| Work Detail |
(CP) - Disagree with the results of the evaluation of technical proposals (Technical Proposal), Vietnam Construction and Import-Export Joint Stock Corporation (Vinaconex), the leading member of Vinaconex Joint-venture - Joint Stock Company Vinadelta, made a petition to the Management Board of transport construction investment project of Bac Kan province (bid solicitor - BMT).
The bid solicitor rejected the authenticity of the results of the actual survey of the surface of the road section of Vinaconexs National Highway 3B. Artwork: st
The bid solicitor rejected the authenticity of the results of the actual survey of the surface of the road section of Vinaconexs National Highway 3B. Artwork: st
Although BMT had an answer after that, the Contractor (NT) was still not satisfied so he continued to petition to the relevant authorities.
The bid solicitor rushed to open a financial proposal?
The incident happened at the Package (GT) Construction of the section Km18 + 600 - Km57 + 00 and the connection section (Km57 + 00 - Km58 + 760) under the Project of Improving and Upgrading National Highway 3B, Xuat Hoa section - Po Ma border gate (Km0 - Km66 + 600) - phase 2.
On December 23, 2019, BMT opened the Technical Proposal. As of December 27, 2019, Vinaconex said that it had received a notice of the evaluation result of Technical Proposal, stating the reason why Vinaconex did not meet the requirement because it did not meet technical requirements, did not meet the minimum score of total criteria. General such as technical solutions, construction organization measures, prestige of NT ...
However, Vinaconex said that BMT did not consider the actual construction conditions, construction organization methods, nor gave NT the opportunity to clarify technical solutions and unreasonable construction methods. in the bidding documents (Bidding Documents) is limited in selecting the Bidder. Late in the afternoon of December 27, 2019, it was only sent notice of the evaluation results of Technical Proposal, but 14:30 on December 28, 2019 opened a financial proposal.
Regarding construction conditions, the actual survey results of NT show that, "the width of the existing road is only about 4 - 4.5m. If one lane is arranged to ensure traffic, the remaining space is not enough space for any motorbike, construction equipment (transporting cars, excavators, jars, bulldozers, etc.). When constructing and widening the roadway to the positive taluy wall (by excavator or explosion drill), the remaining space cannot be guaranteed to be safe, as well as ensure smooth traffic in the condition of current road surface width ” .
In particular, Vinaconex said that the assessment of Vinaconex - Vinadelta Joint Venture did not reach the minimum score of NTs prestige due to the "Da river water pipe" incident that was unfounded, intentionally eliminating qualified and micro serious violations of the Bidding Law and relevant laws. The reason is that Vinaconex was assigned to be the investor of the Investment Project for constructing the water supply system in Son Tay - Hoa Lac - Xuan Mai - Mieu Mon - Hanoi - Ha Dong, but not as an NT.
The bid solicitor affirmed that Bid dossier has many errors
Responding to the Bidding Newspaper on the above recommendations, Mr. Ly Manh Linh - Head of Project Management Division 1 of the Traffic Construction Investment Project Management Board of Bac Kan province affirmed: “The problem of NT was the assessment does not meet the technical requirements because the Technical Proposal of the school has many unreasonable points ”.
Specifically, in terms of technical solutions, NT only achieved an evaluation score of 12 / 13.3 points. The reason is that NT has a schedule of division of construction differences between the schedule of site layout (9 directions of road construction) and schedule of construction (8 points of road construction); NT proposed 9 roads and 5 bridge bridges but only 61 people. NT also did not mention the solution of constructing protective works (retaining walls) on the route; constructing surface layer to connect peoples teeth There is no content to demolish old bridges and culverts in site preparation. NT only proposed to use one bulldozer during GT implementation, which is unreasonable with the volume and progress of GT.
Regarding organization measures, NT only reached 18 / 23.1 points. This is because NT misunderstands the scale of GT (requires asphalt pavement with Eyc of 130 Mpa or more, but understands that asphalt surface has Eyc of 100 Mpa or more); not mentioning the socio-economic conditions of the area that GT is passing through; no measures to ensure specific traffic safety during the construction process; unreasonable supplies.
Regarding the width of the road surface, BMT rejected the authenticity of the actual survey results from NT. According to BMT, the existing Highway 3B section is currently a mountainous road of grade 6, with a minimum road base of 6.5m, some sections have been widened enough to be of grade 4 in mountainous areas (the roadbed is at least 7 , 5m).
“These are basic and serious flaws, not following the approved design records. Because the content of this bid evaluation is not within the scope of request for clarification of bids (Bid) and if it is clarified by the Bidder, it will substantially change the submitted Bidding Documents, so BMT does not request the Bidder to clarify the Bidding Documents. ”, Mr. Linh stressed.
Commenting on this case, a bidding consultant said that the handling of petitions must be based on Bidding Documents and Bidding Documents. During bid evaluation process, bidders can send petitions to BMT. But not every recommendation is that BMT has to stop the bid, but the evaluation of Bid dossier is still conducted in parallel with the consideration and resolution of recommendations. |
