The following are a series of questions - and subsequent requests for clarification - that Politicsweb put to CIPRO's spokesperson on Wednesday and Thursday. Our questions are in normal font. CIPRO's replies are in bold:
1.) On what basis was Valor IT chosen as the preferred bidder on the ECM tender over Faritec? Did it score better than Faritec? Or was Faritec disqualified? If the latter, was the decision made at the beginning or end of the process? And what were the reasons for the disqualification? Who were the individuals who made the decision, and on what date was it made?
The awarding of the tender was based on the scoring which was done in accordance with the approved supply chain management process. Of the companies that complied with the tender specifications ValorIT scored the highest. Faritec, for example, did not win the bid because their tenders were incomplete in terms of vital financial information pertaining to ECM implementation. The tenders were evaluated according to the tender specifications, recommendations were submitted to the bid adjudication committee and was finally approved by the Director-General.
2.) It has been claimed that CIPRO paid Valor IT around R60m for software in March 2009. This apparently included one year maintenance fees, beginning in February/March 2009. Is this information correct? If so, will CIPRO have to pay money to renew these maintenance fees now? If so, have these payments been made? And how much are they/will they be?
The tender document specified that the software package offered by the supplier included a one year maintenance plan. Continuous maintenance support will be done through the normal supply chain management process.
3.) Does CIPRO regard spending on maintenance fees on software maintenance licenses, from which it has yet to derive any benefit, as wasteful expenditure?
The maintenance referred to was part of the software cost and is not regarded as wasteful expenditure. The maintenance was also necessary for supporting the software during the development phase.
4.) Has Valor IT delivered on the project as per the agreement with CIPRO? If so when is the ECM expected to be up and running? If not, what is the expected delay? And what are the reasons for the delay?
The ECM is being developed in phases with a final completion date as per the contract of 31 January 2011. Any challenges during the project are being catered for in the Project Management Office.
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS A:
Josias Molele of Valor IT told me that the reason why Faritec were disqualified was because they listed an exchange rate of R7 to the dollar, instead of R8 to the dollar as specified in the request for bid documentation.
1.) Is this what CIPRO is referring to when they state that Faritec "did not win the bid because their tenders were incomplete in terms of vital financial information pertaining to ECM implementation"? Or were their additional problems as well?
Unfortunately I cannot comment on the information supplied by Josias Molele of ValorIT as he was not part of the evaluation and adjudication of the tender. As stated yesterday, Faritec did not win the bid because their tenders were incomplete in terms of vital financial information pertaining to ECM implementation.
2.) If this was the/a reason for disqualifying the Faritec tender - why was it regarded as a sufficient basis for doing so? And were any efforts made to contact Faritec to clarify why they cited a R7 instead of a R8 figure in their tender documentation?
The unsuccessful tenders were informed in writing and were given the opportunity of raising their objections.
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS B:
I will be writing that Faritec were disqualified because they said "R7" not "R8" in their tender - as this is the information I have from a number of sources. If CIPRO believes this not to be true - or only partially true - this is really your opportunity to dispute/clarify/explain this point.
We cannot agree with your comment as Faritec was not disqualified based only on the exchange rate, there were other factors as well that affected their bid document. Please refer to our previous media statements regarding the ECM tender for further information. As you are aware, the Minister of the Department of Trade and Industry has launched an investigation into the ECM tender and CIPRO cannot comment until the investigation report was released.
An IT Web report from May 2009 makes reference to a CIPRO statement (see below*). However, I can't find it on the site. Would it be possible to send it through? I have Faritec's costing schedule in front of me. Could CIPRO point me to where "software pricing for several solutions" were not provided. And where the "software licensing model" was not indicated? Again, why were these considered sufficient grounds for disqualification? Faritec offered a fixed price in rands, as per the requirements of the RFQ.
[*"Twum-Darko says that Faritec's bid was disqualified after the company was asked to make a submission with the correct requirements - which they failed to do. Cipro says in a statement that Faritec used a R7 per US dollar exchange rate instead of Cipro's stipulated R8 per US dollar. Software pricing for several solutions was also not provided, while the software licensing model was not indicated in Faritec's pricing table."]
[No further reply from CIPRO]
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS C:
CIPRO's request for quotation document on the ECM tender states: 1.19.1 that "CIPRO reserves the right to disqualify any bidder...however the bidder will be notified in writing of such disqualification." Was Faritec notified of its disqualification in terms of the RFQ? If so, on what date was the letter sent. Would it be possible to provide a copy of the letter.
All bidders were notified in writing the outcome of the tender, however it is not possible to provide you with a copy of the letter.
Just a point of clarification: I do know that Keith Sendwe wrote to Faritec on January 27 2009 notifying them that their bid had been unsuccessful. However, this letter does not mention that they had been disqualified - or explaining on what grounds. Is there another letter. Or is this it?
All bidders are informed of the outcome of the tender in writing. They then can request reasons for not being successful. Faritec did not take up the opportunity.
ENDS
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
