PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS AUTHORITY
APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR PROCUREMENT OF A PENSION
ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM AND AN ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING
SYSTEM (NSSF/CONS/2016-2017/00090)
ENTITY:
NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND
APPLICANT : TWENTY THIRD CENTURY SYSTEMS (ZIMBABWE)
IN CONSORTIUM WITH TWENTY THIRD CENTURY SYSTEMS (UGANDA)
ANDSAP EAST AFRICA
MARCH 2017
1
Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3
2.0
LEGAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE ............................................................................... 4
3.0
GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION ............................................................................. 5
4.0
FINDINGS BY MAC .........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.0
MAC RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE ..Error! Bookmark not defined.
Page 2 of 9
1.0
BACKGROUND
1. National Social Security Fund (NSSF) sought to procure a Pension Administration System and
an Enterprise Resource Planning System.
2. The procurement was split into Lot 1 – PAS and Lot 2 – ERP respectively with the expectation
that both systems would be procured and implemented concurrently. NSSF stated that they
would prefer that both systems are implemented by the same vendor but reserved the right to
procure from 2 different vendors.
3. On 28th of October 2016, the Notice of Expression of Interest (EOI) for the procurement was
advertised in the Daily Monitor newspaper, with subsequent addendums sent by email on 3rd
November 2016 and 15th November 2016, with a deadline for bid closing of 30th November
2016.
4. On 30th November 2016, bidding was closed. The following fifteen (15) firms submitted bids:
Table 1: Firms that submitted bids
No Name of bidder
1. Advance One (U) Ltd.
2. Computer Information Systems (Lebanon), lead bidder, in consortium with Le
Groupment Pour L’Informatique (GI) & Computer Information Systems Uganda Limited
3. Deloitte (Uganda) Limited
4. eSystems Inc, lead bidder, in consortium with International Business Solutions Limited
(IBSL)
5. Ernest & Young, Lead bidder, in consortium with Southern X Software Solutions (PTY)
Ltd.
6. Free Balance Inc. with Free Balance Uganda Limited
7. Heitech Padu Berhad in consortium with AOS Rwanda Ltd, Innosoft
8. OpenFellas-GmbH BrudermUhlstr in Joint venture with OTB Africa Ltd
9. Business Expert Gulf in Joint Venture with Service & Computer Industries (U) Ltd.
10. Techno BrainGlobal FZE in consortium with Catalyst Business Solutions DMCC
11. Twenty Third Century Systems (Zimbabwe), in consortium with Twenty Third Century
Systems (UGANDA) and SAP East Africa
12. Vox Telecom, lead bidder, in consortium with Singular Sytems and Eficon Consulting
Uganda Ltd
13. Wipro Technologies South Africa (Pty) Ltd, lead bidder, in consortium with Pureflex
Systems
Page 3 of 9
No Name of bidder
14. Intrasoft International SA in Consortium with Computer Point (U) Ltd and Global
Technology Services
15. Tech Mahindra in Consortium with Mantra Technology Ltd
5. On 1st February 2017, the notice to bidders following technical evaluation was displayed with
an expiry date of 14th February 2017. The short list notice dated 1st February 2017,
recommended the following firms to be invited to submit proposals:
Table 2: Bidders that passed the evaluation
No Name of Bidder
LOT 1 – PAS
1. Heitech Padu Berhad in consortium with AOS Rwanda Ltd, Innosoft
2. Intrasoft International SA in Consortium with Computer Point (U) Ltd and Global
Technology Services
LOT 2 – ERP
1
Tech Mahindra in Consortium with Mantra Technology Ltd
2
Intrasoft International SA in Consortium with Computer Point (U) Ltd and Global
Technology Services
6. On 14th February 2017, Twenty Third Century Systems (Zimbabwe) hereafter referred to as
TTCS wrote to NSSF disputing the reasons for their elimination.
7. On 21st February 2017, NSSF responded to Twenty Third Century Systems (Zimbabwe)
reiterating their 3 original reasons and adding 2 additional reasons for elimination.
