Procurement of Consultancy Services

A Procuring Entity (PE) sought guidance as follows:

1. The PE deployed the national competitive bidding (NCB) procurement method to contract for civil engineering consultancy services;
2. The pre-tender estimate was J$23Million;
3. At the close of tender two proposals were received with only one proposal deemed responsive to cause the opening of the Financial Proposal (“FP”);
4. The FP was 26.6% above the PE’s pre-tender estimate;
5. From the assessment of the Technical Proposal (“TP”) it was observed that the consultant had assigned too many human resources/consulting professionals to the assignment which led to negotiations on the matter;
6. Subsequently, negotiations were held with the consultant who agreed to reduce his team and by extension adjust FP;
7. Thereafter, the consultant submitted a revised FP in keeping with the terms of the negotiations. The new proposal was 18.27% above the PE’s pre-tender estimate;
8. The PE further outlined that without its prompting or request, same consultant submitted another FP for the assignment which amounted to 10.8% above the PE’s pre-tender estimate. In support of this decision, the consultant stated that: The firm conducted further assessments of its proposal and have realized opportunities to incorporate additional efficiencies in the execution of the proposed services, including the use of templates previously utilised for projects of similar nature and completed for Government of Jamaica clients, thus resulting in a further reduction to the submitted revised Financial Proposal.
9. The PE sought to be guided whether:
   1. it is permitted to accept this unsolicited FP, or should the consultant’s actions be viewed as an indication that there is unwillingness to stand by the amount proposed;
   2. the unsolicited FP be rejected; or
   3. should the consultant’s entire submission (TP and FP) be rejected