Clarification, our reply

The Gas Transmission Company Ltd (GTCL) in a clarification to The Daily Star news headlined "$150m Gas Compressor Project: GTCL goes for 'forced' re-tender for 3rd time" published May 12 differed on some points of the story.
The GTCL denied forcing the re-tender and said after a long drawn process of first and second stage bid evaluation of the two bidders, none of them was found fully responsive to the bid requirements and hence their bids were disqualified by the GTCL board. The GTCL was asked to initiate a fresh bidding process.
The clarification said there were no "heated arguments" at the board meeting as mentioned in the report. "In order that the review made by the board does not miss any pertinent and substantial point… the board during its discourse heard the project consultant and the tender evaluation committee." There was exchange of opinions on the technical and commercial aspects.
The GTCL also denied that the energy ministry in March had decided to go for the lowest bid of $150 million of Korean company Hyundai.
Differing with another part of the report, the GTCL said the bidding process allowed seeking clarification from bidders after opening bids.
On the issue of re-scheduling of the GTCL board meeting to May 9 instead of May 7, the clarification pointed out that it was not related to the change of the chairman of the board, but it was done because preparation of documents for the meeting took additional time.
It added that all the board members made the decision together and it was not true that some members of the board were trying to reject the bid with a negative attitude.
Our reply
The 10-member tender evaluation committee, which gave their recommendation for the compressor project on May 4, has categorically recommended considering the bid proposal of Hyundai and declared the other bidder non-responsive. The recommendation was quoted verbatim in the story.
It was the GTCL board, not the evaluation committee, which declared both the bidders non-responsive. If both were unanimously found to be non-responsive, making the decision would have been simple and the board would not have to take accounts of the consultant and other officials. In fact, because of a clear difference of opinion between the tender committee and some board members, the compressor issue was discussed for more than two hours at the May 9 meeting.
In March, The Daily Star had covered the energy ministry's meeting on the gas compressor and pipeline issues. The ministry did not deny the content of the report.
On re-scheduling the meeting, the fact remains unchanged that the chairman of the board was hurriedly changed on May 4 coinciding with May 6 notice of the re-scheduling of the meeting.
Finally, the fact that there was a major difference of opinion lies recorded in the tender evaluation committee's recommendation and the board's decision.