Every year, we get quite a few queries where foreign companies complain that somehow they feel they have been played unfairly by the local state departments in Pakistan, when bidding on local contracts.The major law in this area is covered by the PPRA Ordinance 2002 and Public Procurement Rules 2004 and their relevant provincial rules.Mis-procurement, if proven in court cannot only have the bidding cancelled for a round of re-bidding but also have a proper inquiry launched upon a government department.We always advise foreign companies to engage a lawyer from the point they decide to fill the tender documents, and not leave the process to local agents.This is because, local agents of employees of their local branch can make quite a few errors in identifying the subtleties that make up the rather complex tender points system and the implications of their actions can have a long standing impact on the long term profitability of the company as well as corporate survival in Pakistan.
We have also noticed that when opening branch offices in Pakistan, foreign companies neglect to thorough vet their staff and their qualifications as well as the evidential proof of their qualifications.However that is a separate issue and we do provide a service on background checks which can be of use to many companies if they wish to contact us in this regard.
A very key red flag which may point to mis-procurement would be a dubious ‘evaluation criteria’ being set out by a local public agency in its tender/procurement documents.Procuring agencies shall formulate an appropriate evaluation criterion listing all the relevant information against which a bid is to be evaluated. Such evaluation criteria shall form an integral part of the bidding documents. Failure to provide for an unambiguous evaluation criteria in the bidding documents shall amount to mis-procurement.
Section 2 of the PPRA Ordinance 2002 relates to definitions, for the purpose of understanding the issue, subject matter of instant petitions, relevant definitions are being provided herein below;
2(h) “mis-procurement” means public procurement in contravention of any provision of this Ordinance, any rules, regulations, orders or instructions made there under or any other law in respect of, or relating to, public procurement;
2(i) prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this ordinance;
(I) procuring agency” means:-
- i) any Ministry, Division, Department or any Office of the Federal Government;
- ii) any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government;
2 (j) “Public Fund” means the Federal Consolidated Fund and at the Public Account of the Federation and includes funds of enterprises which are owned or controlled by the Federal Government;
(k) “Public procurement” means acquisition of goods, services or construction of any works financed wholly or partly out of the Public Fund, unless excluded otherwise by the Federal Government;
(p) “Works” means any construction work consisting of erection, assembly, repair, renovation or demolition of a building or structure or part thereof, such as site preparation, excavation, installation or equipment or materials and decoration, finishing and includes incidental services such as drilling, mapping, satellite photography, seismic investigations and similar activities, if the value of those services does not exceed that of the works themselves
NB.Under Section 26 of the Ordinance ibid, the Federal Government, vested with power to make Rules and under Section 27 Authority is empowered to make Regulations.In exercise of power under Section 26, Federal Government made Rules titled as “The Public Procurement Rules, 2004”. These rules comprehensively deal with all situations of “Public Procurement”.
Application of Case Law :
Establishing that you are the aggrieved party.Please note that 60% of the cases are struck out on the stage of establishing ‘Locus Standi’.The other party will either challenge your right to sue as a foreign entity so it is best to keep your local tax and branch office certificates very much at hand.Or , the second basis of challenge will be your ability to be an ‘aggrieved’ person or entity to sue.In our research we have come across quite a few useful cases listed at the bottom of this article.
(1) In case of the federal territory and procurement laws in particular, have you made a proper complaint to the grievance committee? We have seen interesting results during litigation and in-house practice where the state procurement agencies have literally slept on the requirement to name their grievance committees online.This has also been discussed at the bottom of the article.
(2) Another red-flag is if the committee is hastily formed after the initiation of litigation.High court summons are known to give state officials a hint that they need to gather enough paperwork to prove legal compliance, whatever their intentions were during the procurement process.If the formation of the grievance committee continues to be shrouded in secrecy, which is something against the spirit of the PPRA Rules 2004 which pledge transparency to all bidders, then you can well look at whether the public functionaries have abused their position which led to the mis-procurement.
(3) What is the role of the public functionary, one may ask?
