Member Info for Stuiegee

I personally believe, without the decision being overturned very soon. We (shareholders) should put in place a production target. If the Lamella plant is expected to produce more product and the extra plant and shifts is expected to have increase productivity, we need to be seeing the 10k or more per month very soom

Yeah exactly as Aerial said.
There were two GM attendees and no known secondary bids for our tender

Just heard back, there were 2 attendees. As Aerial mentioned, the board aren't aware of any other tenders.

Doesn't seem that way and I've not heard anything from the board about the minutes I've requested

Aforementioned* the post is now below and not above lol

As yet none of the above have been forthcoming with a response

From what I've read, they won't give feedback until the successful candidate has been announced. So it seems there might be a couple of tenders outstanding. I've emailed Rufus, Jeff and Tim asking not only for any minutes taken at the meeting but also on whether or not the rejection rules us out from any of the smaller sub contracts that may arise like coal supply to the winning tender.

Award of contract As mentioned in the Preface, upon confirmation
by the procuring entity that the award has been
made, the tender board is authorized to publish a
description of the contract, the name and
nationality of the contract awardee, and the
contract price. Any further information on the
tenders or on their evaluation, including the
tender evaluation report, is held in confidence bythe secretary of the appropriate tender board.
Unsuccessful tenderers are allowed under the
Regulations to seek a debriefing with the
procuring entity, and, additionally, with the
secretary of the appropriate tender board. In
anticipation of this and/or any post reviews by
the PPRA, the Public Procurement Appeals
Authority or the Controller and Auditor General
or other authorized institutions, the procuring
entity should ensure that tendering documents
and evaluations are securely stored.

d) Non- responsive tenders
Examples of non - conformance justifying
rejection of a tender are as follows:-
i) failure to satisfy eligibility criteria.
ii) failure to satisfy experience criteria.
iii) failure to submit tender security or
tender securing declaration, where one
has been requested.
iv) failure to tender for the required scope
of works.
v) failure to meet major technicalspecifications.
vi) inability to meet critical delivery
criteria; and conditional tenders.
e) Tenders which fail to conform to any of the
major conditions are normally declared
substantially non - responsive. They are
rejected and not considered any further in
the evaluation.
f) Rejection of all tenders if:-
i) All tenders are non-responsive.
ii) Evidence of lack of competition.
iii) Evidence of collusion among
tenderers.
iv) the economic or technical data of the
project have been altered.
v) Tenders or proposals involve costs
substantially higher than the original
budget or estimate

Ppra.go.tz has guidelines on tender procedures and complaints, I've downloaded something to read tomorrow, but I've got work at 0434 tomorrow morning. Anyone wanting to have a look feel free

I'm in the same boat, I don't know if I'm clutching at straws or being hopeful or what...
But..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/amp/market_reports/214628

Proactive investors has it down as a set back and not a crushing blow

That may be a question for another GM, but voting down despite the board is reckless when we don't know what recourse we have. I cannot see that both Kibo and Edenville have failed on the same thing without clarification or chance to resubmit.

But as LarryGrayson has just said, there is a material change to circumstances now, if there is no hope for us and the CPPP then what's the point of having such a huge facility to place more shares

Not particularly, but getting half or a third of the return on what I'd imagine this company should be worth is better than losing everything.

While I agree with the sentiment, if it gets voted down, we absolutely have signed the death warrant.

I think they would have to put verbatim what was in the letter, otherwise they could be done for misleading the markets.... I may be wrong

If that were the case, it would have been a simple unsuccessful bid not a failure to meet the requirements set out by Tanesco.
Also, as I said earlier I can't see anywhere that anyone has been successful.

Wow, nice one. That needs answering, how can it be both accept and rejected on the same qualifying factors?

As much as I'd love to see an RNS about an "Error" made, I'm not holding out hope. I said the other week that the "Let's look for something else" made me wonder if the gov weren't playing ball nicely and this adds to that feeling. If there is to be an Erroneous failure letter, I'd imagine that it will be next week at the earliest

The weirdest thing for me is, there doesn't seem to be any news on ANY approvals from my limited research