Even though the State, in this case the Judicial Organ, would be saving almost 100 thousand dollars, the Directorate General of Public Procurement (DGCP) decided to refuse to grant Editora Panama America (Epasa) a tender based on technicalities and without requesting any clarification.
The tender was for the service of publication of writ of summons from May 2, 2016 to December 31, 2018 requested by the Supreme Court of Justice.
The opening of proposals was held on May 10 this year and two bids were submitted, one by Geo Media, S.A., which did not send a representative, and Epasa, which was indeed represented.
GEO Media sent its proposal electronically without submission of a tendering security. The amount totaled 678 thousand 166 dollars.
For its part, Epasa proposed for the service 584 thousand 537 dollars and 79 cents alongside with the submission of a tendering security and a representative at the public event.
However, on May 18, the evaluation Commission in charge of tender N.°2016-0-30-0-08-LP-011711 deemed that none of the proposals is in compliance with the requirement laid down in the proposal form, as is the case of addendum N.°2 describing the technical specifications, which requests that the size of the advertising should be standard.
In a preliminary action of claim, Epasa warns that according to the product specifications, as a proponent, they are committed to lending the service as described in the specifications requested by the entity, including the technical specifications related to the size of the advertising.
It is worth mentioning, just as is required in the article 54 of the law of public procurement and as was mentioned in the claim, where required, that the evaluation Commission "may request the proponents the necessary clarifications as deemed necessary regarding the documentation submitted", something that in the course of this process has not occurred.
Public act requested to be temporarily suspended until the claim is resolved.
However, on 27 May, the DGCP did not admit the action, arguing that in such action of claim it has nowhere become evident that any of the articles of the Law of Procurement or its regulations have been breached, together with the fact that the legal proxy of the company did not provide the public registration company certificate.
Grupo Epasa submits a plea once again with the requirements requested by the DGCP, emphasizing the above, which is finally admitted on June 2. On June 16, the DGCP confirms the proceedings by the evaluation Commission and lifts the suspension of the procurement act.
The procurement directorate maintains that it is during the homologation meeting when the parties should clarify all aspects with regard to the technical specifications, however, as article 54 reads, that the verifying or evaluating Commission may request clarifications and explanations as it deems necessary about the documentation submitted.
Epasa goes on to argue that in the form of proposals there is no text as to "which the size of the publications, as requested by the addendum N. ° 2 of the public act in analysis".
Finally, on July 7, the public act is declared void.
Size
Epasa representatives argue that the requirements on the size of the means was not focused on whether the newspaper should be standard, but on the publication requested by the Court.
In addition, in spite of the great Berliner and Tabloid sizes used in the newspapers that Epasa publishes, it is well known that Panama America used standard before and at present, this company is responsible for the circulation of The Miami Herald in the country, whose size is standard, which shows the capacity of its printing machines to conform to the requirements outlined in the addendum N. °2 of the invitation to tender.
Furthermore, there is the fact that the evaluation Commission must be composed of "qualified professionals on the subject of procurement, who are or public servers professionals in the private sector", as article 54 of law 22 of 2006 mandates.
In what refers to the tender in question, Luis Cole is an accountant, Germán Sánchez is an information assistant and Antonia González, a Secretary, noting that neither is related to business activity related to publication in social media.
Finally, it is thus reiterated that this Commission has the power to clarify any doubts about the specifications in their addenda, something that in the course of this process has not occurred, despite the action of claim filed on two occasions by Grupo Epasa.
