• Not all bidders are informed of the contract cost estimate.
• Failure to keep accurate minutes of pre-bid meetings, including questions and answers.
• Clarification sought by bidders is not answered in writing or circulated to all bidders.
• Delay between deadline for submitting bids and opening them.
• Different location for receiving bids and opening them.
• Bids submitted and accepted after the submission deadline
• Bids not opened in public.
• Names of attendees, names of bidders and offer prices not recorded at bid opening.
• Failure to provide secure storage of, and restricted access to, bids received.
• Lack of transparent procedures for handling complaints and determining remedies.

Bid Evaluation and Contract Award

• Membership of the BEC appears to remain constant across procurement packets.
• BEC members do not have the technical expertise necessary to properly evaluate bids.
• The bidding process is controlled by a small number of persons in the PMU/PIU.
• Unreasonable delays in evaluating the bids and selecting the winner.
• High number of complaints about bid process and evaluation received from losing bidders, especially when lower bids are declared non-responsive.
• Information necessary to evaluate the procurement process is missing.
• Only photocopied documents are available for review.
• Incorrect method of procurement noted during review (e.g. single-source instead of ICB).
• Evaluation criteria are amended after receipt of bids.
• Same bidders repeatedly participating.
• Same bidder repeatedly winning.
• Large number of local firms bidding on ICB contracts.
• A narrow variance between the estimate and the bid amounts received.
• Similarities between competing bids (e.g. format of bid, identical unit prices, identical spelling, grammatical and/or arithmetic errors, photocopied documents).
• Bid bonds are acquired by competing bidders from the same financial institution.
• Bid bonds have similar date and/or have sequential serial numbers.
• A bidder lists multiple addresses.
• Unit prices in competing bids vary inconsistently by amounts greater than 100%
• Unit prices in competing bids are identical.
• Bidders propose identical items (e.g. the same make and model)
• Common ownership in the bids of competing bidders.
• The Bid Evaluation Report has been revised or re-issued.
• The Bid Evaluation Report has been performed in an unrealistically short time.
• An arithmetic check of the bid(s) is not performed or results in a bidder being favored inappropriately.
• An evaluated bidder should have been disqualified based on the information submitted in their bid.
• The lowest bidder is disqualified and the explanation, if any, provided is weak.
• Seeking clarification is used as a cloak for financial negotiations.
• Vested interests are identified among members of bid evaluation committee.
• Falsification of curricula vitae in consultant services proposals.
• Unreasonable delays in negotiating and executing the contract.
• Contract is not in conformity with bid documents (e.g. specification and quantities).
• Contractor’s name differs between Contract and Bid Evaluation Report.
• Contract amount is different than amount in Bid Evaluation Report
• Contract includes allowances for variations which are not part of the bidding documents
• Date of contract precedes the date of the Bank’s NOL
• Subcontracting requirements are imposed
• Rigorous system for handling contract variations and evaluating claims not defined in the contract
• Staff involved in contract award decisions become involved in contract supervision