Download
Download Download
and the machine works all night, in this case we win on time, the request of thelaboratory is toxicology lab, the purpose is to win on time and get accreditation.Also we were the panel of 5 members, except me that I work in the laboratory, we hadthe expertise of the crime, and we have reviewed these specification.As follows regarding the ascertainment no.4, that EO recommended for contract didn’tprovide authorization from the manufacturer as required in the tender dossier at FTD atpoint 9.1.1 I must state that we don’t agree with the ascertainment of the review expertbecause the manufacturing company “Angilent” from America has authorized directly “Alpha Crom” which is responsible for the whole Balkan region through authorization ofthe 31.01.2011 for sales, servicing, validity and that possesses also the certificates of theauthorized servicer, after long consultation the outcome is that CA on the occasion ofevaluation of this activity, where this authorization even though is from the leader hasevaluated as notarizing the manufacturer, for the reason that this manufacturer hasguaranteed for all these mentioned above, and that not only for Kosova but for allregion. Me as a representative of the CA I request from the panel that the decision of theCA to be approved and the complaint of the complaining EO to be rejected.During the presentation in the session, review expert stated that in the article 9.1was decisively requested to be the authorization of the manufacturer, where EOrecommended for contract has authorization from the distributor. Whereas EO “Megabro” has the authorization from the manufacturer but it is a fact that this EO is around30.000 Euros more expensive and I am surprised by the fact Why CA has decisivelyrequested in the dossier, the authorization must be from the manufacturer where thesame authorization is issued from different representatives that deal with this nature ofworks, as well for ensuring the implementation of this project. In the end I want to addthat complaining EO “Profitech” in the complaint in the end has admitted that hasn’tfulfilled all technical specifications required by CA.Review panel regarding the allegation of the complaining EO “NTSH-PRPOFITECH” that CA has violated article 28, that has to do with technicalspecifications, review panel ascertains that technical specifications were done conformprovisions in force.Review panel regarding the allegation of the complaining economic operator“NTSH-PROFITECH” that Ca has violated article 59 and 60 of the LPP, has ascertainedthat examination, evaluation and comparison of the tenders was done in harmony withprovisions of the LPP, so by the evaluation commission was recommended for contractEO which has submitted accountable tender with the lowest price.
Review panel based on the ascertainments and recommendations of the reviewexpert, after screening of the proof in the hearing session as well based in all writtenevidence, ascertained and evaluated that complaining claims mentioned in thecomplaint considers as ungrounded, and at the same time comes to a conclusion that CAregarding this procurement activity has respected in general material and proceduralprovisions of the LPP, while recommending for contract EO which has submittedaccountable tender with the lowest price. Whereas regarding the authorization from themanufacturer issued by the distributor requested by CA, review panel ascertains thatthe authorization provided from EO recommended for contract is valid and fulfills allrequests lodged in the tender dossier, since it is issued for sales, servicing and validity ofthe equipment.Therefore review panel based on the article 117 of the LPP and that what wassaid above, decided as in the provision of this decision.Legal advice:Aggrieved party can not appeal against this decision,but it can file charges for damage compensationin front of the Supreme Court of Kosovo,within 30 days after the receipt of this decision.Chairman of the Review PanelHysni Hoxha_____________________
- Page 1 and 2: P.SH 133/12PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL
- Page 3: Review expert in the end of his rep
and the machine works all night, in this case we win on time, the request of thelaboratory is toxicology lab, the purpose is to win on time and get accreditation.Also we were the panel of 5 members, except me that I work in the laboratory, we hadthe expertise of the crime, and we have reviewed these specification.As follows regarding the ascertainment no.4, that EO recommended for contract didn’tprovide authorization from the manufacturer as required in the tender dossier at FTD atpoint 9.1.1 I must state that we don’t agree with the ascertainment of the review expertbecause the manufacturing company “Angilent” from America has authorized directly “Alpha Crom” which is responsible for the whole Balkan region through authorization ofthe 31.01.2011 for sales, servicing, validity and that possesses also the certificates of theauthorized servicer, after long consultation the outcome is that CA on the occasion ofevaluation of this activity, where this authorization even though is from the leader hasevaluated as notarizing the manufacturer, for the reason that this manufacturer hasguaranteed for all these mentioned above, and that not only for Kosova but for allregion. Me as a representative of the CA I request from the panel that the decision of theCA to be approved and the complaint of the complaining EO to be rejected.During the presentation in the session, review expert stated that in the article 9.1was decisively requested to be the authorization of the manufacturer, where EOrecommended for contract has authorization from the distributor. Whereas EO “Megabro” has the authorization from the manufacturer but it is a fact that this EO is around30.000 Euros more expensive and I am surprised by the fact Why CA has decisivelyrequested in the dossier, the authorization must be from the manufacturer where thesame authorization is issued from different representatives that deal with this nature ofworks, as well for ensuring the implementation of this project. In the end I want to addthat complaining EO “Profitech” in the complaint in the end has admitted that hasn’tfulfilled all technical specifications required by CA.Review panel regarding the allegation of the complaining EO “NTSH-PRPOFITECH” that CA has violated article 28, that has to do with technicalspecifications, review panel ascertains that technical specifications were done conformprovisions in force.Review panel regarding the allegation of the complaining economic operator“NTSH-PROFITECH” that Ca has violated article 59 and 60 of the LPP, has ascertainedthat examination, evaluation and comparison of the tenders was done in harmony withprovisions of the LPP, so by the evaluation commission was recommended for contractEO which has submitted accountable tender with the lowest price.
Change language