Previous Story
Protests against Enron reach OPA
|
Posted on Sep 20 2000
Three formal protests against the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation’s controversial decision to award Saipan’s 80-megawatt power plant to Enron made their way to the Office of the Public Auditor yesterday.
Public Auditor Leo LaMotte disclosed his office has started working on the protest individually filed by the consortium of Alsons, Tomen, Singapore Power and Tan Holdings; Saipan Power Partners; and Telesource CNMI, Inc.
Mr. LaMotte refused to say when does OPA expect to complete its review of the arguments presented by the protesting companies but stressed that auditors are now examining the documents submitted by the Tomen consortium, SPP and Telesource.
“We are now looking at what they have submitted. We started looking on it since yesterday afternoon, compare their arguments with the existing procurement and supply regulations of CUC,” he said in an interview.
Earlier this month, CUC dismissed the protests as without merit, untimely as well as beyond the authority of the corporation to entertain. It has also cited public interest as reason to move ahead with the project.
The Tomen consortium, SPP and Telesource had opposed the awarding of the contract, citing unconstitutionality of Public Law 12-1, which formed the basis of the CUC board’s decision to choose Enron over other bidders.
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.
On the other hand, Telesource has 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.
The government-controlled utilities corporation upheld constitutionality of PL 12-1 since it has never been contested in court which is the proper venue to raise such question.
CUC also 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.
