The tender conditions were such that the rates quoted by only five agencies were considered despite participation of 10 technically qualified bidders. However, the department did not consider the price bids of bidders in category II and III and accepted higher rates for supply of laptops under the scheme
NT NETWORK
PANAJI
The CAG has found “faulty” the tendering process adopted by the education department for procurement of laptops for students of 11th and 12th standard under the laptop e-scheme leading to a revenue loss of Rs 9.66 crore.
The education department had invited tenders in October 2011 classifying tenderers under three categories with 45:45:10 procurement ratio. A total of 12 computer dealers had submitted their bids and all of them had quoted for multiple brands.
However, M/s Aces was selected under the lowest category bidder. Orders were also placed from ten participants, and 17286 laptops were bought at quoted rate of Rs 21990 each, higher than those prevailing in the market.
“The joint secretary of finance department had in July 2011 reported that market inquiry had revealed that considering the bulk purchase, the laptop would roughly cost Rs 18,000 per unit,” it report noted.
The CAG in its report has alleged that the education department floated a tender with conditions that did not provide incentive for the participants to compete and thereby accepted higher rates for supply of laptops.
“The tender conditions were such that the rates quoted by only five agencies were considered despite participation of 10 technically qualified bidders. However, the department did not consider the price bids of bidders in category II and III and accepted higher rates for supply of laptops under the scheme. Thus prices were set according to quotes of the five dealers,” the report said. “The procurement rates were higher than the market rates assessed, resulting in an extra expenditure of Rs 9.66 crore,” it said.
“We observed that the tender conditions were such that every bidder who qualified technically was assured of an order provided they were willing to supply at the rate of category I (lowest price category). However, there was little incentive among the participants who are the computer dealers and not manufacturers to compete and reduce prices and therefore matching lowest category simply means adjusting their margins,” the audit watchdog said in the report.
