“Samart Ratchaphon Sit” posted a regret of falling the orange line after MRTA failed to fight the end of the alley.
On February 7, Dr. Samart Rachapolsit, Deputy Leader of the Prakathipat Party Has posted a message on Facebook Dr. Samart Ratchapolsit (Dr.Samart Ratchapolsit) On the subject of the Orange Line Skytrain in the topic “Falling on the Orange Line, not the end of the Soi. Better to retreat”
Stating that
Unfortunately Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA), not at the end of the alley, back off first, not waiting to hear the order of the highest administrative court This is a disappointment for the adherents of the auction for private selection to invest in the MRT Orange Line project. Because they do not know who will lose and who will win
MRTA finally announced the collapse of the auction to select a private sector to invest in the Orange Line project, fearlessly against the accusations of the auctioneers, which must be recorded as a new history of the Thai auction.
MRTA invites private entities to invest in the MRT Orange Line project There were 10 Private Selection Papers (RFPs). After the RFP was closed, only one private party requested a change to the selection criteria, from which technical competence was first considered. If they pass the exam, they will consider an offer of compensation to MRTA. Who the most will win the auction. It is a new criterion that will consider technical competence with a reward proposal. Who gets the highest total points wins the auction. This may cause the highest yield bidder not to be selected as the winner of the auction, causing the MRTA to not receive the highest return it should have.
Does the new criterion make the people and the country the greatest benefit?
MRTA claims that the new criteria will be in the best interests of the people and the country. In other words, the selection of the bidders with technical competence, together with the MRTA return proposal, will enable the selection of highly technical bidders. Because this project requires high technology. Because a tunnel has to be built under the area of Rattanakosin Island and a tunnel under the Chao Phraya River MRTA considered not only a compensation proposal.
But I have an opinion that the new criteria cannot be matched to the original criteria. This is because the new criterion does not set a minimum technical score. This means that those who score any technical low will be considered. And may be selected as the winner if he offers a very high return to the MRTA. As a result, MRTA is not a bidder with the high technical capability required by MRTA.
In addition, the new criteria will give an opportunity for any private recruiting committee to be the winner. That is, when the directors See the technical proposal at the same time. With a reward offer It makes sense to know how to rate it to make that Private a winner, for example, if Private A wants to help, which offers a lower return to win, Private B, which offers a higher return, may give Private A a technical score. Higher than Private B to make Private A get a higher total score Which will be chosen as the winner in spite The proposed return is lower, causing the MRTA to not receive the highest return that it should receive.
This is different from the original criteria that put a lot of emphasis on technical ability. Which will consider the technical capabilities first Which must have a score of at least 85%, if you get less, it will be considered failure MRTA will not continue to consider the compensation proposal. This makes the auction winner a highly technical person capable of constructing in any area. And at the same time, it will allow MRTA to win the highest yield bidder.
It can be concluded that the new criteria will not make the most of the people and the country. Can’t fight the original criteria MRTA therefore has to use the same criteria in bidding for projects that require highly technical bidders such as the Orange Line Metro Project. I would like to reiterate that the original criteria were suitable for the project of MRTA is definitely more than the new criteria.
It would be the reason for this that the representatives of the Bureau of the Budget who joined the Committee “Stand One” opposed the use of new criteria all along.
MRTA has used the criteria for considering technical proposals along with compensation proposals before!
Indeed, MRTA has used the criteria for considering technical proposals along with compensation proposals before. But for more than 20 years, it has been used in the blue line project. During Hua Lamphong – Bang Sue, MRTA will not use this criterion again. Knowing that this criterion reduces the importance of the technical proposal It is not suitable for a complex project. MRTA then chooses to consider technical proposals first. If passing the exam, a compensation proposal will be considered. If the exam fails, the offer of compensation will not be considered. This is a real concern for technical proposals. Resulting in a highly technical bidder. And reward MRTA is also the highest, but what causes MRTA to revert to the unsuitable criteria for complex projects such as the Orange Line Project?
BTS sued the Central Administrative Court
Bangkok Mass Transit System Public Company Limited or BTS believes that changing the auction criteria is unfair and may benefit any private individual. Therefore sued the Central Administrative Court by requesting the court to make a judgment or order to revoke the new criteria or not allow MRTA to use the new criteria. And requesting the court to abstain from using the new criteria prior to the judgment or order, or not allowing the MRTA to apply the new criteria while pending the court’s consideration Finally, the court issued an order to temporarily stay on the basis of the new criteria until the court gives a judgment or an order otherwise. In which the court stated in the judgment that Changing the criteria for bidding “So it is an order that should have a problem with unlawfulness,” MRTA disagrees. Therefore continued to fight by submitting an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court by requesting the court to suspend the stay of the Central Administrative Court’s order
MRTA, not the end of the alley
But not before the Supreme Administrative Court has an order to come down MRTA has won the auction first. Unfortunately MRTA, not the end of the alley Claiming that if you continue to fight, it will cost a long time But if the auction fails, it will be less time consuming But I saw that if you fight to the end of the alley, it will make you know that Does the MRTA change the criteria for bidding legitimate or not? And is the new criteria in the best interest of people and the country?
In fact, if the MRTA endures the order of the Supreme Administrative Court a little longer Which is expected in the near future the court will have an order down And if the court has an order standing by the Central Administrative Court That means MRTA is temporarily unable to apply the new criteria until the court gives a judgment or an order otherwise. In this case, the Supreme Administrative Court has the same opinion as the Central Administrative Court. It is very difficult for the court to make a judgment or order, so MRTA can continue to bid on the same criteria. Which can save time compared to bidding and opening a new auction
However, if the MRTA does not change the auction criteria, it will not waste time, right?
The aforementioned doubts and observations are therefore the skepticism that I and all people prefer to seek clarification from the responsible agency directly. This is to protect the interests of the nation and the people. With the intention of allowing the public to benefit from this program to the full Without any doubt Only all
–
