Seyani Brothers In Trouble Over Fraudulent JLOS Tender
- Written by Earthfinds
- Published in Finance
- 0 comments
The Contracts Committee in the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs has scrutinized and described as illegal, the process employed in awarding the contract for the building premises intended to house the Justice Law and Oder Sector (JLOS)—citing glaring illegalities and gross fraud.
Seyani Brothers and Company Uganda Ltd, a local construction firm, have also still been named in Parliament for contract breaches in the Entebbe International Airport upgrade, is now on spotlight after officials started investigations on how the firm was dramatically awarded a contract to erect JLOS headquarters.
A top source, who did not want to be identified said the said contract, the committee unearthed irregularities in the bid evaluation process, that suggested error and omission that could have been intended to favour a particular contractor, and in the process unfairly awarding the contract Seyani Brothers who had emerged the lowest bidders.
According to a report of the Evaluation Committee chaired by Mr. Sam Wairagala, ten companies submitted bids to the committee, including M/S Zhongjiao third highway engineering (EA) Company Ltd (UGX329,085,479,040),
M/S China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (UGX224,561,455,452), M/S Consortium of China Communications Construction company Ltd and China First Highway Engineering Ltd (UGX522, 281, 795,283) and M/S Zongyang Construction Group Company Ltd (UGX270, 533, 009, 992) all Chinese companies.
Others are M/S Seyani Brothers and Company Uganda Ltd, an Indian firm, (UGX241, 698, 637, 254), M/S China National Aero-technology international engineering Corporation (UGX280, 093, 511, 526), M/ S SMS Construction Limited and Farrin Joint Venture (Ugandan) (UGX212, 263, 924, 272) and China Railway Construction Engineering Group (UGX274, 874, 281, 734.21).
M/S Sino-hydro Corporation Limited (UGX 496, 414, 290, 527) and M/S Sadeem Al Kuwait General Trading and Contracting Company (UGX243, 143, 599, 032) had also applied.
However, M/S Zhongjiao Third highway engineering (EA) Company Ltd, M/S China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation and M/S Zongyang Construction Group Company Ltd were eliminated at initial stage.
The rest of the companies were subjected to rigorous technical evaluations according to the source.
The source said three of the remaining seven, were eliminated on technicalities including SMS Construction Ltd and Farrin Joint Venture, who was the lowest bidder.
These are; M/S Consortium of China Communications Construction company Ltd and China First Highway Engineering Ltd
SMS Construction M/ S SMS Construction Limited and Farrin Joint Venture and M/S Sadeem Al Kuwait General Trading and Contracting Company.
The lowest bidder of the four, was M/S Seyani Brothers and Company Uganda Ltd at UGX256, 438, 726, 074 followed by China Railway Construction Engineering Group at UGX294, 263, 358, 382, China National Aero Technology International Engineering Corporation came third at UGX299, 654, 081, 010 and the fourth was China Sino-hydro Corporation Limited at UGX531, 163, 290, 863.
On that basis, the bid went to Seyani Brothers and Company Uganda Ltd. However, it is not clear how Seyani Brothers quotation changed from 241, 608, 637, 720 to UGX256, 438, 726, 074.
The source said, the Contracts Committee found that the Evaluation Committee flouted the bidding law particularly Regulation 17(2 and 6) of SI No.7 of 2014, which empowers the contracts committee to invite a technical person to clarify on the submissions.
In this case the evaluation committee blindsided some of the bidders. For example, whereas clarification was sought from Sadeen and Kuwait General Trading and Contracting company, M/S Seyani Brothers concerning their bid documents the other two companies Consortium of China Communication Company Ltd and China First-Highway Engineering Ltd were never contacted.
This is in contravention of Section 43 A and B of the PPDA Act.
The Contracts Committee according to the PPDA Act holds power to approve an Evaluation Committee for each submitted procurement. It also has power to approve negotiation teams, to ensure that before it is approved, a procurement is in accordance with the procurement plan.
The Contracts Committee also approves bidding and contract documents.
According to the Contracts committee report, the process was marred by “incurable irregularities” and the contract could not be passed.
The committee’s decision saves the Ugandan government and tax payer billions of shillings.
Latest from Earthfinds
- How Domestic Gas Production Can Help Mitigate South Africa's Energy Crisis
- Understanding South Africa's Energy Crisis
- Here Is Why Government Should Prioritize Investing In Clean Energy
- Uganda Set To Host 10th East African Petroleum Conference And Exhibition
- Friday Night Road Accident Claims Life Of Hoima's LC5 Chairperson