GEORGE TOWN: Aspen Group is denying claims it refused to build a bridge linking Batu Kawan Industrial Park (BKIP) 1 and 2.
The developer said the commitment was clearly stated in its proposal submitted under the request for proposal (RFP) exercise for BKIP2.
In 2024, a consortium led by IJM Properties, together with Aspen Vision All and Mettiz Capital, submitted an RM818mil bid for BKIP2. However, Penang Development Corporation (PDC) rejected the proposal for failing to meet five of the nine key requirements.
Aspen Group president and chief executive officer Datuk M. Murly said the company's proposal had been publicly misrepresented. This included claims relating to the bridge and the consortium's financial offer.
"We committed to build the bridge connecting BKIP1 and BKIP2. It is in our submission. It is written. It is documented. To say publicly that we refused is factually incorrect," he told reporters during a press conference on Thursday (May 22).
Murly said the consortium had also proposed a second bridge within BKIP2 to improve internal connectivity.
He said Aspen's consortium had offered RM818,163,199.66 as a guaranteed cash return to PDC, disputing claims that the offer was only RM500mil.
"The RM500mil figure was constructed by treating our proposal requests as costs to be borne by PDC when they were not," he said.
"Every item cited was either borne entirely by the consortium, an additional revenue to PDC, or a request that PDC was free to decline with zero impact on our offer price. The RM500mil figure is not an analysis. It's a distortion," he said.
Murly also addressed claims relating to proposed quarry operations under the consortium's submission.
He said the quarry operations were explicitly proposed to support landfilling requirements for the development, accelerate the project timeline and generate additional value for the parties involved.
"The proposal clearly stated that the commercial returns from quarry operations to PDC would be subject to mutual discussion and agreement," he said.
"It was proposed as an additional and separate revenue stream for PDC over and above the RM818mil offer," he said.
Murly said it was inaccurate to characterise the proposal as PDC forgoing RM25mil in "opportunity cost".
Murly added that the RM818mil offer was based on an accelerated 42-month payment timeline in line with the RFP's incentive structure.
He said Aspen was not challenging PDC's authority in deciding on the first RFP outcome. He added that the company had accepted the decision and no longer participated in any subsequent RFP exercises of BKIP2.
It was reported that PDC will soon open a third round of bidding for the project.
"We have accepted the fact that it is PDC's prerogative and we respect the decision. The press conference is not about trying to salvage anything. We are merely correcting the facts because there were allegations made publicly through very credible channels," he said.
Murly said Aspen, as a company listed on the Singapore Exchange, had an obligation to ensure its communications to shareholders and the public were accurate.
Asked whether politics played a role in the matter, Murly declined to speculate.
"We participated in good faith and when the facts are not accurately represented, we are merely correcting the facts. I do not want to say whether it is politics or business," he said.
Murly said the issue would not affect Aspen's ongoing developments in Bandar Cassia, as they involved separate projects and entities.
On the consortium's request for the first right of refusal over adjacent land, Murly described it as a common commercial arrangement in large-scale developments.
"If PDC wanted a third party to develop the land in future, we would have been given the first right. If they wanted to do it on their own, by all means they can do it," he said.
Murly also revealed that PDC had not held any meetings with Aspen's consortium after the proposal was submitted.
"We requested a meeting. It was not entertained. We received no communication," he said.
He called for an independent review of the consortium's submission and the evaluation process, saying it would serve the public interest.
