IETT General Directorate has some power in recent days. sözcümade a statement regarding the allegations made by them.
The statement made by the General Directorate of IETT is as follows;
1- Existing tenders of IETT Enterprises;
As the General Directorate of IETT Enterprises; Ensuring competition is one of our main objectives in our goods and services procurement tenders, most of which are realized by open tender procedure.
On the basis of amount, the share of the open tenders we held in our total tenders was 2019% in 74; to 2020% in 80; increased to 91% this year as well.
The current status of our vehicle maintenance service procurement process is given in the table below. In our 18-22 month maintenance tenders, all of which were held within the framework of the open tender procedure and the requirements of the public procurement agency, at least 30 related companies received documents through the EKAP system; At least 3 bidders submitted their price offers for each tender.
The maintenance of IETT vehicles is carried out by 5 different companies that won the tenders they entered as a result of the bids they submitted in the open tenders they participated in, as they were the lowest price bids.
The services provided by the General Directorate of IETT are continuous and regular works carried out by considering the public interest in order to meet the public transportation needs of the passengers. In order for these works to continue without interruption, the continuity of the service has been ensured with the bargaining procedure of the Public Procurement Law No. 20, pursuant to Article 4734 of the Public Procurement General Communiqué, in the stages of no bids in the tenders, complaint-objection complaint and court processes.
For example;
In the 13th Chamber of the Council of State, in its decision numbered E: 2020/2809 K: 2021/1335, it was concluded that there was no illegality in the realization of the tender, which is the subject of the lawsuit, with the tender registration number 2019/706648, “5.115.000 km Urban Public Transport Service Procurement (Kurtköy)” by bargaining method. .
Same way;
In the 13th Chamber of the Council of State, in its decision numbered E: 2020/3373 K: 2021/1333, it was concluded that there was no illegality in the realization of the tender, which is the subject of the lawsuit, with the tender registration number 2020/212646, "7.500.000 km Urban Public Transport Service Procurement", by bargaining method.
Tenders were held with the open tender method, which is the basic tender procedure of the Public Procurement Law No. 4734, short-term bargaining tenders were made when complaints or objections were filed against the tenders with open tenders or were cancelled, transparency, competition, equal treatment and reliability were ensured in the tenders.
Article 4734(b) of the Public Procurement Law No. 21 was carried out in accordance with the Public Procurement Law and the Public Procurement General Communiqué, and there is no illegality or public loss.
2-The issue that there is no competition in the tenders, the number of bids and the discount are low;
In the Public Procurement Board Decision no. 2021/UH.II-686 (31.03.2021), in summary, “…..as a result of the bid evaluations, the fact that the only valid bid remains in the tender does not mean that there is no competition and that the bid in question is below the approximate cost. It was concluded that the cancellation of the Public Procurement Law on the grounds of the basic principles was not appropriate.” In many of the decisions of the GCC, there is a decision that even a single valid offer can be accepted.
However, in all open tenders held by our Administration, more than one bidder has made an offer and contracts have been signed with the companies that submitted the lowest valid bid below the approximate cost.
Mistake; The lowest prices, above the approximate cost, in the tender, which took place under the conditions we have stated, are also acceptable prices according to the evaluation to be made within the scope of the legislation. For example, in the tender numbered 2017/36298, which was held by our Administration in the past years, a contract was signed with the company that submitted a bid 3.3% above the approximate cost.
Firms that bid for the tender as prudent traders prepare their offers in accordance with the market conditions and tender specifications, (the number of personnel, the number of vehicles and the kilometers to be made are determined in the tender specifications, they prepare their costs in free market conditions, and the approximate cost calculations are made by obtaining bids from the market and finding the average costs. Giving close offers is in line with the normal flow of life.
3- Mercedes Benz Türk A.Ş. (MBT) company's claim to be prevented from participating in the tender;
Mercedes Benz Türk A.Ş., which is alleged to have been prevented from participating in the tender. (MBT), for the vehicles serving on the Metrobus Line, to the "07.12.2020 km Bus (2020 Capacity, 583076 Conecto G) Maintenance and Repair Service Procurement Tender" for 18 months with the tender registration number 99.279.000/249 made by our Administration on 315. However, MBT's offer was not evaluated by the tender commission, on the grounds that it both submitted a bid above the approximate cost and gave a 46% higher bid (163.688.580, 00 TL) than the company that made the most advantageous bid.
The aforementioned tender was canceled with the decisions of the Public Procurement Board numbered 30.12.2020/UH.I-2213 and 2020/UH.I-2214, upon the objections of different companies.
After the canceled tender, until a new open tender was made, an interim tender for 4734 months was held with the bargaining method in accordance with Article 21-b of the Public Procurement Law, and a contract was signed with MBT, which won the tender, until 2.
The new open tender was held on 11.03.2021 with the tender registration number 2021/64219 for 22 months, “137.621.000 km Bus (249 Capacity, 389 Conecto g) Maintenance and Repair Service Procurement Tender”.
It has also participated in this tender by MBT company. However, the bid still remains above the approximate cost and is 9% higher (49.982.240,00 TL) than the most advantageous bid, and when the tender documents are examined, the offer of the MBT firm, the documents required to participate in the tender and the qualification criteria are in accordance with Article 7.1. Since it was determined that there is no stamp and signature of the Person Authorized to Bid in the Document Showing the Latest Status Regarding the Partnership Information in Legal Entities and the Officials in the Management, it was excluded from the evaluation in accordance with Article 31.5 of the Administrative Specifications titled Evaluation of the bids.
Therefore, there is no blocking of the MBT company that bids in the tenders, and there is no complaint made by MBT to our administration or the Public Procurement Authority in this regard.
In summary; In all tenders; Efficient and efficient use of resources has been ensured by making contracts with companies that meet the tender qualification conditions and submit the most suitable and valid offer below the approximate cost. Despite this, we express our regret that the name of our 150-year-old Institution has been brought to the agenda with the subject of inappropriate tenders in our Gazi Assembly, and declare that all documents and information on the subject are open to the inspection of the authorized units of our state.
We respectfully present it to the public.
Be the first to comment