The Commonwealth Utilities Corporation has thrown out three formal protests against its decision to award Saipan’s 80-megawatt power plant to Enron on grounds of lack of merit and public’s interest to move ahead with the project.<\/p>\n
CUC Executive Director Timothy P. Villagomez signed the response to the protests brought by the consortium of Alsons, Tomen, Singapore Power and Tan Holdings; Saipan Power Partners and Telesource CNMI, Inc.<\/p>\n
Pamela Mathis, CUC information officer, said negotiations with Enron on a final agreement for the estimated $120 million project will continue.<\/p>\n
Board Chair Jesus T. Guerrero is expected to instruct CUC’s special legal counsels hired for the contract negotiations during talks with the Houston-based conglomerate, she said.<\/p>\n
It is now up to each of the protesters to plan their next course of action, according to a statement released yesterday by Ms. Mathis.
\nThe board is scheduled to meet tomorrow where the status of the protests is one of its agenda for discussion.<\/p>\n
Representatives from the Tomen consortium, SPP and Telesource could not be reached for comment on the government-owned utility firm’s decision to reject their complaints.<\/p>\n
But based on local procurement regulations, appeals can be filed with the Office of Public Auditor — a move that many firms competing for the much-delayed power project, including Enron, have done for the past three years.<\/p>\n
Based on CUC’s almost similar rulings, the bases for the protests were without merit, untimely as well as beyond the authority of the corporation to entertain.<\/p>\n
The Tomen consortium, SPP and Telesource had opposed the awarding of the contract last May, citing unconstitutionality of Public Law 12-1 which formed the basis of the board’s decision to choose Enron over other bidders.<\/p>\n
Enron garnered the highest scores in the evaluation conducted by CUC’s power consultants from Burns & McDonnell. Tomen and SPP, which closely followed, claimed they were in “statistical deadheat” and should be given an opportunity for a final round of bidding.<\/p>\n
Telesource, on the other hand, argued that since the scope of the project was changed when the law allowed phasing in of a 60-MW plant, a new request for proposal should be issued to include potential contractors.<\/p>\n
The power company, which operates the new power plant on Tinian, never submitted a proposal when the project began in 1997 — a fact that was highlighted by CUC in rejecting its protest.<\/p>\n
CUC also upheld constitutionality of PL 12-1 since it has never been contested in court which is the proper venue to raise such question.<\/p>\n
On Tomen’s contention that the Burns & McDonnell’s report was flawed, the utility firm maintained that complaint should have been lodged in October 1999 when it first came out. It also defended the power consultants’ findings.<\/p>\n
CUC likewise thumbed down SPP’s demand for reimbursement on the costs it incurred for preparing its bid, noting that it is not an appropriate remedy and a violation of its procurement laws and PL 12-1.<\/p>\n
“There is no legal basis for the request that CUC selects a privileged three to compete for the contract, so that two of the losing offerors can, to use an old expression, ‘get another bite at the apple’,” it said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Commonwealth Utilities Corporation has thrown out three formal protests against its decision to award Saipan’s 80-megawatt power plant to Enron on grounds of lack of merit and public’s interest to move ahead with the project.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53435","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}