1 / 44

WELCOME CVOS ANNUAL ZONAL REVIEW MEETING SOUTH ZONE(II)

WELCOME CVOS ANNUAL ZONAL REVIEW MEETING SOUTH ZONE(II) . PRESENTATION BY CTE’S ORGANISATION CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION 23/01/2009. Status of QPRs. QPRs for September 2008 not received Goa Shipyard Ltd. Garden Reach Ship builders & Engineers Ltd. MIDHANI (Mishr Dhatu Nigam Ltd.)

manning
Download Presentation

WELCOME CVOS ANNUAL ZONAL REVIEW MEETING SOUTH ZONE(II)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WELCOME CVOSANNUAL ZONAL REVIEW MEETINGSOUTH ZONE(II) PRESENTATION BY CTE’S ORGANISATION CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION 23/01/2009

  2. Status of QPRs • QPRs for September 2008 not received • Goa Shipyard Ltd. • Garden Reach Ship builders & Engineers Ltd. • MIDHANI (Mishr Dhatu Nigam Ltd.) • QPRs for September 2008 received late • Mazagon Dock Ltd.

  3. Status of CTE Inspections

  4. The above table shows that CTEO is able to inspect very few works and many organizations have not been inspected at all. These organizations are executing lower value works. Therefore, there is a strong need for CVOs to conduct CTE type inspections of contracts in their organizations.

  5. Case Study 1 • CTE Inspection • Inspection Report sent in December 2007. • First reply received in December 2008. • Abnormal delay in submission of first reply by CVO • Pre-qualification documents not produced. • CC flooring of work shop was damaged due to poor quality. • Conditions for recovery of security deposit relaxed in favour of L1. • All risk policy not taken by contractor. • Delay in work (23 months against 8 months).

  6. Case Study 2 • CTE Inspection – April 2008 • 2 paras referred to CVO - August 2008. • Investigation Report awaited. • Abnormal delay in submission of investigation reports by CVO. • Even reply to CTE inspection report awaited. • Appointment of consultant • Qualifying criteria was modified after technical evaluation from 70% to 80% restricting the competition from 3 bidders to single bidder.

  7. Check points for CVOs • Publicity of tender on web-site. • Contractors are qualified strictly as per PQ criteria. • Tenders are opened in presence of bidders. • Decision on tenders within original validity period. • Verification of Bank Guarantees.

  8. No change in tender conditions after receipt of bids. Tenders are sealed and page numbered. Deployment of technical staff by bidder as per contract conditions. Proper Insurance Policies. General workmanship and quality of work with reference to line, level etc.

  9. MAJOR DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDDETAILED PROJECT REPORT (DPR) • DPR NOT PREPARED AS PER SITE EQUIREMENT. • IFLATED ESTIMATE. • INCOMPLETE DETAILS PROVIDED IN THE DPR LEADING TO DISPUTE AT EXECUTION STAGE.

  10. MAJOR DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDCONSULTANCY • APPOINTMENT OF CONSULTANT IN A NON-TRANSPARENT WAY. • SCOPE OF SERVICES NOT DEFINED CLEARLY. • UPPER CEILING FOR CONSULTANCY FEE NOT FIXED. • PAYMENT RELEASED WITHOUT AVAILING FULL SERVICES FROM THE CONSULTANT. • OVER-PAYMENT MADE TO THE CONSULTANT. • PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE NOT TAKEN BY THE CONSULTANT. • TECHNICAL MAN-POWER NOT DEPLOYED BY THE CONSULTANCY FIRM AS PER THE CONTRACT PROVISION.

  11. MAJOR DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDCONSULTANCY • TECHNICAL STAFF CHANGED FEEQUENTLY. • AS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT(PMC)- • ALLOWED USE OF MATERIALS FROM UN-APPROVED SOURCES. • ALLOWED EXECUTION OF SUB-STANDARD WORK. • CLEARED SUB-STANDARD WORK FOR PAYMENT. • PROPER MEASUREMENT NOT RECORDED. • QUALITY TESTS NOT CONDUCTED AS PER CONTRACT/CODAL PROVISION.

  12. DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDTENDER DOCUMENTS • CONTRADICTORY AND AMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS MADE IN THE TENDER DOCUMENT. • PROVISION IN THE TENDER DOCUMENT NOT AS PER POLICY GUIDELINES. • DRAFT TENDER DOCUMENT NOT APPROVED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. • CLAUSES TO DEAL WITH AMBIGUITIES NOT PROVIDED IN THE TENDER DOCUMENT. • NON-RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PROVISIONS PROVIDED IN THE TENDER DOCUMENT.