2012 C L C 1780 (this case is supported by the precedent in Reliance Consultancy v. Federation of Pakistan 2010 CLC 1046 and Arif Builders and Developers v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar. 627 rel
“Public functionaries/procuring agencies are obliged to procure services by means of open competitive, transparent and unambiguous binding. They are performing duty as a sacred trust, which require them to protect public interest and interest of Authority and not to extend undue favour”
(4) The logical Corollary of this principle is that such Actions of the Public Functionaries must be done responsibly and diligently and not from private emails. If it becomes evident to the Court that in all high handedness , the same queries were repeated by the a procuring state agent and its functionaries involved in the bidding evaluation process and private emails and communication is used for this purpose, then a clear indication of mis-procurement can be inferred. In one case we saw that while a foreign company who was bidding on a large Pakistani contract had their country manager keep a careful record of such requests and facilitated them in a timely manner, the procurement officials kept making frivolous and pointless requests for clarifications and it became quite clear during the proceedings that referred previous clients of the company were deliberately contacted through private emails or never contacted at all.
(5) In some cases,a hasty release of bidding results right after announcement of Technical Scores can be seen as another red-flag when the public functionaries involved in mis-procurement may be attempting to push a pre-favoured winner through.
(7) In a very memorable case, which led to a less than satisfactory response from the courts the client had gone through the effort of taking detailed documented pictures, fearing that the rival bidder would make things difficult for them later.Their worst fears were realised when at the at the time of the submission they signed the bid package but the rival bidder (extremely confident of winning due to his setting with the state officials) did not even bother to get a signature of receiving. This non-compliance , when it came to the attention of the court, the officials prepared an attendance sheet and the visil time difference visible on the bidding boxes and attendance sheets gave away the rather deliberately done haphazard handling of the bids against the PPRA rules.
Fettering of discretion by public functionaries
(8) Fettering of discretion occurs when a decision-maker does not genuinely exercise independent judgment in a matter. This can occur, for example, if the decision-maker binds itself to a particular policy or another person’s opinion. If a decision-maker fetters its discretion by policy, contract, or plebiscite, this can also amount to an abuse of discretion because it can also be the guise of an inherent bias against the weaker party.
Pakistani Precedent on Mis-procurement
A key case which outlines the essence of Mis-procurement is GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LTD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2016 PLD 420 (KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH) which concerned rules 4, 31, 32 & 56—National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) and Ss.9 & 10 (mis-procurement) —Mechanism for redressal of grievances—Petitioner, a pharmaceutical company, whose technical bid had been rejected by the procuring agency sought direction to National Accountability Bureau for initiating inquiry/investigation against the authorities and direction to the Province to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them for misprocurement of the medicines against the rights of the petitioner—Rule 31 of Part-II of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010 provided mechanism for redressal of grievances of bidders that might surface during the procurement proceedings—Rule 32 of the Rules provided appeal to the Review Committee in case a bidder was not satisfied with the decision of the Complaints Redressal Committee—Powers of the Review Committee in terms of R.32 (7) of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, in relation to the actions of the procuring agency were highlighted—Chairman of National Accountability Bureau or officer duly authorized by him, having received a complaint, might refer the matter for inquiry or investigation—Petitioner had not approached National Accountability Bureau and/or Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority—Petitioner had also filed civil suit wherein it had specifically sought declaration in regard to rejection of its bid for its product and award of the tender for procurement of the drug in question to the respondents—Any finding or direction, at present stage and in the given circumstances of the case in the collateral proceedings, would be prejudicial to the rights of contesting parties and would also amount to circumventing the civil suit—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Other cases (summaries and excrepts taken from www.Pakistanlawsite.com)
(1) 2012 YLR 1426 Hafiz MUHAMMAD ALEEM vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)
Ss. 2(n) & 5—Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, Rr.50 & 51—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Public procurement—Catering services—Petitioner assailed tender for catering services finalized by Lahore Development Authority—Validity—Tender was advertised bypassing the Rules resulting in misprocurement as provided under R.50 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009—No reason was furnished by the Authority for not complying with provisions of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, for inviting bids under tender for catering services—Lahore Development Authority stated that it did not fall within the purview of Punjab Procurement Regularity Authority Act, 2009 or Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, but admitted that bids were processed under Punjab Procurement Regularity Authority Act, 2009—Parawise comments of Lahore Development Authority were contrary to position taken by the Authority and the same were in violation of facts on record—Tender in question and subsequent proceedings thereunder were violative of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, and resulted in misprocurement thus same were set aside—High Court cancelled contract awarded to respondent as the same lacked transparency—High Court directed Punjab Procurement Regu-latory Authority to actively perform its functions under S.5 of Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009, across the Province—Petition was allowed in circumstances.
