Contract for the La Brasserie Transfer Station: IRP Requests Environment to Review Its Tender

The IRP has canceled the Ministry of Environment's tender for the La Brasserie transfer station, citing the lack of a promised site visit and insufficient clarifications regarding the equipment, ruling in favor of the CRSE company.

The Ministry of Environment has been compelled to revise its tender for the La Brasserie transfer station. The Independent Review Panel (IRP) criticizes the absence of a promised site visit and inadequate clarifications about the required equipment.

In its ruling issued a few days ago in the case involving the Regional Company for Environmental Services Ltd (CRSE), as the applicant, against the Solid Waste Management Division of the Ministry of Environment, as the respondent, it found in favor of the company. This case pertains to an open international tender for the operation and maintenance of the La Brasserie transfer station, as well as the transport of waste to the Mare Chicose landfill site, for a period of 36 months.

The tender process began on August 22, 2025, with several amendments extending deadlines. On October 28, 2025, CRSE contested the opening of the bids, arguing that the procedure was flawed. According to the bidder's contestation reasons: "The request for a site visit, made during the pre-bid meeting, was for CRSE as a potential bidder to assess the condition of the transfer station and determine how it would impact the operating costs of the transfer station and consider this in setting its bid price. However, this site visit was not scheduled. This misled potential bidders. Therefore, the procedure was flawed."

A second reason: "The specific clarification requested by CRSE regarding whether a mechanical loader should be used for loading waste represents a significant cost factor, and the absence of a response from the public body is a major piece of information denied to a potential bidder."

On November 3, 2025, the Ministry responded that it is "the bidder's responsibility to visit and assess the site. Following your request for a site visit on October 22, 2025, the Ministry agreed to arrange a site visit, but you chose not to pursue it." The Ministry also clarified that the requirements for at least two loading equipment were indicated, and the bidder had to evaluate the number and type of loaders themselves.

On November 7, 2025, CRSE appealed to the IRP for a review, citing three main reasons. The first: the Ministry did not respond to a clarification request dated September 26, 2025, regarding the state of the three hoppers and whether the waste should be loaded with tracked excavators, in violation of the ITB/BDS 1 of Section II. The second: the Ministry erred in stating that it was the bidder's responsibility to conduct its own assessment. The third: the Ministry erred in claiming that CRSE chose not to attend the visit on October 22, 2025, as a visit must be meaningful and timely.

In its findings, the IRP noted that the case was at an unusual stage, after the bid opening but before evaluation. The core issues were the promised site visit and the response to the clarification. Regarding the site visit, the IRP noted that during the pre-bid meeting on September 4, 2025, CRSE had requested an accompanied visit. The minutes, dated mid-September but circulated on October 14, 2025, indicated that the Ministry would arrange a visit and inform bidders of the date and time, which did not occur. The IRP concluded that this created a reasonable expectation and that the non-fulfillment was illegal, justifying an intervention to prohibit the Ministry from acting unauthorized.

Regarding the clarification, the IRP observed that the request would not have arisen if the visit had taken place. The tender documents required two mechanical loaders, with an optional excavator for more effective compaction. However, the use of loaders depends on the operational hoppers.

An October 2025 site report indicated that the hoppers would be repaired, but a November 2025 report, after CRSE won a transitional contract of 4 to 7 months, revealed that none of the three hoppers were operational. The transitional contract made the excavator mandatory, contrary to the main tender. The IRP concluded that the October report was incorrect and that the equipment requirements were flawed. The IRP recommended cancellation due to the equipment requirements being unsuitable for the actual state of the site and prohibited the Ministry from proceeding as it did not fulfill the promised visit or respond adequately to the clarification.