  13. DEFICIENCIES OBSERVED PRE-QUALIFICATION • PRE-QUALIFICATION CRITERIA MADE UNDULY STRINGENT AND THEN RELAXED DURING PQ EVALUATION, SINCE VERY FEW BIDDERS WERE MEETING THE NOTIFIED CRITERIA. • PQ CRITERIA FIXED AFTER OPENING OF THE PQ OFFERS. • PQ CRITERIA NOT APPLIED UNIFORMLY TO ALL THE OFFERS. • PQ CRITERIA MADE TO SUIT THE PARTICULAR FIRM(S).

  14. DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDINVITATION OF BIDS • TENDERS INVITED IN A NON-TRANSPARENT MANNER WITHOUT PROPER PUBLICITY. • TENDER NOTICE AND COMPLETE TENDER DOCUMENT IN THE DOWNLOADABLE FORM NOT UPLOADED IN THE WEB-SITE. • SHORT NOTICE TENDERS INVITED WITHOUT ANY REAL URGENCY. • BID INVITED ON NOMINATION BASIS EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO URGENCY AND NUMBER OF POTENTIAL BIDDERS ARE AVAILABLE. • LIMITED TENDERS INVITED FROM OLD PANEL. • AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE THE BIDS AND PLACE NOT NOTIFIED PROPERLY.

  15. DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDEVALUATION OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT • UNDUE DELAY IN EVALUATION OF THE BIDS AND AWARD OF THE CONTRACT. • AMBIGUITY IN THE BID NOT DEALT AS PER PROVISION IN THE TENDER DOCUMENT AND UNDUE FINANCIAL BENEFIT RUNNING INTO CRORES OF RUPEES EXTENDED TO THE LOWEST BIDDER. • CURRENT MARKET RATE ANALYSIS OF THE RATE NOT DONE TO ASSESS THE REASONABLENESS OF THE LOWEST BID. • WORK AWARDED AT MUCH HIGHER COST THAN WHAT COULD BE JUSTIFIED BASED ON THE CURRENT MARKET RATES.

  16. DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDCOMPLIANCE OF THE CONTRACT CONDITIONS • CONTRACT DOCUMENT MADE AT VARIANCE WITH THE TENDER DOCUMENTS, RESULTING INTO UNDUE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE CONTRACTOR. • IN ‘DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT’ CONTRACT, PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE NOT TAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR, RESULTING IN UNDUE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE CONTRACTOR BY WAY OF SAVING OF PREMIUM AMOUNT BESIDES DISADVANTAGE TO THE ORGANIZATION. • VARIOUS OTHER INSURANCE POLICIES SUCH AS ‘CONTRACTOR’S ALL RISK POLICY’, THIRD PARTY INSURANCE, PLANT AND MACHINERY INSURANCE, WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION POLICY ETC. NOT TAKEN BY THE CONTRACTORS. • BANK GUARANTEES SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTORS NOT VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ISSUING BANK. • WORK DELAYED UNDULY AND NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR.

  17. DEFICIENCIES OBSERVEDQUALITY • CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR DESIGN MIX CONCRETE, WHEREAS AT SITE BATCHING PLANT OR OTHER WEIGHING MECHANISM NOT INSTALLED AT SITE, RESULTING IN POOR QUALITY OF CONCRETE. • SUB-STANDARD MATERIALS USED IN THE WORK. • POOR QUALITY OF SHUTTERING USED RESULTING IN BULGING ETC. IN THE CONCRETE STRUCTURES. • CONCRETE PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION NOT DONE PROPERLY RESULTING INTO HONEYCOMBING IN THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE. • REINFORCEMENT NOT PLACED PROPERLY. • MATERIAL FOR UNAPPROVED SOURCES USED IN THE WORK.

  18. CHECK POINTS FOR PRE-TENDER STAGE • FEASIBILITY STUDY IS DONE. • PROJECT IS DULY SANCTIONED. • DETAILED PROJECT REPORT(DPR)/ESTIMATE IS VETTED AT APPROPRIATE LEVEL. • CONSULTANTS ARE APPOINTED IN A TRANSPARENT MANNER. • DRAFT TENDER DOCUMENT IS VETTED AT APPROPRIATE LEVEL. 18

  19. CHECK POINTS FOR TENDER STAGE 1. TRANSPARENT PRE-QUALIFICATION CRITERIA AND EVALUATION AS PER NOTIFIED CRITERIA. 2. PQ EVALUATION IS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY PROOF. 3. MODE OF TENDER(OPEN,LIMITED OR NOMINATION BASIS) AS PER ORGANISATION’s POLICY. 4. TRANSPARENCY IN PREPARATION OF PANEL & REGULAR IN CASE OF LIMITED TENDERS. 5. ADEQUATE / WIDE / WEB PUBLICITY. 6. OPENING OF TENDERS IN PRESENCE OF BIDDERS. 7. BIDS OPENED ARE SIGNED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF TENDER COMMITTEE AND ALL THE CORRECTIONS IN THE BIDS ARE ATTESTED &SUMMARISED BY TENDER COMMITTEE. 8. BIDS EVALUATED PROPERLY AND AMBIGUITIES ARE DEALT AS PER PROVISION IN THE TENDER DOCUMENT. 9. ON THE SPOT SUMMARY OF BIDS. 10. CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER ARE NOT ALTERED AFTER OPENING OF PRICE BIDS 11. TENDER FILE IS PAGINATED & CUSTODIAN NOMINATED. 19

