The State Cabinet on March 6, 2021, has cleared the proposals of rural water supply schemes of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) Division of the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department for design, supply, erection and operation and maintenance for five years for six mega water supply projects.
It is alleged that the department has erroneously imposed the Clause 36 of OPWD Code which was not mentioned in the tender document for four schemes and for other two schemes of Khordha and Kendrapada districts.
The department has restricted the competition by putting the same clause. It is also alleged that this was done intentionally to favour some companies, particularly the Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd. The notice inviting tender (NIT) for rural water supply scheme for 26 gram panchayats of Sambalpur district and two GPs of Jharsuguda (BID No-EIC, RWSS-43/19-20), Golamunda block of Kalahandi district (BID No-EIC, RWSS-42/19-20) along with other two packages of Bargarh district was published on January 13, 2020 whereas notice inviting tender (NIT) for the Gondia and Bhuban block of Dhenkanal district ( BID No- EIC, RWSS-01/20-21), Jajpur and Binjharpur blocks of Jajpur district (BID No-EIC, RWSS-02/20-21) and other two packages for Jajpur and Kandhamal block was published on June 19, 2020.
The price bid for the Sambhalpur and Kalahandi district and other two packages Bargarh district was opened on August 19, 2020 and for Dhenkanal and Jajpur district and other packages of Jajpur and Kandhamal district was opened on November 12, 2020.
For Sambhapur and Jharsuguda, UMSL was the lowest bidder, for Kalahandi district, KEC International Ltd was the lowest bidder, for Dhenkanal district Blue Star-SPML JV was the lowest bidder and for Blue Star-SPML JV was the lowest bidder and for Jajpur district, Laxmi Engineering was the lowest bidder.
However, surprisingly the department (RWSS) and tender committee has recommended to award the work of above four packages to Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd who was accidently the second lowest bidder in all the four packages with value which is Rs. 38 crore more than the cost of all the four lowest bidders.
It is understood that the department has wrongly applied the provisions of Clause 36, Annexure IX of Volume II, OPWD code to all the above four packages to throw out the lowest bidder and award the work to their favoured bidder i.e., Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd. Further the experts also confirmed that the Clause 36 of OPWD is applicable to item rate contract, percentage rate contracts, contract for supply and carriage of labour and materials only which are already clearly mentioned in the OPWD code.
For all these types of contracts, the department would prepare the design, drawings and detail quantities. Any amendment to the code is restricted to only these categories of contracts only. For EPC types of contracts, the OPWD code is completely silent.
In case of EPC type of contracts, the department only gives the requirement however as mentioned above the bidder would carry out all the investigation and design activities of the proposed works.
Hence, the application of Clause 36 of OPWD code to the EPC types of contracts is illogical and illegal. Further, the other departments floating the EPC contracts which also falls under the purview of OPWD code, does not mention the clause in the bid document. In case of similar work for Urban Development Department, the work was awarded to the bidder who has quoted 17.03 per cent below the estimated cost of the project.
The recently floated tenders of the WATCO and Irrigation Department do not mention the Clause 36 for EPC contracts.
Then how only the RWSS is applying the clause to their EPC contracts. By application of this clause the department is spending more money for the work and cause huge loss to public exchequers.
The Clause 36 was not mentioned in the bid documents for all the tenders floated by them since beginning till the above packages which was invited vide the NIT dated June 19, 2020.
Thereafter, the department has included the clause invariably in all the tenders. To add any clause the proper approval procedure and concurrence from the Government is required. Without approval, how the department has inserted the above clause which is not applicable to EPC contracts has included in the bid document?
As per the CVC guidelines, when the department has any doubt pertaining to the price offered by the bidder, then the respective department should call the lowest bidder and ask the bidder to justify the cost. Has the department given any opportunity to lowest bidders to justify their price?
Looking at all above facts, it is crystal clear that the department is not following the tendering norms and guidelines and favouring a company causing loss to public exchequer. Hence, a detail investigation can expose the irregularities.
The State Government should also investigate the matter seriously to maintain full transparency of the tendering process because maintaining transparency in governance is one of the key objectives of the 5T Department.
