at the revised corrected price, which was 9.75% above the engineer’s estimate.
Was the action of the executing agency appropriate?
Suggested Approach
Please note that no change in substance or the price of the BOQ items is acceptable after bid opening. The executing agency can only request a rate analysis and justification for abnormally high price items. If the executing agency is not satisfied and considers the bid price of the bidder for those items unreasonable/unbalanced/front-loaded, it should seek additional performance security from the LESR bidder to cover its risk during implementation.
Case Study 60: Negotiation with Lowest Evaluated Substantially Responsive Bidder
The LESR bidder’s evaluated bid price was only 2.5% higher than the cost estimate of the executing agency, based on current market rates 4 months ago. After price bid evaluation, the executing agency recommended price negotiations and sought ADB’s approval as per the ADB’s procurement guideline. Is this case fit for negotiations?
Suggested Approach
Suggested Approach Negotiations could be allowed only if the bid price substantially exceeds the cost estimates, which is not the case here. The executing agency was advised to award the contract, as rebidding may unnecessarily waste 5 to 6 months of implementation time. Also, the prices may further increase.
Case Study 61: Typo Error in Price Bid
For a water supply project, the executing agency invited bids for a $23 million ICB package and received a total of five bids. The executing agency submitted the TBER, recommending three bidders as technically responsive and the rest (two bidders) as non-responsive, due to a shortfall in similar work experience and financial resources. The TBER was cleared. After 2 weeks, the executing agency submitted the financial bid evaluation report where it rejected the LESR bidder’s financial bid due to a typo error in the unit of a BOQ item. This had an impact of even less than 1% of the total bid price. The award was recommended to the second lowest evaluated bidder, which was 19% above the executing agency’s estimate and about 10% more than the LESR bidder. The LESR bidder complained to the executing agency and sent a copy to ADB who then sought an explanation from the executing agency. This clarified that the above deviation in the LESR bidder was major and thus the bid was rejected.
Suggested Approach
The executing agency was advised to treat the inadvertent typo error in the unit of the BOQ item and make an arithmetic correction. The executing agency revised the financial bid evaluation report and recommended that the contract be awarded to the LESR bidder, which was also the lowest priced at the time of opening.
Case Study 62: Uniformity in Price Bid Evaluation
The executing agency invited bids for a sewage treatment plant. A provision for differential power cost was kept for the evaluation of the bid price at Section 3 and the price evaluation methods were as follows:
(i) Guaranteed power consumption cost. As the power consumption for O&M of the system varies from bidder to bidder, differential power consumption costs will be assessed and added to the bid price for evaluation. Factors used in calculating will be estimated at net total cost of the electricity required for the system for the 5-year O&M period (after design build period) with a tariff of C9 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), for evaluation purposes, for rated flows provided in TECH 1 of Section 4.
(ii) Power consumption for yard lighting. This shall not be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes.
(iii) Cost loading. This will be worked out, based on lowest power consumption among the bidders, at designed flow rates of the system provided by the bidder. The cost will be added to the evaluated bid price.
(iv) Information on guaranteed power consumption. Bidders shall provide this information, at various flow rates, in formats provided in TECH 1 of Section 4. (v) Operation and maintenance costs. This includes cost loading due to differential power consumption, on the basis of the lowest power consumption among the bidders, at designed flow rates of the system, provided by the bidder.
Formulas for calculation of differential power loading are:
(i) kWh consumption per annum = 365 X average kWh per day by 5 years (average of 1st and 5th year) quoted by the bidder under TECH 1.
(ii) Guaranteed power cost (C) per annum = A (kWh per annum) X 9.
(iii) Future value of total power cost for 5 years O&M = B X 5.
(iv) Cost loading for individual bidder = C (future value of power cost for the bidder)—lowest future value of power cost among all responsive bidders. This cost will be added to the evaluated bid price of the bidder.
This cost will be added to the evaluated bid price of the bidder.
The price bid of bidder 2: “YYYY” will be loaded by C31,207.5. Is this approach correct for selecting the most appropriate LESR bidder?
Suggested Approach
The EA’s approach is correct in evaluating price bids of all the bidders, based on a uniform criterion set out in the bidding documents.