  20. CHECK POINTS IN EXECUTION STAGE • AGREEMENT IS AS PER THE BID ACCEPTED. • AGREEMENT IS SIGNED & SEALED PROPERLY. • BANK GUARANTEES ARE VERIFIED AND TIMELY RENEWED. • CONDITIONS REGARDING INSURANCE POLICIES, PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES, LABOUR LICENCE etc. ARE COMPLIED. • NO UNWARRANTED DEVIATIONS DONE. • VARIOUS RECOVERIES ARE MADE AS PER CONTRACT. • PROPER RECORD OF HINDRANCE MAINTAINED. • TECHNICAL STAFF DEPLOYED AS PER CONTRACT PROVISION. • MANDATORY TESTS CARRIED OUT. • SAFETY MEASURES IMPLEMENTED AS PER CONTRACT. 20

  21. South Zone (23.01.2009) • Indian Navy awarded a contract to an organisation here, for procurement of propulsion system for re-engineering of ‘Ajay class’ ship by replacing the Russian engines with MTU make engines. • The organisation in turn awarded a contract to M/s MTU, on nomination basis with whom they have a general cooperation agreement, for supply of above propulsion system excluding installation, commissioning etc. Both the contracts were processed simultaneously and were concluded almost at the same time inAug 2005.

  22. South Zone (23.01.2009) • Proper purchase procedure has not been followed in this case as may be seen from the following:- • M/s MTU were associated with this project from the initial stage itself. • M/s MTU only carried out both-- pre-feasibility and feasibility studies. Prior to pre-feasibility study, MTU had also carried out an initial feasibility studyon the basis of which only, the proposal for replacementof Russian M 521 engine with MTU 16V 1163 engine was initiated • By contacting only MTU, the competition was eliminated from the very beginning itself. • MTU cannot be expected to recommend propulsion system / engine of any other make except their own.

  23. South Zone (23.01.2009) • There was noformal offer from M/s MTU for the supply of propulsion system. M/s MTU gave a budgetary offer in March '03 i.e. before completion of feasibility study. This was revised in Feb '04. • Further revisions were made in March and April '04. The order on MTU was placed on the basis of these budgetary quotations.

  24. South Zone (23.01.2009) • No indent was raised either by Indian Navy or by the organisation, internally. Organisation informed that Indian Navy's tender enquiry dated 29.9.2004 issued to them was treated as indent. • It is noted that this so called indent (tender enquiry) was issued by Navy in Sept '04 while the offer from M/s MTU was already received by GRSE in March '03 / Feb '04 itself.

  25. South Zone (23.01.2009) • No formal tender enquiry was issued to M/s MTU. It was informed that a copy of RFP dated 29.9.2004 (issued to organisation by Indian Navy) was also handed over to MTU by NHQ. This could not be verified in the absence of relevant records. • While RFP was issued on 29.9.2004, M/s MTU it is seen, had already submitted their offer in March '03 / Feb '04.

  26. South Zone (23.01.2009) • As MTU were unable to get the required information from ALMAZ - the original designer of class 1241 PE ships for carrying out the feasibility study, a contract was entered into between the organisation and M/s ROSOBORONEXPORT, for supply of requisiteinformation/documents at a cost of US $ 76,000/-.The reasonableness of above price paid to ROSOBORONEXPORT was also not established.

  27. South Zone (23.01.2009) • Though the procurement was made on nomination basis,no proprietary article certificate (PAC) was furnished either by Indian Navy or by the organisation. Organisation informed, that Indian Navy's contract dated 10.11.2000 on them for feasibility study and MOD (Navy) letter dated 17.6.2005 conveying Govt. sanction for procurement of propulsion package from them can be treated as PAC.

  28. South Zone (23.01.2009) • It is noted that while the Govt. sanction is dated 17.6.2005, technical, commercial and price negotiations had been held with MTU on 1st & 2nd March 2005. • Thus procurement process was almost completeeven before, receipt of said PAC (Proprietary Article Certificate).

  29. South Zone (23.01.2009) • No minutes of PNC meeting held on 1st & 2nd March 2005 with MTU have been recorded. • A copy of letter dated 2nd March 2005 given by MTUoffering the final price of Euro 6,418,000/- and countersigned by three officers of the organisation was shown as minutes of PNC during inspection.

