Police vehicle tender: when unjustified conditions override competition

 

-          The State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau (SAACB), in its annual report for 2025 concerning the tender to purchase Palestinian Police vehicles, Supply Order: (158/2024), exposes an issue that goes beyond buying cars to touch the core of public procurement principles: transparency, fair competition, and protection of public funds!

-          The report showed that the requirement to supply the vehicles within (30) days led to the exclusion of bids that met the specifications and were cheaper, despite the absence of an emergency that would justify this condition, while the facts showed that the company that was awarded the contract did not practically comply with this period!

-          The SAACB also recorded ignoring the recommendations of the technical and financial evaluation committee without written justifications, and the exclusion of bids for reasons that were not originally included in the tender documents. In addition, purchasing a large portion of the vehicles from a previous tender led to an additional cost to the public treasury exceeding 241,800 USD, compared with the prices that were available in the tender under audit! Since purchasing 62 of the hybrid vehicles (Kia Niro HEV Hybrid) from the company AMT)), according to central tender No. (2023/164) did not achieve the public interest, and caused the treasury to incur additional funds of (241,800USD), compared to if they had been purchased from tender No. (2024/158 ) where the purchase price for the single hybrid vehicle from tender No. (2023/164)) is 38,800USD, and the purchase price for the single hybrid vehicle in tender No. ( )2024/158 is 34,900USD!

-          Excluding the company Hyundai, Staria, Hybrid (PAC) because the vehicle body is not suitable for police needs (side glass) is an unjustified reason for exclusion, as the condition that the vehicle be suitable for installing the grille on the glass was not specified as a condition that must be met in the vehicle in the statement of need issued by the Police Authority, nor was it specified as a core condition or specification required in the standard tender document, whether in the special conditions, or in the technical specifications, or in the vehicle categories and price schedules, and there is no reasonable confirmation by a technical committee regarding the vehicle’s unsuitability for installing the grille!

-          Purchasing 8 vehicles out of 70 vehicles in tender No. (2024/158), and purchasing the remaining 62 vehicles from tender No. (2023/164 ) despite the existence of technically compliant offers whose prices are cheaper than the prices of the cars in tender No. (2023/164) and without clear and justified reasons, is considered contrary to rules of integrity and transparency and to providing space for competition to obtain the lowest prices.

-          The bids of the company (PAC) are technically compliant and responsive in terms of the core specifications specified in the tender, and their prices are the cheapest among the submitted offers, but they were not awarded the contract because of the delivery time stated in their offer, which is 4 months, noting that:

1-      35 vehicles (Kia Niro HEV Hybrid) were received from the company AMT on 2025/04/06, under tender No. (2023/164), i.e. two months after the issuance of the supply order dated 2025/02/04, contrary to the delivery period specified in tender No. (2024/158) which is 30 days, whereby the delivery period was the reason for excluding the company (PAC ((noting that the offer was compliant!

2-     The delivery of all the remaining cars, numbering 17 cars out of 27 cars, was not completed after 30 days from the delivery date, and they will be entered according to procedures when the company's delivery is completed, in addition to receiving 6 additional and free cars so that the total number of cars becomes 68 in total according to the statement of the General Directorate of Police!

3-     We did not have anything indicating that the competent authorities prepared an estimated study of the price of the old vehicles that will be sold and replaced by the new vehicles, and the financing process for purchasing the new vehicles from it, based on what was stated in the Minister of Interior’s letter to the Prime Minister, that the purchase of the new vehicles will be financed from the proceeds of selling the old vehicles!

4-     There is no reasonable confirmation to the SAACB of the technical condition of the old vehicles intended to be sold and replaced by the new vehicles, in terms of their remaining useful life and maintenance costs, which would necessitate the urgent replacement of those vehicles!

5-     It appeared that the specifications contained in the needs lists from the General Directorate of Police are high specifications, especially in terms of engine power, and there is no confirmation of the actual need for these specifications!

·         It is clear that the most dangerous aspect of this report is that it indicated that some decisions to exclude and to award contracts were not based on legal or sufficient technical justifications, which the SAACB considered a suspicion requiring accountability, especially when that leads to excluding lower-priced and more viable offers!

·        Protecting public funds is not achieved merely by formal compliance with tender procedures, but by applying standards of transparency and competition, and equal opportunities fairly, such that the award is always in the interest of the public treasury, not for unsupported justifications or conditions that are not stipulated!

·        The positive side remains that the audited entity announced its commitment to implement the State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau (SAACB)’s recommendations, and the real bet remains on translating this commitment into practical measures that prevent repetition of such observations in future government tenders!