(2) 2016 CLC 125 Ch. ATA-UR-REHMAN QADRI vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2(h)—Public Procurement Rules, 2004, Rr.42 & 50—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—mis-procurement —Alternative methods of procurements—Applicability—Dispute was with regard to awarding of contract by Capital Development Authority to respondent to ply shuttle coaches for Diplomatic Enclave in Islamabad—Plea raised by petitioner was that contract was awarded in violation of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002—Validity—Assigning of work subject matter of the petition did not fall in any exceptions provided in R.42 of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004, therefore, it was “mis-procurement ” as defined in S.2(h) of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, and R.50 of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004—Entire process was engineered, manipulated and person specific for the respondent—No record of award of contract / license to respondent from years, 2002 to 2008, was available with Capital Development Authority—Respondent failed to advance any reason of assumption of municipal administration work/functions by planning directorate of Capital Development Authority—High Court set aside the contract in question as assigning of contract/work to respondent was illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004, dictums laid down by Supreme Court, offensive to the universally accepted principles of fairness, honesty, transparency, openness and was result of colourable exercise of authority, irrelevant considerations, a naked corruption, polluted mannerism, offensive to public exchequer and an infringement to constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and a glaring example of discrimination, favoritism, nepotism, ulterior motives and stinking approach to advance personal agenda—High Court directed Chairman Capital Development Authority to immediately take possession of the site, initiate disciplinary proceedings against all officials of Capital Development Authority who contributed in award of contract/work to respondent from year, 2002 and onwards—High Court further directed Chairman Capital Development Authority to also ensure whether respondent had performed his part under the agreement in question or not and if answer was in negative then appropriate legal proceedings be initiated for recovery of amount due including overcharged amount—High Court also directed Capital Development Authority to commence fresh process by adhering to the provisions of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004—Petition was allowed in circumstances
N. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2013 PLD 85 ISLAMABAD 2(h)—Public Procurement Rules, 2004. Rr. 50 & 47—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Development projects in the constituency of the Ex-Prime Minister, approved under his directives while he was in office—mis-procurement —Lack of transparency—Award of projects in violation of procurement laws and rules—Non-disclosure of documents relating to evaluation of bid and award of contract—Effect—Loss of billions caused to public exchequer—Construction company (petitioner) along with other parties participated in the prequalification process for the development projects in question—During post qualification process of inviting bids for award of contract, the Prime Minister, all of a sudden issued a directive by which projects were assigned to National Logistic Cell (NLC), which was a government organization—Plea of construction company that discretion exercised by the Prime Minister was in violation of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, besides the fact that a non-transparent mechanism had been adopted—Validity—Development projects in question were for the constituency from where Ex-Prime Minister was elected as Member of National Assembly, and he was also a candidate in the forthcoming election from the same constituency—Process of pre-qualification started with publication of notice in newspapers, which did not fall in the category of leading newspapers, circulation wise—National Logistic Cell (NLC), which was a government organization, failed to pre-qualify for the projects—Both projects were assigned to National Logistic Cell (NLC), on the direction of the then Prime Minister on the basis that it was a government organization with further direction of transfer of funds, although no provision of law existed in such regard in the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Public Procurement Rules, 2004—After issuance of directive by then Prime Minister cost of projects increased by Rs.3.6 billion but scope of work remained the same—Total payment of initial cost of projects was made in violation of High Court’s order, by which operation of Prime Minister’s directive was suspended—No reason was advanced as to why pre-qualified companies were ousted from the process and why bidding could not take place—Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between concerned Secretary and National Logistic Cell (NLC), was never made public—Officials of Public Works Department (PWD),who were public servants, acted in aid of illegal acts, rather became privy to conspiracy, through which loss of billions of rupees had been caused to public exchequer—Said officials at every stage abetted, facilitated, and surrendered assets without any repose, which could be termed as corruption, corrupt practices, criminal breach of trust, fraud, forgery and bribe—Government officials not only obeyed illegal orders (of their seniors) but even violated and disobeyed the orders of the High Court—Assigning of work of development projects in question was mis-procurement as defined in S.2(h) of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and Rule 50 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004—Documents relating to the evaluation of assigning of work had not been made public, which was violation of Rule 47 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004—Increase in cost of projects was left at the discretion of National Logistic Cell (NLC) in the most clandestine manner—Increase of almost Rs. 4 billion in cost of projects had not been disclosed which led to the presumption that for irrelevant consideration and with dishonest intent, a deal had been made between National Logistic Cell (NLC) and persons at helm