  30. South Zone (23.01.2009) • 15% interest free advance payment amounting to Euro 962,700/- (Rs.5.40 crores approx) has been made to MTU though no mobilization of any equipment at site is required by the contractor.

  31. South Zone (23.01.2009) • In another organisation present here, the Time of submission of bids and date and time of opening of bids was notindicatedin the tender enquiry. Technical bids were also not opened in presence of bidders’representatives. Though the due date of submission of bids was 22.12.2001, the technical bids were opened only on 4.1.2002.

  32. South Zone (23.01.2009) • Of the 3 vendors short listed by the Weapon Selection Committee to whom Tenders were issued, one M/s D of South Africa regretted saying that they do not manufacture Air to Air Missile System (ATAM system) for helicopter applications. • ATAM system of another vendor M/s F was also not found suitableduring field demonstrationtrials at vendor’s site. • Thus, organisation was finally left with only one vendor, M/s M, of France.

  33. South Zone (23.01.2009) • Short listing of vendors was not done in a proper manner. The capabilities of the short listed vendors to deliver the required system were in doubt. • Under such circumstances, right course of action would have been to invite an open/global ‘Expression of Interest’ under intimation to aforesaid three short listed vendors.

  34. South Zone (23.01.2009) • Offers of two vendors were found to be technically acceptable by the Technical Evaluation Committee in its report of Aug’04 submitted after the field demonstration trials. • The Weapon Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 20.8.04, recommended to induct Mistral Missile System due to its operational superiority demonstrated during field trials.

  35. South Zone (23.01.2009) • The parameters that were considered for operational superiority viz. seekers field of view, launch envelope for targets crossing over, man machine interface, missile cooling time per bottle and availability of air borne aid, were neither specified in the tender enquirynor intimatedto the vendorsat any time subsequently, not even during demonstration of field trials.

  36. South Zone (23.01.2009) • If these parameters were so important, the same could have been incorporated in the technical requirements specified in the tender enquiry. One offer was rejected on the basis of unspecified parameters without even giving him an opportunity to meet these operational requirements. • The selection process of Missile System, as such, does not appear to be transparent.

  37. South Zone (23.01.2009) • No payment terms were specified in the tender enquiry. • As per contract, 15% interest free advance payment has been made on 30.8.2006 after issue of purchase order and further 15% payment has been made on 29.10.2007. 30% payment has been released to the firm without achieving any milestone whereas the supplies are expected only in 2009.

  38. South Zone (23.01.2009) • An organisation awarded contracts in Nov.06 to M/s K , @ Pune at a cost of Rs.12.15 crores and Rs.34.98 crores respectively for supply, installation & commissioning of oxygen and nitrogen charging systems for Sukhoi Su-30 aircraft. This case was intensively examined at Nashik during Sept’ 2008.

  39. South Zone (23.01.2009) • Apart from M/s K , many other vendors were also contacted by the organisation for development of indigenous oxygen / nitrogen charging stations. Some of these vendors had evinced interest in developing these systems and had also submitted their proposals. However, further details as to whether these proposals were deliberated, and if so, why these proposals could not be considered further and why finally only M/s K were selected for development of theses items, could not be found in the records produced during inspection.

  40. South Zone (23.01.2009) • While the existing Russian make Oxygen and Nitrogen Chargers were loaned to M/s K for a period of three months for studying these equipments vide Air HQ letter dated 6.9.2001, a similar opportunity was not given to other vendors who had also shown interest in developing these items. • other vendors were not even allowed to inspect the existing Russian units at the Air Force Stations. Allowing M/s K to take the existing units on loan for three months for a detailed study but not allowing other vendors to even inspect theses units at site is indicative of special favour to M/s K.

  41. South Zone (23.01.2009) • For Nitrogen chargers, quotation was invited only from M/s K as they had exclusively developed this unit in coordination with IAF/ organisation in the past. Air HQ did not issue any proprietary article certificate (PAC) in favour of M/s K and when organisation requested Air HQ to certifyM/s K as “Customer nominated Source”, Air HQ refused to do so. • No PAC in favour of M/s K was thus obtained by organisation from Air HQ for development and supply of 11 Nos. nitrogen chargers initially ordered on M/s K on single tender basis.

  42. South Zone (23.01.2009) • For the subsequent procurement of 16 nitrogen chargers also, instead of calling for PAC from Air HQ, organisationthemselves issued a PAC in favour of M/s K. Moreover, this PAC was issued on 21.4.06 whereas the tender enquiry was already issued in Aug’05 itself.

  43. South Zone (23.01.2009) • M/s K had submitted advance payment bank guarantees and performance bank guarantees as per the contractual terms. • However, genuineness / authenticity of these bank guarantees were not verified by HAL from the issuing Bank.

  44. South Zone (22.01.2009) THANK YOU

More Related