The Public Procurement Authority (PPA) has broken its silence on the controversial issue regarding the procurement of the Biometric Voter Registration System, urging all the parties concerned and the general public to exercise restraint as it awaits the ruling of the law courts on the matter. It said it had noted with concern the various concerns raised by the public over the Biometric Voter Registration System and called for calm. In a statement released to the Daily Graphic on the issue, the PPA, which laid the facts around the issue bare, said: “On the 15th of August, 2011, a petition was received from a complainant, Intelligent Card Productions Systems (ICPS), for an administrative review to be conducted in respect of a tender for the procurement of the Biometric Voter Registration. The statement comes weeks after an inter Party Advisory Committee (IPAC)/ Electoral Commission(EC) meeting at which some political parties raised hell about the short listing of the two companies that demonstrated at the meeting about how the system worked. Since then, the general public has also raised a number of questions regarding the process as they tend to believe that the process was flawed and could have an impact on the general election in 2012. According to the statement, the complainant, per its solicitor, purported that its tender for that particular procurement had been disqualified by the respondent - EC on the basis of non-conformity with clause 22 (b) of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) by not submitting a Certificate of Incorporation. “This, the complainant claimed, had not been specifically stated or pre-disclosed as qualifying criteria in the tender documents as required under procurement principles,” it added. The statement said the petition further contended that contrary to the provisions of Act 633, the Electoral Commission invited seven firms instead of the previously five prequalified firms. “Thus, the complainant deemed the action of the respondent to be unfair, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional and, therefore, sought to secure a number of reliefs,” the statement said. Meanwhile, the statement said in response that “the respondent has denied the complainant’s assertions”. Following a detailed review of documents and correspondence from both parties, the statement said the PPA called for the suspension of the tender process for 30 days to enable it to conduct its administrative review of the matter. “However, before the PPA could conclude the administrative review process, it was notified by the solicitors of the complainant that it had reinstituted legal proceedings against the respondent,” the statement said. Against this background, the statement noted that the PPA was unable to continue the matter as it was pending in court and, therefore, being sub judice. The statement noted emphatically that, “The PPA is a creation of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) mandated to regulate, assess and ensure full compliance by entities to all the provisions of the Act”, adding, “It does not undertake procurement on behalf of entities, but rather seeks to build their capacities to enable effective implementation of the Act”.