The Public Procurement Rules 2008 - LGED

(i) The Procuring Entity may consider using SBCQ for very small
assignments, for which the cost of a full-fledged selection process would
not be justified, such as -
a. brief evaluation studies at critical decision points of projects
(review of alternative solutions with large downstream effects);
b. executive assessment of strategic plans;
c. high level, short-term legal expertise; and
d. participation in project review expert panels.
(ii) The Procuring Entity shall use the procedures specified in Rule 108.
(c)
(i)
Selection amongst Community Service Organisations (CSOs)
may be used by short-listing reputable Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs), other community service organisations or voluntary non-profit
organisations that are well qualified to assist in the preparation, management
and implementation of community development projects or programmes
because of their involvement and knowledge of local issues, community needs
or participatory approaches.
(ii) The Procuring Entity shall use the procedures specified in Rule 109.
(d)
Single Source Selection (SSS) of firms or individual consultants
(1) (SSS) may be used only in exceptional cases as specified in this Rule
because it -
a. does not provide the benefits of competition in regard to quality and
cost,
b. lacks transparency in selection, and
c. could encourage unacceptable and fraudulent practices.
(2) It may be appropriate only if it presents a clear advantage over competition
-
a. where a rapid selection is essential (for example, in an emergency
operation),
b. for very small assignments within the threshold specified in Schedule
II;
c. when only one (1) firm or an individual Consultant is qualified or has
experience of exceptional worth for the assignment; and
(3) It may also be appropriate for tasks that represent a natural continuation of
previous work carried out by the Consultant; where an initial consultancy
assignment needs to be continued and where continuity of the technical
approach, experience acquired and continued professional liability of the
same Consultant may make such continuation preferable to a new
competition; and in such cases the initially selected Consultant may be
allowed to continue with the subsequent assignment provided that -
a. the initial assignment was performed satisfactorily; and
b. the need for such downstream assignment was anticipated in the
initial Request for Proposal.
(4) if the initial assignment was not awarded on a competitive basis or if the
downstream assignment is substantially larger in value, a competitive
process shall be followed and in such cases the Consultant carrying out
90