Vacuum toilet canceled high-speed train tender

The high-speed train set tender was canceled by the vacuum toilet: TCDD, 10 high speed train set and 3 held annual maintenance tender. The German Siemens 339 won the tender with a million euros. Italian Alstom appealed to the conclusion on the 6 issue. The tender was canceled because of the vacuum toilet, but not the items being challenged

On the date of 29 May 2014 by TCDD, high-speed train auction was held. 10 pieces of high-speed trains and 3 of these sets for the annual maintenance of the tender with the German Siemens Italian Alstom firms offered. Alstom's bid for the 339 million 872 million 201 million was the 262 million 116 thousand Euro. While Alstom remained in the tender process for missing documents, Siemens won the award.

6 appeal on the matter

Alstom applied to the Public Procurement Authority (GCC) for the cancellation of the tender upon the exclusion of the tender and collected its objections under the title of 6. His petition clarified the issue of missing documents, which led to his elimination. Alstom'ın a group of companies, the documents requested for the tender of the company's documents in France, the use of the documents stated that this is not an error. However, the JCC did not accept this objection because the company in France was not listed in the list of subcontractors.

Another objection of the Italian company was related to energy consumption. In their petition they stated that they reported the energy consumption of 250 kw / hour for the high-speed train going at 12,548 per hour, while Siemens suggested that 300 kw / hour energy consumption for 12,036 per hour was not technologically possible. The JCC did not accept this objection.

High cost

Alstom said that the 339 million Euro offer from Siemens is above the cost of 320 million Euros announced by TCDD. On the other hand, the JCC determined that this was the case in Euro, but when the cost was evaluated in TL terms, it was 974 million, which is below the estimated cost of the estimated 992 million TL. The JCC made the following statements:

Competition did not occur

In his petition of appeal, Alstom also claimed that the necessary competitive environment did not occur. In his petition, 9 stated that the company received the tender dossier and that the tender was only for themselves and Siemens was bidding and they were also unfairly eliminated because of lack of paperwork. The JCC replied to this objection: em The fact that there is only one valid offer in the tender does not mean that competition does not occur alone hal replied and rejected again.

Vacuum toilet has no certificate

While the JCC rejected the points that Alstom objected, he eliminated the tender from a very different subject. In the report prepared by KİK, it was determined that Siemens gave the missing certificate. It was determined by the KIK that the ISO 14000 Environmental Management Certificate required for the device named "interior - exterior door", "vacuum toilet" and "pathograph" was not submitted to TCDD in the offer file given by Siemens. On the grounds that Siemens did not deliver the certificates included in the tender specifications, it has void its offer and canceled the tender on the grounds that there was no valid tender left in the tender.

57 bribed a million euros?

SIEMENS one of the fastest companies of public procurement in Turkey, while (about 13 billion euro took the job) also came up with the name of the bribery scandal. In a case in Germany, Siemens managers confessed that they bribed bureaucrats to take advantage of tenders in the countries in which they operate. Siemens executives have expressed within this context that a minister is also 57 million euros in bribes between Turkey stated that they distribute the money to the court clerk in the field had passed. Bribery scandal in many countries, including Greece said when opening the investigation, taking into account this statement, while the investigation was deemed necessary in Turkey.

 

Armin

sohbet

    Be the first to comment

    Comments