SHILLONG: In a case of alleged favouritism, the Public Works Department (PWD) technocrats seems to have succumbed to political pressure for agreeing to allot a road construction work worth Rs 30 crore to a VIP-backed firm in complete disregard to rules and standard procedures.
According to documents available with The Shillong Times, despite glaring deficiencies, the 11.52 km Laitkor-Pomlakrai-Laitlyngkot road was awarded to Dhar Construction Company in which a VIP is allegedly a stakeholder.
The case records show that the departmental tender committee met in August this year and as per the technical evaluation, the document of the bidder such as EPF registration, list of equipment and personnel beside other registration had to be checked.
The document stated that Dhar Construction Company did not submit the site organisational chart, methodology, programme for construction, mobilisation schedule, ESHS management strategies and implementation plans, code of conduct and EPF registration.
However, the committee felt that since all the above information may be obtained before the award, hence the bid may be considered. The bid security also fell short by Rs 2.82 lakh being based on original bid value but considering the shortfall in the bid security being the original bid value, the panel considered accepting the same.
The document also stated that the invoices of owned machinery to be deployed has not been submitted by the firm and with regard to existing commitments, the Tender Committee was informed that the firm had not disclosed the list of the existing commitments of the ongoing work. This is a mandatory provision.
“In view of the above, the tender committee recommended that the evaluation of technical bids for this purpose should be done by State PWD by taking cognisance of all the existing commitments available within the department,” the document said.
The representative of the Law department in the Committee also declined to recommend Dhar Construction Company on the grounds that the bidder failed to disclose all required information regarding existing commitments.
The rules and clauses in the bidding document were allegedly ignored as the bidding documents states that “if a bid is not substantially responsive to the requirements of the bidding documents, it shall be rejected by the employer and may not subsequently be made responsive by way of correction of the material deviation, reservation or omission”.