of affairs, on the dictates of the then Chief Executive of the government—Assigning of work to National Logistic Cell (NLC) was illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Public Procurement Rules, 2004—Directive issued on behalf of Prime Minister, Memorandum of Understanding between concerned Secretary and National Logistic Cell (NLC) and all subsequent orders passed were declared to be void and set aside—Assigning of work to National Logistic Cell (NLC) NLC was cancelled with the direction that it shall return all amount received for execution of projects within one week of the receipt of present order—High Court further directed that concerned procuring agency might initiate the procurement procedure afresh strictly in accordance with Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 and by following the dictums laid down on the point of public procurement by the Supreme Court; that Chairman of National Accountability Bureau should initiate proceedings against all those persons involved in the present scam, including the Ex-Prime Minister, concerned Secretaries and all officials of concerned Department who abetted, aided and executed the illegal orders issued on behalf of the Ex-Prime Minister and also against involved officials of National Logistic Cell; that District Returning Officer of Ex-Prime Minister’s constituency should appreciate as to whether in the light of the observations made in the present judgment, Ex-Prime Minister, could be believed as sagacious, righteous, honest, upright, trustworthy and ameen—Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
2012 CLD 1128 : Hafiz MUHAMMAD ALEEM vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General, LDA LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORnSs. 2(n) & 5—Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, Rr. 50 & 51—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Public procurement—Catering services—Petitioner assailed tender for catering services finalized by Lahore Development Authority—Validity—Tender was advertised by-passing the Rules resulting in mis-procurement as provided under R.50 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009—No reason was furnished by the Authority for not complying with provisions of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, for inviting bids under tender for catering services—Lahore Development Authority stated that it did not fall within the purview of Punjab Procurement Regularity Authority Act, 2009 or Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, but admitted that bides were processed under Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009—Parawise comments of Lahore Development Authority were contrary to position taken by the Authority and the same were in violation of facts on record—Tender in question and subsequent proceedings thereunder were in violation of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, and resulted in mis-procurement thus same were set aside—High Court cancelled contract awarded to respondent as the same lacked transparency—High Court directed Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority to actively perform its functions under S.5 of Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009, across the Province—Petition was allowed in circumstances.
Pakistani Precedent on Aggrieved Party (summaries of cases are courtesy www.pakistanlawsite.com)
Definition of Aggrieved Party as per case law
2014 YLR 825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SAEED ISMAIL BURERO vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Education, Government of Sindh
Rr.13 & 31—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Locus standi—aggrieved person—Alternate and efficacious remedy—Invitation of Tender—Petitioners assailed tender notices for procurement of supplies and sought restraining the award of contract for supply of articles—Validity—Petitioners neither obtained tender documents nor participated in bid process, therefore, they did not have locus standi to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Tender was merely an invitation for making an offer and did not by itself vest any right in a person until and unless the same was accepted—Petitioners were not aggrieved party as envisaged under Art.199(1)(a) of the Constitution, thus could not competently make a resort to High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction—Petitioners had suitable/ efficacious alternate remedy by way of presentation, appeal and review before review panel—No exceptional circumstances existed which could justify/warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution—Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2014 MLD 221 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ATTA MUHAMMAD CHANIHO vs PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Chief Secretary
R.17—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Notice inviting tenders for development works and services issued by Municipal Administrator—Petitioner alleged such tenders to be in violation of Public procurement Laws and the Constitution—Validity—Record showed that impugned tenders had been advertised in six (6) newspapers in English, Urdu and Sindhi languages having wide circulation in locality—Election Commission of Pakistan had imposed ban on diversion of funds already allocated to various development projects—Record showed that authority had not diverted any funds nor diversion of funds was required for proposed schemes of impugned tenders—Sindh Peoples Development Committee had already accorded approval for proposed schemes—Funds required for proposed schemes of impugned tenders were available with Municipal Administration—Municipal Administration had complied with codal formalities before issuing impugned tenders—Any development civil work in a Tehsil or District could not be stopped at whims or desire of an individual in absence of any illegality or malice on part of Authority—Inviting tenders for construction of roads and services in a Taluka would be domain of concerned Municipal Administration—Petitioner was previous Nazim of Union Council concerned, which was not constituency of ruling party—Petitioner was not an aggrieved person and he had approached High Court with unclean hands—Petitioner had not filed any affidavit or re-joinder in rebuttal of record produced by authority—High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.