8. On 3rd March 2017, Twenty Third Century Systems (Zimbabwe) applied for administrative
review to the Authority and paid administrative review fees to NSSF of UGX 5,000,000.
2.0
LEGAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE
i)
ii)
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003.
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations, 2014.
Page 4 of 9
3.0
GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION
1. One of the proposed Project Managers (Sandra) didn’t have the required 8 years of project
management experience.
2. The certified solution experts presented did not meet the minimum of 5 years’ experience as
required.
3. The Audited accounts for the Uganda partner were prepared by uncertified Audit firm and the
debt asset ratio was above 80% threshold.
Ground One:
One of the proposed Project Managers (Ms. Sandra Magava) didn’t have the required 8 years of
project management experience.
Findings
1. The Expression of Interest issued by NSSF required bidders to “provide CVs of 2 possible
Project Managers for implementation of PAS and ERP solutions respectively and clearly
demonstrating a minimum of 8 years’ experience in Solution Implementation, Project
Management, and Change Management.
2. The Evaluation Report indicated that TTCS had been eliminated for failure by one of their
proposed project managers (Ms. Sandra Magava) to have the required eight years’
experience.
3. Ms. Sandra Magava’s Curriculum Vitae’s indicated the following employment record with
regard to the requirement in the bidding document:
Table 1: Sandra Magava’s experience
Period
1. June 2015 to Date
2. January 2015 to December
2015
3. 2013 to 2014
4.
2013 to 2014
5.
May 2012 to date
6.
7.
January 2012 to date
January 2011 to May 2011
Position and Employing organization
Project Manager -Motor Vehicle Fund
Project Manager -Zimbabwe United
Passengers Company
Project Manager -Tobacco Processors of
Zimbabwe
Logistics Team Leader -Zimbabwe Power
Company
Logistic Team Leader and Project Manager
- State Procurement Board
Logistic Team Leader -Marange Resources
Production Planning and Quality
Management Lead Consultant -Mbada
Diamonds
Page 5 of 9
8.
Period
June 2010 to November 2010
9.
November 2009 to May 2010
10. September 2009 to October
2009
11. August 2009- August 2009
12. April 2009 –May 2009
13. January 2009 to April 2009
14. May 2008 to July 2008
15. May 2007 to August 2007
16. April 2007 to May 2007
Position and Employing organization
Materials Management ConsultantZimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority
Materials Management Consultant-TelOne
Zimbabwe
Materials Management ConsultantZimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority
Production Planning and Quality
Management Lead Consultant-Press
Corporation Limited
Materials Management ConsultantGovernment of Zimbabwe
Materials Management and Fleet
Management Lead Consultant-Zimbabwe
Revenue Authority
Materials Management Lead ConsultantPowertel
Materials Management Lead ConsultantPlus Financial Holdings
Production Planning and Product Costing
Consultant –Dangote Group
4. The Accounting Officer in his decision to TTCS dated 21st February 2017 indicated that
a) “Sandra’s project management experience spans from the period 2012 to date
(November 2016). For the prior period, her detailed roles do not reflect any project
management experience. Therefore based on the experience presented in her CV ,
she has 4 years Project Management experience which is short of the eight years
required in the Terms of Reference; and
b) All of Sandra’s experience (including the four years as Project Manager) relates
to ERP and not PAS.
5. The Authority found that Ms. Sandra Magava’s Curriculum Vitae indicated that she has 4
years Project Management experience from May 2012 to November 2016 which is less
than the requirement in the Expression of Interest of eight years.
Table 2: Ms. Sandra Magava’s experience in Project Management
Period
Position and Employing organization
1. June 2015 to Date
Project Manager -Motor Vehicle Fund
2. January 2015 to December
Project Manager -Zimbabwe United
2015
Passengers Company
3. 2013 to 2014
Project Manager - Tobacco Processors of
Zimbabwe
Page 6 of 9
4.
