The open tender notice was published in newspapers on October 30, 2019. The law No. 2016-055 of January 25, 2017 on the Public Procurement Code requires a 30-day submission period. But in this case, the deadline was shortened by 20 days, leaving only 10 days for candidates (from November 1 to 11, 2019). Contacted by phone, the former Person in charge of the Public Market (Personne Responsable du Marché Public – PRMP) within the Ministry of Health, Ravaonoro Francia, who dealt with this file said “to have acted on the orders of her hierarchical superiors” mentioning “the Presidency and the Prime Minister’s Office.” She said: “We were ordered to process this file urgently, before December (2019 Ed).” The urgent nature of the work, which justified the use of a Framework Contract, reduced the bidding period to 10 days. In the end, only one candidate, Société Agence Générale, was able to submit a bid for this contract, initially worth just under MGA 800 million, within the time limit.
Ravo Ramasomanana, former member of the Procurement Management Unit (Unité de Gestion de Passation des Marchés – UGPM) notes an interesting point: “No bids were submitted within the regulatory timeframe”, i.e. between November 1 and 11, 2019, “five eyewitnesses were present to certify this”.
For her part, the former PRMP is standing firm: “We have received only one offer: that of the Société Générale Agency, and this, within the allotted time. All verifications have been made, at the level of the CAO (Commission d’Appels d’Offres Ed), the PRMP, the CNM (Commission Nationale des Marchés Ed) and the Financial Control: that is, four people (…) For my part, I guarantee that all the files I have handled comply with the procedure.” The PRMP is confident, and for good reason: the minutes of the tender opening drawn up by the Tender Commission, which is responsible for evaluating the bids received, clearly indicate that Société Agence Générale was able to bid for this contract within the time limit. And it will be this bid from Société Agence Générale that will be finally selected and awarded on November 26, 2019.
Pirate file ?
At this level, we have two contradictory statements: the former member of the UGPM who asserts the absence of a bid and the members of the CAO who indicate that in the bid opening minutes, the Société Agence Générale was able to bid. This bidding company never showed up at the offices of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (Autorité de Régulation des Marchés Publics – ARMP) to acquire the mandatory terms of reference.
On the other hand, another company, Alpha Building, was the only one to present itself to ARMP to purchase the terms of reference for this work. The system of the single counterfoil and digitalized receipt of the ARMP attests this fact. As per our source, this company did not submit a bid for the construction of the kidney transplant center. It is with the Alpha Building company’s release, a mandatory document for the submission of a bid, that the Société Agence Générale company’s file was completed.
A source within the CAO also stated that no member of this commission had any reserves regarding the presence of this discharge in the name of the Alpha Building company in the file of the Société Agence Générale, because “the two companies were associated”. Indeed, the Code of Public Contracts provides in its article 22 that “companies can present their candidacy, their offer or their proposal in the form of a solidary grouping or a joint grouping”. The former PRMP clarifies: “The CAO asked them to explain their situation, before the file was sent to me. They (the companies Société Agence Générale and Alpha Building Ed) explained to us that they had a contract. It is in fact the same person. We have requested confirmation from ARMP on this case, which informed us that in such circumstances (where two companies bid in tandem Ed) there should be no problems (…) because the company Alpha Building belongs to the same person. There is no need to buy another specification, since this step was already made on their behalf, being the same companies as per their contract”.
Raharimalala Sylvia, Administrative and Financial Director (DAF) of the Société Agence Générale gives her version: “In fact, the Société Agence Générale and Alpha Building form a grouping clause in the file that we presented. That is why Alpha Building was able to obtain this document (the discharge Ed) which is used in our file “. If for the former PRMP, Alpha Builiding and the Société Agence Générale belong to the same person, from her own confirmation, Raharimalala Sylvia underlined that the Alpha Building company did not belong to her.
However, our source is just as clear: there is no written record of this grouping clause, “neither in the application file of the Société Agence générale, nor in the minutes of the bid opening”. In the minutes, it is only mentioned that the discharge was indeed present in the file. Another source, whom we will refer to generically as Rakoto to preserve his anonymity, well aware of the file, confirms: “The two companies do not have any grouping clause in this contract.
In any case, we did not find the proof of the existence of this company named Alpha Building because it does not seem to appear in the Trade and Companies Register (Registre du Commerce et des Sociéocis – RCS).
A construction company or a cleaning company ?
“The Société Agence Générale is indeed specialized in the construction of buildings. We have worked in the construction of several buildings,” according to the DAF, Raharimalala Sylvia. What Rakoto formally contradicts: “This company works mainly in cleaning”. In documents that we have obtained, it is established that the company works in the cleaning of enterprises premises. We can read in the list of the social object of the company: “administrative process, administration, cleaning, handling, maintenance and new installation, repair, home construction, driver and courier, transport of various goods, collection and sorting of garbage, human resources management”. This information is corroborated by the company’s RCS file.
In the evaluation procedure of the bids for the realization of such a public contract, the bidders are asked to justify similar convincing experiences during the last five years. Société Agence Générale will mention two construction projects in its application: the renovation of a Catholic school in Antsirabe estimated at MGA 750 million and the construction of a building in Ambohidratrimo estimated at over MGA 2 billion.
“After noting the non-conformity of the corporate purpose, the Société Générale Agency added the mention BTP in its corporate purpose”
Source of the Unité de Gestion de Passation des Marchés (UGPM)
According to the corporate purpose mentioned in the company’s official documents, the main activity of Société Agence Générale is not the construction of buildings, all the more so, buildings with such specific functions as a kidney transplant canter. Within UGPM, our source indicates: “After noting the non-conformity of the corporate purpose, the Société Générale Agency added the mention BTP in its corporate purpose, without mentioning this point afterwards.” We have not found any traces of this modified document mentioned by our source. It should be remembered, however, that Article 20 of the Public Procurement Code provides that “failure to submit tax and social security documents within 15 days of the notification of the award shall result in the withdrawal of the contract with a view to reallocation”.
A design defect valued at MGA 120 million
In 2020, after a recommendation by the engineer in charge of the project within the Department in charge of Infrastructure and Logistics (Service en charge des Infrastructures et de la Logistique – SILOP), a subsequent contract to the counter-framework was awarded for just under MGA 120 million. A ” design flaw ” is mentioned. According to the SILOP engineer in charge of the project, who participated in the design of the building, these defects were noted during a visit of the premises by the medical commission, composed of eminent doctors and professors, headed by the Director of the Andohatapenaka University Hospital. A letter dated September 30, 2020 issued by the medical commission certifies these reports. This letter mentions in particular the points to be improved/ revised on the building site as a whole. The requirement of these health professionals to review the construction of the operating room in particular, was at the origin of these additional works estimated at MGA 120 million.
On this point, the versions of Société Agence Générale’s DAF, Raharimalala Sylvia, and Rakoto diverge. Raharimalala Sylvia explains that she intervened, as the person in charge of the project’s implementation, to “ask for a meeting at the highest level with the medical professionals”. Raharimalala says she ” formulated a formal request to have these plans reviewed. It was only at this point that the Administration was willing to accept these important modifications.”
Rakoto has a different point of view, having seen the genesis of the project: “They did everything to complete the file in record time, to award the contract quickly, so that the building plans were neglected. If they had taken the necessary time, they would have seen that there were flaws in the plan.”
No official explanation has been given to date on the status of this public contract. According to the Ministry of Health, which presented its activity report to the National Assembly on June 14, 2021, this kidney transplant centre would already be ready to operate.