N$122m fence under fire

‘Emergency’ procurement questioned

*From 23 bids to emergency award * Cancellation came before end of review period

* Does fence justify emergency procurement? * Competitive tender ‘failed to achieve expected outcome’

• EXPERTS are questioning the Central Procurement Board of Namibia’s cancellation of a competitive tender to award a N$122-million fence project using emergency procurement.

Political analyst Ndumba Kamwanyah says the decision could expose the board to legal challenges and create the impression that the cancellation was intended to favour a particular bidder.

The project, which attracted 23 bids, involves erecting 185km of veterinary cordon fencing, 155km along the Orange River and 30km between Klein Menasse and Mata Mata, to protect Namibia’s livestock export market against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks from neighbouring South Africa.

This has resulted in China Jiangxi International (Namibia) JV Homefin Properties CC being announced as the successful bidder with a tender price of N$126 million.

However, the Central Procurement Board of Namibia (CPBN) later cancelled the procurement process, saying it had failed to create or achieve “the expected outcome”, before invoking emergency procurement provisions and awarding the project to Punchu Trading CC JV China State Construction Engineering Co. Southern Africa for N$122 million.

Kamwanyah says the CPBN needs to clearly explain why the competitive process was cancelled and why emergency procurement was considered necessary.

“It raises concerns over transparency and openness of the process, depending on what the grounds of cancellation were and what made them opt for an emergency procurement process,” he says.

“If you award the first bidder and cancel it and give it to the second bidder, you are opening the process for the first bidder approaching the court and seeking recourse or legal battle,” he says.

THE CANCELLATION

The notice of cancellation, which The Namibian has seen, shows that the CPBN issued a notice stating its intent to cancel the entire procurement process on 3 September, before the mandatory seven-day standstill review period could lapse.

CPBN chairperson Mary Shiimi in the document claims the competitive tender process did “not create or achieve the expected outcome”.

“The CPBN hereby notifies you that the above-captioned bid has been cancelled in terms of section 54(1) (g) of the Public Procurement Act, No.

15 of 2015. The board acknowledges and appreciates the time and effort invested by all participating bidders in the preparation and submission of their bids,” she says.

According to the notification letter of award dated 7 September, the CPBN invoked emergency procurement to award the N$122 million project directly to Punchu Trading.

The document shows that Punchu Trading had placed second in the initial open evaluation ranking.

Some bidders have told The Namibian they are considering legal action.

Independent Patriots for Change shadow minister Michael Mulunga says the cancellation of a fully evaluated open tender and its replacement, on the same day, with an emergency procurement process is deeply concerning.

“It sets a troubling precedent,” he says.

Mulunga says while Section 54(2)(g) of the Public Procurement Act allows for the cancellation of a procurement process if it is found not to have achieved the expected outcome, awarding the contract to the second-ranked bidder raises questions about the integrity of the original process.

“. . . and about the true motivation behind invoking the emergency procurement provision,” he says.

Landless People’s Movement spokesperson Lifalaza Simataa says the party is concerned about a growing trend of government institutions exploiting emergency procurement provisions.

“This allows unethical and questionable conduct to occur,” he says.

Simataa says the gap needs to be closed by clearly defining what constitutes an emergency and requiring institutions to explain why they had found themselves in a situation where emergency procurement was necessary.

He asks whether the circumstances around FMD justified the use of emergency procurement.
“As far as we are aware, there has been no outbreak.”

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Land Reform spokesperson Romeo Muyunda declined to comment on the issue.
“We can’t comment, it is beyond the ministry,” he says.

CPBN spokesperson Johanna Kambala did not respond to questions sent to her by the time of going to print.

The current N$122 million CPBN award follows an earlier attempt by the agriculture ministry to procure veterinary fencing through an emergency process.

The Namibian reported that agriculture minister Inge Zaamwani had questioned a N$179-million quotation from August 26 Construction for the proposed veterinary fence.

The quotation was obtained after the ministry invoked emergency procurement provisions, with August 26 being the only company approached to conduct a technical assessment and provide a cost estimate.

Zaamwani at that time said she had raised concerns about the cost and recommended that the ministry obtain two or three quotations for comparison.

The ministry subsequently halted the project because of budgetary constraints.

The fence would stretch for about 400km along the Namibia-South Africa border and prevent any potential virus from moving from the north or across borders into the central/southern commercial zones.

The post N$122m fence under fire appeared first on The Namibian.