Shikalbaha plant tender

Staff Correspondent The Power Division has asked the Power Development Board to clarify the allegations of irregularities in the selection of a Chinese company, Sinohydro Corporation, for installation of the 150 MW Shikalbaha power plant.

One Mian Mohammad Tanjilur Rahman of 364/B, Laskar Manzil, Madhubagh (Maghbazar), has sent letters with a large volume of documents to several limbs of the administration — including the chief adviser’s office, Power Division, various intelligence agencies, the Anti-Corruption Commission — and the media, claiming that irregularities have taken place in the selection of Sinohydro Corporation.

He claimed that the government would incur ‘a loss of Tk 90 crore’, which would be ‘swallowed up by corrupt people including the immediate past energy adviser’, as the ‘lowest bidder’, Shanghai Electric Group of China that wanted Tk 469.67 crore for setting up the plant, was not selected.

The cabinet’s purchase committee in November approved the selection of Sinohydro that wanted Tk 574. 87 crore for setting up the plant as the tender evaluation committee concluded that Sinohydro was the lowest ‘responsive bidder’ after it found Shanghai technically ‘non-responsive’.

Tanjilur claimed that Shanghai was not selected for ‘unknown reasons’ and was not given a chance to explain its position despite its request to the PDB to do so. When his attention was drawn to the allegations by Tanjilur, power secretary M Fouzul Kabir Khan said on Tuesday, ‘These allegations were raised before the purchase committee earlier and, after thoroughly scrutinising the evaluation report of the tender committee, the purchase body approved the selection [of Sinohydro].’

He said that they had asked the PDB to once again to give clarifications about the Tanjilur’s allegations. When he was asked why Shanghai was not given a chance to clarify its position, Fouzul replied, ‘As per the tender evaluation report, Shanghai was declared non-responsive as it did not fulfil all the (rejection) clauses of the tender.

Once any bidder fails to fulfil any rejection clause its bid is not considered and it is not given a chance to clarify.’ Tanjilur also claimed that despite the purchase committee’s directives for asking for increase in bid validity and bid bond validity of all bidders, PDB only extended the validity of the bid and bid bonds of two bidders, Sinohydro and CMEC, which were declared responsive by the tender evaluation committee.

He claimed that the tender evaluation report was ‘shady’ and ‘pre-determined’ to award the contract to Sinohydro. Fouzul dismissed the allegations, saying, ‘The tender evaluation committee evaluated the bids twice. ‘In the second evaluation the committee co-opted two members from the BUET and Military Institute of Science and Technology as per the directives of the purchase committee.

On both occasions the tender committee concluded that Sinohydro is the lowest responsive bidder.’ As per section 4.1 of the tender evaluation report, Shanghai did not fulfil at least three (rejection) clauses and the tender committee also observed that it also did not quote the prices of many types of equipment.

The PDB, in a letter to the division on November 11, said, ‘The complaint that the government will lose Tk 90 crore because of difference of price offer between Shanghai and Sinohydro is not true at all. If the prices of unquoted and other items are considered, the price of Shanghai will be higher than Sinohydro.’

In the letter, PDB said that Shanghai’s tender price would be Tk 100 crore higher than what it offered if the prices of the unquoted items like gas booster, compressor and other equipment are considered.

‘We have asked the PDB again to submit its clarifications to clear our position that no irregularities have taken place,’ said Fouzul.