World Bank says no to ‘Dinky’ Balcombe

The Government of St Vincent and the Grenadines was justified in rejecting the joint venture bid submitted by Bally & Bally (B&B) Investment for World Bank funded coastal defense works at San Souci.

This is the position of the World Bank, which was stated in an email dated February 26, and sent to the Central Planning Division of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.

On February 10, Cameron “Dinky” Balcombe, Managing Director of B&B Investment had disclosed at a press conference that he had written to the World Bank to complain about unfair treatment in relation to the award of the contract for coastal defence works at Sans Souci. His wife Ronnia Durham-Balcombe, who is a director of B&B Investment had stated at the same press conference that while neither party can be bound by the terms of an unsigned document, the omission was not of substance.

A letter to the Government from the World Bank following a complaint by B&B Investments.

The couple complained that while their bid was rejected because of his missing signature on the bid bond, the successful bidder, Kelectric Company Limited and Belevedere Place Development, omitted to provide several pieces of pertinent information, but was allowed to add to their bid, an accusation that has been vehemently denied by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.

However, Shaun Moss, lead procurement specialist at the World Bank Group, in response to the complaint said after reviewing the bidding documents as issued, the bid security submitted by Bally & Bally Investment Ltd. (B&B), and the letter of complaint submitted by B&B, the Government had strong grounds in rejecting the bid.

“Without having information on other aspects of B&B’s bid, including its responsiveness to other requirements of bidding documents, we believe that the Government has strong grounds to determine that the said bid security is defective in that it omits the bidder’s signature and seal as Principal, as required by the form of bid bond included in the bidding documents.

“This omission constitutes a material deviation, rendering the bid security difficult to enforce and, as such, the Government is justified in treating this as a major deviation and grounds for rejection of the bid,” Moss said, in the email seen by Searchlight.

The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, in a release issued February 20 had outlined five reasons to explain why Bally and Bally’s bid was rejected. It said the company did not sign an important bid document, which is a fundamental oversight similar to an unsigned cheque or contract.

The second reason was that Bally and Bally was notified that it’s failure to sign the required documents, rendered the bid unresponsive.

It further said that the company claimed to be in partnership with another entity for the specific contract, but failed to provide any documentation establishing such partnership.

Additionally, the release said the company was notified that its bid was unsuccessful and given 14 days to challenge the decision of the Tenders Board or seek a debriefing meeting with the Economic Planning Department, but Bally and Bally did not challenge the bid until one week after the deadline.

And finally, the release described Bally and Bally’s claim that the winning bidder was given an unfair advantage as false, noting that the secretary of the Tenders Board, by internal memorandum, wrote to the Director of Economic Planning seeking several clarifications on the Bid Evaluation Report submitted to the Tenders Board with the recommendation to award the contract.

“Bally and Bally obtained a copy of this correspondence and came to his conclusions. At no time was the winner bidder requested to supply any information contained in the memorandum from the Secretary of the Tenders Board. All the required information was contained in the bid submitted which was received at the stipulated deadline date,” the release said.

The press release said that the government applies laws and guidelines of the process in an even-handed and transparent manner, in collaboration with the funding entity.