2018 Court of Accounts Regular Audit Report is one of the basic principles of the Public Procurement Law of the trambus project, which does not fall from the agenda of Şanlıurfa. revealed that it violated the principles of transparency, competition, equal treatment, confidentiality, and efficient use of resources. The report also said, "In order to fulfill the requirements regarding the issues explained, the works and processes specified in the relevant legislation should be started."
Agency UrfaAccording to the news in; “The Trambus project, which was planned to be built at the time of Şanlıurfa Metropolitan Mayor Nihat Çiftçi with a cost of approximately 72 million, was reflected in the 2018 Court of Accounts Regular Audit of the Court of Accounts prepared by the Court of Accounts.
In the report, it was pointed out that the projects and tender documents related to the Trambus project were prepared for a consultancy firm and the tender was awarded, the only company participating in the tender and bidding won the tender. In the report, one of the basic principles of the Public Tender Law of the Trambus project; Emphasis was placed on violating the principles of transparency, competition, equal treatment, confidentiality and efficient use of resources.
'IT'S UNDERSTANDING EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES INFRINGING THE PRINCIPLES'
In the report prepared by the Court of Accounts, one of the basic principles of the Public Procurement Law No. 1 of the works and procedures performed during the pre-tender preparation and tender process of the "Şanlıurfa 4734st Stage Trolleybus Project Procurement Work"; it has been found to violate the principles of transparency, competition, equal treatment, confidentiality, and efficient use of resources. The Administration, respectively; In the trolley bus procurement tender held in three stages: preparation of preliminary projects, preparation of tender documents with the project and implementation of the project; The preliminary project and the project have been made to the same consultancy firm in violation of the legislation, and this consultancy firm has carried out works and procedures that will allow a single company to participate and win the tender for the implementation of the project. In 2017, a rail system was planned to be built by Şanlıurfa Metropolitan Municipality in addition to the existing public transportation services in urban transportation. Accordingly, two alternative preliminary projects, tram and trambus (electric bus), were prepared. As a result of the evaluation of the preliminary projects, it decided to make the trambus project by the Administration. The project and tender documents related to the trambus project were prepared for a consultancy firm and the tender was awarded, the only company participating in the tender and bidding won the tender ”.
INconsistencies were revealed in the report
In the conclusion part of the report that reveals the inconsistencies before and after the tender, the following statements were given: “As a result, in the response that the Public Administration sent to the part of our finding related to the rail system preliminary project preparation service and then the tender document preparation service; It is stated that there is no proposal from local companies while determining the approximate cost on the grounds that there is no company that can perform such a project in Şanlıurfa, the project was built directly with this company since the preliminary project company also has the right to implement the application project, and only the proposal was received from this company at approximately the cost.
Expressions such as not receiving proposals from local companies for approximate cost, the preliminary project generating a special right regarding the need, and the absence of any other manufacturer companies contain subjective comments and are not concretely stated. In the response of the Public Administration, he stated that he had received only offers from this company since there were no other companies producing trolley buses and that the technical specification did not indicate the trolleybus of the relevant company. There is an inconsistency here. Besides, if there is only one company that produces the work items mentioned in the table, there is no need to tender anyway and the direct procurement method (22 / a) would be used. Public Procurement Board No. 2007 / uh.z-3434, which the Public Administration shows as an opinion
It is understood that his decision is specific to the concrete event and has nothing to do with our finding. The Public Administration argues that the tender price is below approximate cost and the consulting firm does not violate privacy. These issues are explained in detail in our finding with their reasons. Therefore, this answer of the Public Administration does not meet our claim.
NO BENEFITS AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE
Evaluation of public administration responses to trolleybus procurement business; The Public Administration trolleybus purchase of goods is a special production that requires production on demand, the harmonious operation of the infrastructure and trolleybuses and the construction works and the procurement of the goods in order to deal with a single contractor, that the partial offer for the goods and construction works is not included in the tender legislation. stated that trolleybus manufacturers would not be able to bid if the work experience documents related to the construction works are requested. First of all, there is no equivalent in the legislation for the Administration to choose this method to deal with a single contractor. In our finding, it was not stated that partial bids should be received in the same tender for goods and works, and it is stated in the legislation that even construction works of different qualifications are required to have separate qualification conditions, so that goods and works cannot be tendered with the same qualification criteria. Again, the Public Administration stated that trolleybus manufacturers will not be able to participate in the tender if a work experience certificate is requested. This explanation is abysmal. Because the opposite situation has occurred and the building contractors with professional competence have not been able to participate in the tender and the contractor firm has transferred the productions to the subcontractors. In these tenders of different nature, the issues that are not regulated in the type administrative specifications and that need to be arranged according to the nature of the work, while other matters may be requested in the section, there is no public interest and non-compliance.
WORKS AND PROCEDURES REPORTED IN THE LEGISLATION MUST BE STARTED.
In the response of the Public Administration, Malatya Metropolitan Municipality was also included in the trolleybus tender as a purchase of goods, no information was received from any organization prior to the tender, the Public Administration did not issue any addendum in any way, the system to be used in public transport systems was a whole and the system would not work if it was purchased separately. states that the fact that the tender price of some items is higher than the approximate cost does not contradict the legislation, this is a common situation in unit-priced works. Although the Public Administration agrees with the opinion that the system is a whole, there are no obstacles in performing the works done by all kinds of technical calculations by other practitioners with professional competence. Therefore, the claim that the system is a whole and should be made to a single contractor will not be accepted. Moreover, this contractor company also had other work items, other than bus production and spare parts, under other contractors contracts. Moreover, since the technical specification was prepared for the consultancy firm, the defenses that “no information was received from any organization” and “no addendum was issued in any way” were not seen on site since 31.03.2017 was published on the EKAP system. Of course, the fact that some items are higher than the tender price in unit-priced works is not against the tender legislation. However, when the findings made in our finding are evaluated as a whole, it will be understood that the price of the tender is higher than the approximate cost, and the practices of the Public Administration that are against the legislation before the tender and in the tender process. Therefore, in this tender, it will not be appropriate to evaluate the price of the tender for all the works below the approximate cost. As a result, it is necessary to initiate the works and processes specified in the relevant legislation in order to fulfill the requirements explained in detail in our finding and in the conclusion section. Whether or not there are any issues related to the findings in other tenders held by the public administration will be followed during the following audit period. ”