Citizens Demand Answers On GWAN/GLAN SD-WAN Procurement Evaluation
Questions are being raised over the transparency and consistency of the ongoing procurement process for the Government Wide Area Network/Global Local Area Network (GWAN/GLAN) SD-WAN infrastructure.
Information reaching this newspaper suggests that the evaluation process may have been conducted in two separate stages by different groups of evaluators. According to sources familiar with the process, the initial assessment was carried out by a five-member evaluation team, which completed its work after reviewing the bids submitted by participating companies.
The same sources allege that the bidder now believed to be favoured did not perform strongly in the initial assessment and was reportedly placed fourth. However, the process allegedly changed after three additional evaluators joined the team, bringing the total number of evaluators to seven.
A separate evaluation and rescoring exercise was reportedly conducted after the three additional members were introduced. The subsequent assessment allegedly moved the previously fourth-ranked bidder into first position.
This reported change has raised questions among stakeholders and members of the public. The main issue being asked is why two different evaluation exercises were conducted and what authority permitted the second assessment.
Among the questions requiring answers are:
- Why was a second evaluation conducted after the initial five-member team had completed its work?
- Who authorised the appointment of the three additional evaluators?
- Was the first evaluation formally cancelled, reviewed or set aside?
- Were the same evaluation criteria, scoring methodology and tender requirements applied in both assessments?
- What specifically caused the bidder to move from fourth position to first?
- Was the change supported by a written justification and an independent review?
- Were all bidders treated equally throughout the process?
The concerns have been further heightened by allegations that the Minister of Communication, Technology and Innovation instructed officials to ensure that a previous winning bidder was allowed to win, allegedly warning that officials would be dismissed if this did not happen.
This newspaper has not independently verified that allegation. The Minister and the Ministry should therefore be given an opportunity to respond and clarify whether any instruction was issued concerning the outcome of the procurement or the treatment of a particular bidder.
Additional concerns relate to the reportedly preferred bidder’s eligibility. Documentary material reviewed by this newspaper allegedly indicates that, despite receiving a technical score of more than 90 percent, the bidder may not have satisfied one or more mandatory pre-qualification requirements.
If confirmed, this raises a fundamental procedural question: How was the bidder allowed to proceed to the technical evaluation stage if it had not met the preliminary eligibility requirements?
Pre-qualification and preliminary responsiveness requirements are generally intended to establish whether a bidder is eligible to proceed to substantive evaluation. However, the precise requirements and consequences in this procurement must be determined from the official tender documents, applicable procurement rules and the approved evaluation record.
A high technical score would not ordinarily cure a failure to meet a mandatory requirement. Conversely, if the bidder did satisfy the requirement, the procuring entity should be able to identify the relevant evidence and explain how the issue was addressed.
For the sake of public confidence, the procuring entity and relevant oversight bodies should clarify:
- The composition and appointment of both evaluation teams;
- The reason for adding the three evaluators;
- Whether the first evaluation was approved, rejected or withdrawn;
- The difference between the initial and revised scores;
- The applicable pre-qualification requirements;
- The basis for the change in ranking; and
- Whether an independent review was conducted before the final recommendation.
It is important to emphasise that the allegations reported in this article have not been finally established. A change in an evaluation team or ranking does not, by itself, prove wrongdoing. A procuring entity may lawfully review or repeat an evaluation where a procedural error or other legitimate concern is identified.
However, any such intervention should be authorised, documented and applied consistently to all bidders. Without a clear audit trail, the process may create the appearance that the evaluation was altered to produce a predetermined result.
The GWAN/GLAN SD-WAN project is of significant national importance. It is expected to support public-sector connectivity, digital services and communications infrastructure. The award of such a contract must therefore be based not only on technical capability and value for money, but also on a process that is demonstrably fair and transparent.
Further documentary material concerning the evaluation process and the bidders’ submissions is expected to be examined and, where properly verified and legally publishable, may be reported in a subsequent edition. Any publication should respect confidential commercial information and provide affected parties with a fair opportunity to respond.
The public is entitled to know how the final decision was reached, whether the published rules were applied consistently, and why a bidder reportedly ranked fourth in the initial assessment later emerged as the leading bidder.
Until the procuring entity provides a complete explanation, the existence of two evaluation exercises, the reported change in ranking, the alleged ministerial instruction and the alleged pre-qualification issue will remain matters of legitimate public concern.
