KEK hereby clarifies that in the tender "Public Education and Awareness Campaign” the Procurement Review Body (PRB) has taken two decisions that are completely contradictory to each other.
Initially, KEK has awarded the tender to the company with the lowest price after the consultation and written recommendations from the PPRC (Public Procurement Regulatory Commission). However, another bidding company had lodged a complaint. PRB had concluded that the case should be returned into re-evaluation, claiming that the bid of the chosen company is not responsive. KEK, based on the decision of PRB, which was in contradiction with the recommendations of the PPRC, but which the Corporation is obliged to comply, had concluded that there is only one responsive bidder. PRB had left no opportunity that KEKs winning operator to be responsive, by mentioning few areas that the PRB had called as violations to the law.
Therefore, as the tender was launched for the first time KEK could not push this subject further, but had decided to cancel the process as based on the effective public procurement law at least two responsible bids are needed. Meanwhile, a complaint was to the PRB by the bidder who announced as winner by KEK, but who had to be called as unresponsive pursuant to an expressive decision of first decision of PRB. This body had originally decided to call the selection of “New Film & the Group” as against the law and it breaches the law in few areas. However, the PRB has "forgotten" his conclusions made regarding the bid of this economic operator and it approved hid complaint too.
At this point, strange is the fact that how one team of professionals could take such decision, because second decision of PRB accuses KEK that had acted according to the recommendations of this same institution. Therein, KEK has been accused for announcing this operator as irresponsive and has cancelled the tender because of lack of two responsive offers. There is a proverb that says, “be damned if you do and damned if you don't”.
Second decision of PRB is against itself and the authority that has violated law is PRB itself. Based on analysis of decisions can be clearly noticed that this authority is taking decisions based on preferences of the operators and every operator that makes complaint this authority will give them a right.
Whatever KEK will undertake the necessary measures according the law as always.
This is not the first time for this authority to take two contradictory decisions against KEK for the same tendering procedure. For sure such cases should be analysed and take in consideration also from the legal authorities.