AHTC's explanation was that it appointed FMSS as its managing agent
("MA") for a period of one year from 15 July 2011 because it was directed to take over the management
of the TC by 1 August 2011 and it had agreed to release Aljunied TC's incumbent MA
from its contractual obligations. Given the
tight deadline and not wanting to disrupt TC services, AHTC
decided not to call a tender for MA services for the transition
period and instead engaged a qualified service provider who could
commence work immediately.[2][3]
If AHTC had failed in its procurement of MA services in 2011, it was not alone. The Auditor-General's report for FY2012/13 revealed lapses in the Government's procurement.[4]
If AHTC had failed in its procurement of MA services in 2011, it was not alone. The Auditor-General's report for FY2012/13 revealed lapses in the Government's procurement.[4]
Weak Grounds for Waiving Competition
A
$2.25 million contract for project management was awarded by way of waiver of competition without reasonable grounds.
NRF selected the vendor based mainly on a recommendation.
There was no evidence that the vendor was the only company which could provide such services. There was no evidence that NRF had conducted an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the sole quotation received.
NRF had breached Government procurement principles of transparency and open and fair competition. There was no assurance that value for money was received.
NRF selected the vendor based mainly on a recommendation.
There was no evidence that the vendor was the only company which could provide such services. There was no evidence that NRF had conducted an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the sole quotation received.
NRF had breached Government procurement principles of transparency and open and fair competition. There was no assurance that value for money was received.
NRF
allowed the vendor to commence work more than two months before
obtaining the requisite approvals for waiver of competition and award
of contract.
Excessive
Honorarium
NRF
paid approximately $467,000 as honorariums to three unsuccessful
tenderers for their efforts in submitting concept design proposals
for design consultancy services (valued at $25 million). These were three times
the amount based on the Government's compensation framework.
Scoring Method for Evaluation of Tenders Not Disclosed in Tender Documents
The
scoring methods for evaluating the qualitative criteria for building
works construction (valued at $283 million) were not
established upfront and made known to tenderers. NRF could have faced
difficulties in protecting itself against allegations of manipulation
of scoring methods to favour certain tenderers.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE — SAFRA
Inadequate Oversight
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE — SAFRA
Inadequate Oversight
MINDEF
tasked SAFRA to enhance existing fitness centres in HDB estates.
Tenders
were called four months before project requirements were approved.
The specifications did not meet MINDEF's requirements.
Instead
of calling tenders again, SAFRA engaged in ad hoc clarifications from
tenderers. It did not compare the quotations on a like-for-like
basis. It gave its in-principle approval whilst still clarifying the
requirements. The process did not give the assurance that SAFRA was
able to secure competitive prices.
SAFRA
allowed the contractor to increase the prices of some works arising
from new requirements. There was no evidence that these prices had
been assessed for reasonableness or had been approved by the relevant
committee.
The number of fitness corners enhanced exceeded MINDEF's approved requirement by 58 sites at an additional cost of $2.03 million, although it was within the approved budget for the 108 sites.
The number of fitness corners enhanced exceeded MINDEF's approved requirement by 58 sites at an additional cost of $2.03 million, although it was within the approved budget for the 108 sites.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Lapses in Procurement
The
procurement of security services costing $427,886 at an overseas mission was not carried out
in a fair manner to allow companies to compete on a level playing
field.
Two companies were invited in writing on two different days
to quote, and the third was invited orally.
Different requirements
were given to the companies and no closing date was specified for the
submission of quotations.
The third company, which was eventually
awarded the contract, was allowed to re-submit its quotation for
services which it had originally omitted.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS — SINGAPORE CIVIL DEFENCE FORCE
Lapses
in Tender Evaluation
SCDF
called two tenders in October 2010 and July 2011 for additions and
alterations works to fire stations. The tenders, valued at $2.75
million, were awarded to a tenderer which did not meet a critical
criterion requiring it to submit audited financial statements for the
past three years for SCDF's assessment of its creditworthiness and financial
solvency.In one tender, the tenderer submitted unaudited financial statements for one year only.
In the second tender, the tenderer submitted the latest financial statements only, which its auditor had qualified in that the completeness and accuracy of the tenderer's financial statements were in doubt.
Nevertheless, the tender evaluation committee concluded that the tenderer had met the critical evaluation criteria.
---------------
Notes
1. PRIME
MINISTER'S OFFICE Statement from the Prime Minister's Office on
Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council Hawker Centre Cleaning
Incident 12 Jul 2013.
2. ALJUNIED-HOUGANG TOWN COUNCIL Media Statement on Appointment of Managing Agent 5 Aug 2011.
2. ALJUNIED-HOUGANG TOWN COUNCIL Media Statement on Appointment of Managing Agent 5 Aug 2011.
3. The Workers' Party captured Aljunied GRC in General Election 2011 and proceeded to merge it with Hougang constituency to form Aljunied-Hougang TC. Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East TC was formed when The Workers' Party captured Punggol East constituency in a 2013 by-election and merged it with AHTC.
4. AUDITOR-GENERAL Report of the Auditor-General for the Financial Year 2012/13.
4. AUDITOR-GENERAL Report of the Auditor-General for the Financial Year 2012/13.
No comments:
Post a Comment