2009 CLD 937 ECHO WEST INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary SUPREME-COURT
Art. 199—Public procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002), Preamble—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—“aggrieved person”—Scope—“Public interest litigation”—“Personal interest litigation”—Distinction—Petitioner, a bidder of mega projects, realizing that it was unlikely to succeed in view of its participation in the bidding process to obtain relief for itself regarding the said projects, insisted that the matter be examined as one of public importance to undo the result of failure of public functionaries to perform their duties; it was thus, urged by the petitioner that the entire process be repeated and transparency ensured—Petitioner further attempted to make the case as that of “public interest litigation”—Petitioner had also contended that Public procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was applicable to the facts of the present case—Held, litigation of such nature did not fall specifically under any provision of Art.199 of the Constitution—Such concept, however, had received judicial recognition enabling the courts to enlarge the scope the meaning of “aggrieved person” under Art.199 of the Constitution to include a public spirited person who brings to the notice of the court a matter of public importance-Petitioner, in the present case, had a personal interest as he was motivated purely by his own economic interest and wanted the entire bidding process reversed so that he could avail another opportunity of bidding for the projects—Present litigation was, therefore, not in public interest but was rather in personal interest and petitioner had locus standi, having personal interest in the litigation but at the same time had no cause of complaint—Present case being not. of public interest litigation and petitioner having not been treated unfairly or discriminately, Supreme Court declined to comment upon the arguments by both the sides, on the application or otherwise, of the provisions of the Public procurement Regulatory Authority, Ordinance, 2002 to the present case.
2016 PLD 114 The test is that the person must be directly aggrieved : High Court observed that a person or entity had right to maintain constitutional petition when enjoyment or existence of his right was being violated, as that person , claiming some statutory rights (arising under PPRA 2004 as a bidder), fell under the definition of a ‘aggrieved person ‘, and hence, constitutional petition was maintainable in that behalf—
2016 CLC 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
M.K. INTERNATIONAL, Local Agent of Messrs Interman Trading FZE vs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY through M.D.
- 3—Public procurement Rules, 2004, R.18—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope—Factual controversy—Public procurement —Black listing of a contractor—Question raised in the present constitutional petition was with regard to the dispute which would require factual enquiry—Procuring agency had authority to disqualify a supplier or a contractor if it had found at any time that the information submitted concerning his qualification as a supplier or a contractor was false and materially inaccurate and incomplete-–Factual controversy could only be determined on the basis of evidence of the parties—High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction could not look and enter into such factual dispute—Petitioner was provided opportunity by the respondent before passing of the impugned order of black listing—Petitioner could not produce any proper authorization letter with regard to the tender in question—Public procurement Rules, 2004 had provided a complete mechanism/remedy to an aggrieved person for redressal of grievance—Remedy provided in law could not be allowed to be abandoned or by-passed on mere whims and desire of an aggrieved party—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was not to be invoked in petty matters to burden Courts with disputed facts or examination of evidence for resolution of such controversy—Petitioner might seek appropriate alternate remedy as provided under the law and if limitation period for seeking such remedy had expired during pendency of these proceedings and recording of reasons then appropriate forum/authority might sympathetically consider the request for condoning such period—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
The requirement that as per the law that the members of grievance committees must be listed on procuring agency’s website in advance.
PPRA Rules 2004
RULE 8. Procurement planning.-Within one year of commencement of these rules, all procuring agencies shall devise a mechanism, for planning in detail for all proposed procurements with the object of realistically determining the requirements of the procuring agency, within its available resources, delivery time or completion date and benefits that are likely to accrue to the procuring agency in future.
No.F.2 – 1/M&I/2014
Government of Pakistan
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
(Cabinet Division) FBC Building, Sector G-5/2
Subject: PROCUREMENT PLAN AND ITS UPLOADING ON THE PPRA
Preparation of Annual Procurement Plan by every procuring agency of the Federal Government and its uploading on the PPRA website and the procuring agency’s own website (if any) is mandatory, in terms of Rule 8 & 9 of the Public Procurement Rules 2004. Failure to do so straightaway leads to misprocurement which cannot be condoned either under the PPRA Ordinance, 2002 or any other law of the land.
- Inspite of the above clear cut mandatory requirements of the Rules, most of the procurement agencies neither prepare their Annual Procurement Plans nor upload them on the PPRA website before start of actual procurement. Please note that any procurement without a publicized procurement plan on the PPRA website is a mis- procurement, under the Rules.
- Since the new financial year is going to start w.e.f. 01-07-2014, all procuring agencies are requested to prepare and upload their respective plans on the PPRA’s website on the enclosed proforma before initiating the actual procurements. From July 1, 2014, the procurement advertisements of the defaulting organizations will be marked by the Authority as violation of the Rules 8, 9 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 and conveyed to the respective procuring agencies.
