M A I N   N E W S

Cartels make PSEB pay more
by Jangveer singh
Tribune News Service

PATIALA, Feb 13 — Far from economising and giving tender orders to the lowest bidders, the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) has allowed the formation of cartels for placing of orders resulting in losses to the board which is paying more for transformers sold at lesser rates to neighbouring boards.

The board, despite officially claiming that it was discouraging ‘pooling’ of tenders under which various companies quoted a single price, is apparently encouraging the trend by giving orders to the same cartels.

Sources disclosed the board had made a fresh proposal to place an order for 12000 transformers to a few firms who had offered pooled rates. It is ignoring five firms who have submitted the lowest tenders to prepare the case for giving the order to 11 firms who have given a joint tender of Rs 28,079 per transformer. The lowest tender is that of Gagan Transmission, Patiala, which has quoted a price of Rs 25,520, followed by Fatehpuria, Jaipur which has submitted a tender of Rs 25,816, Danish, Jaipur, which has quoted a price of Rs 26,564, Uttam Bharti with a price of Rs 26,701 and Hi Tech, Jammu, which has offered Rs 27,531 per transformer.

The sources said while sidelining the first four firms on various grounds the tender rate of Hi Tech, Jammu, was being made the lowest rate and a case had been made to give it a minor order following which the major order would be given on pooled rates.

Earlier, while placing orders for 800 transformers of 200 kva last year the board accepted the tender of a firm which had offered the fifth lowest rate ignoring. Amson Transformers, Mohali, which had quoted the lowest price of Rs 82,062 against the accepted price of Rs 86,355.

Sources alleged that another case in which the PSEB was helping a group of few firms concerned a tender for repair of transformers which opened on February 28 last year. According to the sources, the firms demanded that the process of opening of the tenders should be shifted from the Chief Engineer, Workshop, to Chief Engineer, Material Management. They alleged in order to pressurise the board the firms deliberately did not submit earnest money along with their tenders. They said due to this reason the tenders were sealed.

The sources said the firms were now pressurising the board to open the tenders even though there was no regulation under which this could be done. They said despite this the issue of opening of the tenders was being discussed while the meeting of the board and the firms was likely to get their demand accepted. This they alleged, was being done despite the fact that a board member and a Chief Engineer had clearly written on the file that these tenders should not be opened as sufficient number of eligible tenderers had applied for the job.

An official spokesman of the board said it was discouraging pooling of tenders. He said the objective of doing so was to ensure that a few large companies did not get together to overcharge the board by quoting the same price. He, however, said in case of 30 bidders if some of the bidders got together to make a pool it did not make much of a difference. While speaking on the issue of earnest money not deposited by some concerns while applying for a tender for repair of transformers, he said this was the result of a recent change in policy.

He said the board had recently started the policy of permanent earnest money which was to be deposited with the Chief Engineer concerned to facilitate contractors.

He said, however, when work of repair of transformers was recently given to the Chief Engineer, Workshop, a majority of bidders refused to pay earnest money again, saying that their money which was lying with another board officer should be transferred into the new account.