RE: SG Comment p311 Mar 2019 10:44
Mike, agree, the below passage interested me the most:
‘The part that concerns me most is that Tanesco look to have ‘planned to fail’ this tender process again! I refer to section 3 of the Tender notification document as shown above. I see the terms clearly show that a maximum of 300mw out of the 600mw can be located in one place. Yet Tanesco have granted a tender for 400mw in one place. The last time this happened Tanesco had to disqualify the bid for overstating the MW in their IPP bid, please see below:’
The ‘granted a tender for 400mw in one place’ is that in the public domain? I can’t find it, that would appear to be a bit of ‘intimate’ knowledge IMHO.
JD