(Photo d’illustration)
–
Would the Ministry of Health inflate the budget for the purchase of X-Ray scanners in the five hospitals? In the dispute between Proximed Ltd and the Ministry of Health before l’Independent Review Panel (IRP) concerning the call for tenders for the acquisition of scanners for public hospitals, the complainant emphasizes that an “addendum” to the call for tenders this time includes the supply of “films”, for a period of eight years and that nine days before the end of the fiscal year.
Initially, the call for tenders mentioned that the “Xray machines” were to be supplied with a DICOM 3.0 printer and 5,000 films. In a circular dated June 30, 2021, it is specified that this is 5,000 films per hospital over a period of eight years. However, the envelope of Rs 130 million will increase to Rs 900 million in this case.
According to the Ministry of Health, when choosing suppliers previously, there were concerns in the availability of “films” to be printed. Specific printers and films are required for the brands chosen for purchase. The inclusion of this clause looks like a «hedging contract», a contract according to which the tenderer must be able to ensure the supply of several elements related to the XRay device. According to the circular, the price of films must be «binding» and this will be used for the evaluation exercise. This clause may be contested upon award of the contract as indicated by the panel. The latter asks the Central Procurement Board to clarify matters before proceeding with the evaluation of the offers.
In addition, Proximed Ltd declared a dispute with regard to the third “addendum” in which potential bidders were informed of the new elements. The tenderer points out that the Minister introduced a new element nine days before the end of the fiscal year, including seven working days. This new element could exclude his company and favor three other suppliers. The plaintiff stressed that the contract for eight years does not take into account the obsolescence of the technology which does not guarantee that the device will work during this time. Although Proximed Ltd lost its appeal to the IRP, the panel stresses that all disputes must be heard and not be dismissed for failure to meet the deadline to file a case.
–
