Walton Cantt Board violates rules in tender, Source

LAHORE

The Walton Cantonment Board (WCB) has made sheer violation of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) rules by awarding tender of cleanness of DHA-V and other adjacent areas to the highest bidder

The Board has also violated rule 13 of the PRRA which calls for giving 15 days response time before making any procurement.

According to the documents available with The News, the WCB had given an advertisement on March 2, 2012 in section of newspaper of tender notice for hiring the services of a company who will ensure cleanness in DHA-V Extension-N, Main Boulevard, and Charar village for one year period, renewable upto three years.

Interestingly, the WCB had given only three days response time as it stated in the tender published to submit the sealed tender bids by March 5 2012 to its office till 11:00 am while the tender would be opened same day at 1:00pm in the presence of the bidding party representatives.

According to rule 13 (1) of PPRA which deals with the response time reads: “The procuring agency may decide the response time for receipt of bids or proposals (including proposals for pre-qualification) from the date of publication of an advertisement or notice, keeping in view the individual procurement’s complexity, availability and urgency. However, under no circumstances the response time shall be less than fifteen days for national competitive bidding and thirty days for international competitive bidding from the date of publication of advertisement or notice. All advertisements or notices shall expressly mention the response time allowed for that particular procurement along with the information for collection of bid documents which shall be issued till a given date, allowing sufficient time to complete and submit the bid by the closing date”.

Similarly, the WCB ignored the lowest bidder who submitted Rs 825,000 per month bid and awarded tender to the highest bidder who had given rate of cleanness services of Rs 11,25,000 per month which is almost 33 per cent higher than the lowest bidder.

When contacted, the Cantonment Executive Officer of Walton Cantt Khurshed Ali said that tender was not awarded to the lowest bidder as the Board had earlier terminated the services of that bidder on the complaint of the DHA. He argued once a service user complained about the service provider how the board re-hired the services of the same service provider for the same user. However, he expressed his unawareness about the violation of the PPRA rule 13(1) which related with the response time. Rather, he said, no objection was raised by the lowest bidder in this regard and it had managed to participate in the bidding even limited response time, thus it would not be an objection on bidding process. On the other hand, when contacted, the head of the lowest bidding company, Tahir Mehmood, said that the WBC had never terminated their services ever. He said that the company was providing its services to the many other areas of the cantonment and other parts of the city successfully and previously it was providing the same services in the advertised areas of the DHA as well. After completion of the agreement the Board had issued a letter to the company as well and did not continue the service, he said. “If our company was blacklisted then how the tender document was issued to us as it was issued to the pre-qualified service providers”, he argued.