Encl: as above
All Federal Secretaries
Islamabad, the 19th May, 2014
Government of Pakistan
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
(Cabinet Division) FBC Building, Sector G-5/2
Managing Director Islamabad, the 6th August, 2012
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT OF EVALUATION REPORTS
The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) has been mandated to ensure transparency, economy, efficiency and accountability of the public sector procuring agencies / organizations through monitoring and implementation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004. It is encouraging to note that since promulgation of these rules the rate of violations of these rules has decreased substantially. However, procuring agencies do not strictly follow some of these rules in letter and spirit.
- In terms of Rule 35, the procuring agencies shall announce the results of bid evaluation in the form of a report giving justification for acceptance or rejection of bids at least ten days prior to the award of procurement contract. Specimen of Bid Evaluation Report is enclosed.
- In view of above, it would be appreciated if the organization(s) under the administrative control of your Ministry / Division are directed to ensure compliance of Rule 35 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 referred to in the preceding paragraph.
With best regards, Encl: as above
All Federal Secretaries
(As per Rule 35 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004)
- Name of Procuring Agency ……………………………………………………
- Method of Procurement ………………………………………………………
- Title of Procurement …………………………………………………………..
- Tender Inquiry No……………………………………………………………
- PPRA Ref. No. (TSE) ………………………………………………………..
- Date & Time of Bid Closing ……………………………………………………
- Date & Time of Bid Opening …………………………………………………
- No. of Bids Received …………………………………………………………
- Criteria for Bid Evaluation ……………………………………………………
- Details of Bid(s) Evaluation ………………………………………………….
Name of Bidder
Rule/Regulation/SBD*/Policy/ Basis for Rejection / Acceptance as per Rule 35 of PP Rules, 2004.
(Add Column if Required)
Lowest Evaluated Bidder ……………………………………………………………
- Any other additional / supporting information, the procuring agency may like to share
Official Stamp ………………………………
*Standard Bidding Documents (SBD)
Government of Pakistan
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
(Cabinet Division) FBC Building, Sector G-5/2
Islamabad, February 10, 2010
Subject: GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING
My dear Secretary,
Pivotal position of Principal Accounting Officer in our system of governance needs no underscoring nor can the importance of transparency in procurement process be minimized. Part and parcel of transparency is the mechanism to redress grievance.
- PPRA has sufficiently brought out the rule position of grievance handling along with the requirement to form Grievance Redressal Committees. This request did not meet a resounding response; the result can be viewed at www.ppra.org.pk where Committees stand uploaded for the benefit of aggrieved bidders and the public to meet the tenets of transparency.
- To strengthen the mechanism as provided under Rule 48 of Public Procurement Rules 2004, the Principal Accounting Officer as a next logical step should conduct an administrative review on the findings of complaint and take action in accordance with conduct rules in the event of unfair and non-transparent procurement process. The decision of administrative review shall be communicated to PPRA, the aggrieved bidder and the procuring entity prior to the award of contract without retarding the procurement process.
- The intent is to complete the first tier Grievance Redressal mechanism. The second tier is under active deliberation.
Hafeez ur Rehman
Managing Director Tele:051-9224824 Fax: 051-9224823
With best regards,
All Federal Secretaries
(Hafeez ur Rehman)
Government of Pakistan
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
Managing Director Islamabad, the 29th October, 2014
Subject: REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES BY THE PROCURING AGENCY Dear Secretary,
The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) has been mandated to ensure transparency, economy, efficiency and accountability of the public sector procuring agencies / organizations through monitoring and implementation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004.
- Rule 48(1) of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 provides that the procuring agency shall constitute a committee comprising odd number of persons, with proper powers and authorizations to address the complaints of bidders that may occur prior to entry into force of the procurement contract. The redressal process and further recourse is laid down in Rule 48(2), (3), (4) & (5). This Authority had already issued instructions in this regard vide D.O. letter No. 3(5)/DD-II/PPRA/2009, dated 23-12-2009.
- In some cases, grievances redressal committees have not been constituted to grant right to the bidders to represent against the decision of the procuring agency, as a legal obligation. Resultantly, PPRA is in receipt of numerous complaints expressing grievances against various procuring agencies.
- In view of the above, kindly ensure compliance of Rule 48(1) of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 and provide the details of the Committee constituted to this Authority on the enclosed proforma for uploading the same on its website.