Controversy Surrounding a Rs 62.3 Million Contract: The Independent Review Panel Rejects Appeal Against NHDC

The Independent Review Panel has rejected the appeal from the Onix/Oxita joint venture against the NHDC regarding a contract valued at Rs 62.3 million. The contract is confirmed in favor of RBL Waterproofing Specialists, despite challenges regarding the evaluation of bids.

The Independent Review Panel made its decision in the case involving the Onix/Oxita joint venture and the National Housing Development Company Limited (NHDC), a parastatal body responsible for social housing development. This dispute concerns the awarding of a contract worth Rs 62,309,950 for repair and waterproofing work on residential complexes. The IRP ultimately dismissed the appeal, confirming the award to RBL Waterproofing Specialists Ltd, despite criticism of the bid evaluation process.

The bidding process began on August 6, 2025, when the NHDC launched an open national tender via the e-procurement system, referenced as NHDC/ONB/02-2025/021. The deadline was set for September 3, 2025, and the opening of sealed envelopes took place on September 5. Three bids were received, including one from the Onix/Oxita joint venture. A Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) was formed to analyze the submissions and identify the lowest and substantially compliant offer.

On October 9, 2025, the NHDC notified bidders that the evaluation had been conducted and that the contract was awarded to RBL Waterproofing Specialists Ltd for an amount of Rs 62,309,950, including a provisional sum of Rs 13,500,000 and excluding VAT. This decision immediately prompted a challenge from Onix/Oxita, which submitted an appeal on October 14, 2025. They argued that their "bid is the lowest and substantially compliant in this tender exercise," claiming that its rejection was "unintelligible, unreasonable, unjust, and arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice."

Onix/Oxita also contested RBL's capacity to execute the entire scope of work, arguing that the scope included not only waterproofing but also new constructions, renovations, and improvements such as concrete repairs, soil erosion control, and the construction of drains, ramps, and block walls. They asserted that awarding the contract to RBL posed "a significant risk of non-performance" for the project.

The NHDC responded on October 17, 2025, defending the evaluation carried out "in strict accordance with the Public Procurement Act 2006 and related regulations." They explained that Onix/Oxita's bid did not meet the qualification criteria, specifically sub-factor 2.4.1 (b) for general experience—requiring registration with the Construction Industry Authority (CIA) for specific waterproofing work—and sub-factor 2.4.2 (b) for specific experience, which required a minimum expertise in roofing waterproofing covering at least 3,200 m² within the last five years. "None of the joint venture partners met these qualification criteria," the response clarified, categorizing these deficiencies as "material deviations" rendering the bid non-compliant. In contrast, RBL was deemed compliant, having demonstrated "adequate technical experience in similar work."

Dissatisfied, Onix/Oxita appealed to the IRP on October 23, 2025, accusing the NHDC of conducting an "improper, unfair, and unreasonable evaluation." The joint venture insisted that its bid was fully compliant, arguing that the insistence on qualification criteria was "incorrect, unreasonable, and unjust," and that the NHDC had taken a "narrow and mechanical" approach instead of a reasoned assessment of capabilities. They reiterated their doubts about RBL: "The parastatal body erred in considering RBL Waterproofing Specialists Ltd as the selected bidder, while the complainant firmly believes that the latter will be unable to execute the majority of the works outlined in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ)."

The hearing took place on November 5, 2025. In its decision, the IRP commended the quality of the parties' arguments but limited its analysis to two key points: the certificate of registration and the evaluation of experience. Regarding the first point, the IRP criticized the BEC for its "overly mechanical" approach, noting that Onix/Oxita's certificate for "building construction works" covered waterproofing, as confirmed by the CIA in a letter dated September 16, 2025. "We can assert with authority that the BEC's reasoning was flawed when it decided to reject the bid on this specific basis," stated the decision. Thus, the first ground for review was partially successful.

However, on the second point—deemed inadequate experience constituting a "major deviation"—the IRP refrained from intervening, referencing Supreme Court jurisprudence (Securiclean (Mauritius) Ltd v The Ministry of Local Government & Outer Islands & Ors) which limits its role to facts established by the BEC. Regarding RBL, the IRP verified its multiple certifications and concluded that they were adequate, with no irregularities justifying intervention.

In conclusion, the IRP declared the appeal "meritless" and rejected it, confirming the contract award.