Previous Story
Drydock project gets only one proposer
|
Posted on Jan 07 2005
The Commonwealth Ports Authority is not expecting a decision to be made before February on the sole proposal for the drydock project.
CPA executive director Carlos Salas said the authority is still in the process of reviewing the single proposal it received for the project.
Aside from the slowdown of work during the holidays, the fact that CPA does not have much option in the project has caused the agency much difficulty in making a final decision, Salas explained.
“The proposal came from a company with some experience in dry-dock service. It’s difficult to decide because there’s not much to choose from. But we also want to make sure that we do a proper review of the proposal and see whether they met the requirements we laid out in the request for proposals,” Salas said.
He expressed hope that the review will be finalized this month and that management will be able to make a recommendation to the CUC board of directors by next month.
The project involves the construction of a small ship repair and manufacturing facility at the North Seaplane Ramp area of the Port of Saipan.
Salas said the facility will provide maintenance service for tugboats, ferryboats, and shuttle boats operating between the seaport and the pre-positioned ships.
According to CPA’s request for proposals, the ports authority is considering an arrangement where the winning contractor will build and operate the facility, and later transfer it to CPA.
The RFP stated that CPA may grant leases of land for periods of up to 40 years. Thus, all proposals are expected to consider the amount and type of rental to be paid to CPA under any lease. The amount may be a flat rate or percentage lease or a combination of two.
“It must be understood that [CPA] will neither finance this development, nor guarantee financing for any proposer. Thus it is expected that all proposals shall identify and include financing sources and make affirmative statements of their capabilities, qualifications, and intent to complete the project. It is the authority’s intent to review, evaluate, and select the best proposal,” a portion of the RFP read. (Agnes E. Donato)
