By Azu Obiaya

After reading the story “Privatisation of PHCN: Bidders ask FG for deadline submission,” published in Saturday Vanguard newspaper, of August 4, 2012, my reaction, to put it mildly, was one of disbelief and incredulity, at the ridiculous reasons given by the firms who missed the deadline associated with bid submissions for the PHCN successor distribution companies (“DisCo”).

My incredulity was all the more so, given that the explanations or reasons were provided by firms who are expected to be seasoned business entities, with the sophistication necessary to operate the respective distribution networks, if selected as successful bidders.  Clearly, there is significant error, in such an expectation.  In view of this, I’d like to respond to all the issues raised in the article.

The article states that the firms have requested an extension to the bid deadline, “in order to ensure transparency”. I am not sure what other level or magnitude of transparency that these firms seek, given that the deadline was not only categorically stated in amendments to the Request for Proposal (RFP), provided to all the potential bidders, but that the Bureau for Public Enterprises (BPE), after receipt of the bids for the successor generating companies (“GenCo”), sent out a reminder to all the potential bidders for the DisCos, reminding them of the deadline.

Thus, this information, in the spirit of transparency, was available to all the bidders.  Furthermore, the firms seem to ignore a major tenet of any procurement or transaction, which is fairness.  The predicate for fairness is that all bidders must be subject to the same standards, with no bidder being provided with any advantage over others.

Requiring an extension, solely for bidders who failed to submit their bids on a timely basis would amount to an undue advantage and consequently, unfairness.  That fifty-four (54) firms were able to submit their bids timely, certainly questions the commitment of those that failed to meet the submission deadline.

The firms that failed to submit timely bids, in their August 1, 2012 letter to the Director General, BPE, as specified in the article, state that “various consortium…missed the deadline by seven minutes with very valid reasons”.  I have to wonder about the competence and ability of these firms to operate the DisCos that are up for sale, if they are unable to meet the simple requirement of complying with a deadline.

Particularly so, given that the associated RFPs were issued early in the fourth quarter of 2011, the various extensions to the bid submission dates and the amendments, that universally applied to the fifty-four bidders that submitted timely bids.  The fifty-four timely bidders were also subject to the “same onerous tasks of adjustments and re-strategizing,” purportedly associated with these amendments. It is said that it is a poor workman who blames his tools.

In the article, the firms state the absence of “multiple collection centres…for the collation of the bids” as one of the arguments for the extension of the bid deadline. First, the use of multiple bid collection centers is the exception and not the rule.