Period
May 2012 to date
Position and Employing organization
Logistic Team Leader and Project Manager
-State Procurement Board
Decision of the Authority on the ground
The Authority finds no merit in ground one.
Ground Two
The certified solution experts presented did not meet the minimum of 5 years’ experience as
required.
Findings
1. The Expression of Interest issued by NSSF required bidders to “provide CVs of 3
technically certified solution experts for the PAS & ERP respectively, each of whom should
have a minimum of 5 years’ experience in implementation of solutions (3 CVs for PAS &
3 CVs for ERP)
2. TTCS proposed three solution experts ie Ms. Tapiwa Kusotera , Mr. Tavaziv Bwakura and
Ms. Morleen Pasi in its bid. The evaluation report indicated that the certified solution
experts presented by TTCS did not meet the minimum 5 year experience required in the
Expression of Interest.
3. The Accounting Officer in his decision dated 21st February 2017 stated that:
a) The three technical experts met the five years’ experience for Lot 2 but not Lot 1; and
b) TTCS clearly indicated in its bid that Ms. Tapiwa Kusotera, Mr. Tavaziv Bwakura and
Ms. Morleen Pasi the proposed PAS technical personnel were experienced in ERP
systems solutions only.
4. The Authority found that only 2 proposed certified solution experts ie Ms. Tapiwa Kusotera
and Mr. Tavaziv Bwakura) met the requirement for a minimum of 5 years’ experience as
indicated in their CVs. Morleen Pasi’s experience from November 2012 to date was less
than the required 5 years.
Decision of the Authority on the ground
The Authority finds no merit in ground two.
Ground Three
The Audited accounts for the Uganda partner were prepared by uncertified Audit firm and the
debt asset ratio was above 80% threshold.
Page 7 of 9
Findings
1. Section 2.3 of Commercial Criteria of the Expression of Interest required all partners of
the Joint Venture to submit audited accounts for the last three years i.e. 2014, 2015 and
2016.
2. The evaluation report dated 12th January 2017 and the Shortlist Notice indicated that
Twenty Third Century Systems (Uganda) did not submit certified audited accounts and
instead submitted books of accounts by Kakonge Certified Public Accountants who are not
on the list of Certified Public Accountants.
3. In its application for administrative review, TTCS indicated that since it had submitted
certified books of accounts for TTCS Group which included TTCS Uganda, this was
sufficient to meet the requirement by TTCS Uganda.
4. In response to the submission, NSSF submitted that the audited accounts of TTCS Group
were internal TTCS processes and didn’t preclude TTCS Uganda from having to submit
their own certified audited accounts as per the requirement in the EOI.
5. The Authority reviewed the bid by Consortium and found that TTCS Uganda had audited
accounts for 2014 and 2015 both audited by Kakonge & Co Certified Public Accountants
and audited accounts for 2013 audited by Kikonge & Co Certified Public Accountants.
6. The Authority verified with the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda
(ICPAU) as to whether Kakonge& Co Certified Public Accountants were on the list of
Certified Public Accountants for 2014/2015. The Authority established that Kakonge
Certified Public Accountants were not on the list of Certified Public Accountants for
2014/2015.
7. On the issue of Debt Asset Ratio, NSSF submitted that one of the members didn’t meet the
debt asset ratio while TTCS submitted that all members of the JV had a Debt to Asset Ratio
below 80%. The Authority found that the 80% Debt Asset Ratio was preferred but not
mandatory as indicated in NSSF’s submission.
8. The Authority finds that the Consortium did not meet the requirement of submission of
audited accounts for the last three years since TTCS Uganda’s audited accounts were
prepared by an uncertified audit firm.
Decision of the Authority on the ground
The Authority does not find merit in ground three.
DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY
In accordance with Section 91 (4) of the PPDA Act 2003 and in light of the findings of the
Authority during the Administrative Review process:
Page 8 of 9
a)
The Application for Administrative Review by Twenty Third Century Systems is rejected in
light of the findings above.
b)
The Entity has been advised to proceed with the procurement process.
Page 9 of 9