Case Study 63: Abnormally Low-priced Bid
The executing agency invited bids for a goods procurement in January– February 2022. Three bids were received. After the technical bid evaluation, the price bid evaluation was conducted and the lowest evaluated bid was identified. It was noted that the lowest evaluated bid price was 44.1% lower than the engineer’s estimate.
Is this an abnormally low-priced bid (ALB)? What do you think the executing agency’s approach should have been in such circumstances?
Suggested Approach
An ALB is one where the bid price appears so unreasonably low that it raises concerns with the employer in respect of the bidder’s ability to perform the contract successfully. An ALB arises as a problem when the lowest evaluated responsive bidder appears to offer a price that is abnormally low, compared not only to the employer’s estimate but also to the prevailing market conditions. An ALB is not in and of itself negative, but it requires additional investigation, as it could be a sign of risks such as (i) a lack of technical or commercial competence, (ii) an intent to not follow design standards or specifications, and/or (iii) an intent to not comply with environmental or labor laws.
Identifying an ALB may not always be easy and there is no accepted predetermined formula for doing so. To determine that a bid price is abnormally low, several approaches can be considered and, if possible, they should be combined to minimize the scope for subjectivity by: (i) comparing the bid price with the engineer’s cost estimate; (ii) comparing the bid price with the bids offered by other bidders submitting substantially responsive bids; (iii) comparing the bid price with prices paid in similar government- or development partner-funded contracts in the recent past.
Once identified as a possibility of an ALB, the employer needs to investigate to determine whether the quoted price is justified or, alternatively, based on error or miscalculation or, worse, an attempt to undervalue the contract in a way that implies the possibility of a reduction in the overall quality of the end result. Based on the price elements that appear abnormally low, the employer may seek clarifications from the bidder. The clarification requested should focus on the rates of costs that have been determined to be abnormally low and should state the rationale or the benchmarks that were utilized for such analysis.
After examining the explanation given and the detailed price analysis presented by the bidder, the employer has three options:
(i) Accept the bid, if the evidence supplied does satisfactorily account for the low level of prices and costs, in which case the bid is not considered abnormally low;
(ii) Accept the bid but require that the amount of the performance security be increased at the expense of the bidder to a level sufficient to protect the employer against financial loss, in the event of default of the successful bidder under the contract. The amount of the performance security (including such an increase) shall generally not be more than 20% of the contract price;
(iii) Reject the bid, if the evidence supplied does not satisfactorily account for the low price or costs proposed.
Case Study 64: Change in Bid Price after Price Bid Evaluation
The executing agency invited bids in the power sector for the construction of a transmission line in December 2021. The contract was to be awarded on a turnkey basis to a joint venture. During the price bid evaluation, the executing agency noted that the LESR bid (2% above the engineer’s estimate) was reasonable. However, the installation component was 25% lower than the engineer’s estimate and the supply portion was 5% higher.
The executing agency proposed to modify the allotted price of different components to increase the installation component and decrease the supply component that was to be incorporated in the contract agreement. However, the overall price was to be kept the same as the per price proposal of the LESR bidder.
Do you think such a modification should be made within the price proposal of the bidder?
Suggested Approach
There is no clause in the bidding document which indicates that the price of items indicated by the bidder can be altered after submission of the bid. The executing agency was advised not to alter the price bid of the LESR bidder.
Case Study 65: Price Bid Evaluation— Comparison with Engineer’s Estimate
The executing agency invited bids for the supply of equipment to be set up for the ITIs. These were evaluated as per the provisions of the bidding document. The executing agency submitted the PBER to ADB with a recommendation to negotiate with the LESR bidder as the bid was 36.1% higher than the engineer’s estimate. While providing “no objection” for contract negotiations, ADB recommended that the engineer’s estimate be updated before going for price negotiations. Accordingly, the executing agency updated the engineer’s estimate and found the price bid to be 1.5% lower than the revised engineer’s estimate. The executing agency, therefore, revised its recommendation to ADB for awarding the contract to the LESR bidder.
Do you think the executing agency should have undergone a contract negotiation with the bidder or was it correct to request ADB for “no objection” with the updated engineer’s estimate?
Suggested Approach
The executing agency was correct in recommending the award of the contract. However, before requesting ADB for contract negotiation initially, it should have analyzed the price bid with an updated engineer’s estimate.
Source: © 2024 Asian Development Bank
