Transparency International Pakistan has raised several objections on the possible approval by Economic Co-ordination Committee (ECC) of a project for implementation to import of 500 million cubic feet per day (MMCFD) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) through SSGC's retrofitting facility.
In a letter sent to Finance Minister, Ishaq Dar on September 24, Adviser, TI-Pakistan, Syed Adil Gilani has reminded him that on this very project, TI-Pakistan on September 18, 2013 had sent a letter to Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources, through which a complaint on the same project was forwarded for the examination of the Minister, with copies of one director's letter written to the Chairman SSGCL, email correspondence between SSGCL and legal advisor. Anwar Mansoor Khan, and draft minutes of last Board meeting of SSGCL.
The Minister of Petroleum was informed by TI-Pakistan of the allegations that after the statement of the minister was reported in which the SSGC Board members were threatened that they would be held responsible if any future bids were higher than tolling charges offered by 4Gas Asia at 80 cents per MMBTU. The change of professional recommendations by Consultants is a very serious matter, and may amount to application of PPRA Rule No 2 (f) Corruption and Corrupt Practices on all the firms/persons related to this project. And that processing a tender after legal validly of bids has expired is also not allowed in PPRA Rules.
TI-Pakistan has recommended as under:
A: According to Public Procurement Rules 2004, single bid is not allowed, being non competitive. Calcification by PPRA on its website advises to consider single bid if it is possible to compare comparison of price of the goods, works or services if procured during the current financial year. No tender of LNG handling has been awarded in Pakistan.
B: Consultants Phil Nutman, MD of QED has clearly stated in para 3a of his email of March 27, 2013, and recommended for considering the option of re-bidding, to SSGCL that "Whilst on balance our legal counsel's advice is that the tender process may meet the requirements of PPRA Rules (Badar Vellani note to me below), we nevertheless have concern over the ability of other parties to challenging the validity of process. This is primarily related to the fact that the nature of the process changed significantly between the two stages from an "integrated "offering of retrofitted terminal plus LNG supply, to one of retrofit only.
C: SSGCL legal adviser Anwar Mansoor Khan advised SSGCL to re-advertise the tender on August 16, 2013 as well on August 17, 2013 in Board meeting. And accordingly the SSGCL Board decided to discharge the Tender, and re advertise on August 18, 2013.
Quote: Anwar Mansoor Khan further stated that according to the invitation to bid it was a two stage process and in the RFP, It has been shown to be a single stage two envelope bidding system therefore, the document becomes vague and this clarification/correction needs to be re-advertised.-Unquote:
D. Validity of bid expired on August 21, 2013. Bidder without asking by SSGCL extended the bid security, which is illegal act, under PPRA Rules, and considering a discharged and expired bid can not be allowed by ECC or even the Prime Minister.
E: SSGCL can not handle LNG in Progas terminal at PQA, as terms of implementation do not allow any other cargo except LPG. PQA can not allow any existing terminal to 'change the use of terminal for Cargo other than for cargo allowed in the Implementation Agreement".
F: If a tender initially declared non responsive by the consultants, and the legal adviser, and also has expired its validity on August 21, 2013, under PPRA Rules, is made responsive after a warning of Minister of Petroleum, any time it can be challenged in court. Like RPPs contracts awarded in 2006 and 2008 were declared void ab initio by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on March 30, 2011 in the Human Rights Case No 7734-G/2009 & 1003-G/2010, , due to change in terms of tender, after the opening of tender.
G: If ECC agree with the alleged statement of Anwar Mansoor Khan quoted in point 6 as a valid reason to condone violation of Public Procurement Rules 2004, it will be another Doctrine of Necessity, which the Supreme Court of Pakistan has buried for once and all" Statement of Chief Justice of Pakistan of January 2012 .
H: If SSGCL is allowing 48 percent rate of return, and the company will get back their investment in two years, exchequer is being fleeced of the hard earned tax payer's money.
In a letter sent to Finance Minister, Ishaq Dar on September 24, Adviser, TI-Pakistan, Syed Adil Gilani has reminded him that on this very project, TI-Pakistan on September 18, 2013 had sent a letter to Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources, through which a complaint on the same project was forwarded for the examination of the Minister, with copies of one director's letter written to the Chairman SSGCL, email correspondence between SSGCL and legal advisor. Anwar Mansoor Khan, and draft minutes of last Board meeting of SSGCL.
The Minister of Petroleum was informed by TI-Pakistan of the allegations that after the statement of the minister was reported in which the SSGC Board members were threatened that they would be held responsible if any future bids were higher than tolling charges offered by 4Gas Asia at 80 cents per MMBTU. The change of professional recommendations by Consultants is a very serious matter, and may amount to application of PPRA Rule No 2 (f) Corruption and Corrupt Practices on all the firms/persons related to this project. And that processing a tender after legal validly of bids has expired is also not allowed in PPRA Rules.
TI-Pakistan has recommended as under:
A: According to Public Procurement Rules 2004, single bid is not allowed, being non competitive. Calcification by PPRA on its website advises to consider single bid if it is possible to compare comparison of price of the goods, works or services if procured during the current financial year. No tender of LNG handling has been awarded in Pakistan.
B: Consultants Phil Nutman, MD of QED has clearly stated in para 3a of his email of March 27, 2013, and recommended for considering the option of re-bidding, to SSGCL that "Whilst on balance our legal counsel's advice is that the tender process may meet the requirements of PPRA Rules (Badar Vellani note to me below), we nevertheless have concern over the ability of other parties to challenging the validity of process. This is primarily related to the fact that the nature of the process changed significantly between the two stages from an "integrated "offering of retrofitted terminal plus LNG supply, to one of retrofit only.
C: SSGCL legal adviser Anwar Mansoor Khan advised SSGCL to re-advertise the tender on August 16, 2013 as well on August 17, 2013 in Board meeting. And accordingly the SSGCL Board decided to discharge the Tender, and re advertise on August 18, 2013.
Quote: Anwar Mansoor Khan further stated that according to the invitation to bid it was a two stage process and in the RFP, It has been shown to be a single stage two envelope bidding system therefore, the document becomes vague and this clarification/correction needs to be re-advertised.-Unquote:
D. Validity of bid expired on August 21, 2013. Bidder without asking by SSGCL extended the bid security, which is illegal act, under PPRA Rules, and considering a discharged and expired bid can not be allowed by ECC or even the Prime Minister.
E: SSGCL can not handle LNG in Progas terminal at PQA, as terms of implementation do not allow any other cargo except LPG. PQA can not allow any existing terminal to 'change the use of terminal for Cargo other than for cargo allowed in the Implementation Agreement".
F: If a tender initially declared non responsive by the consultants, and the legal adviser, and also has expired its validity on August 21, 2013, under PPRA Rules, is made responsive after a warning of Minister of Petroleum, any time it can be challenged in court. Like RPPs contracts awarded in 2006 and 2008 were declared void ab initio by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on March 30, 2011 in the Human Rights Case No 7734-G/2009 & 1003-G/2010, , due to change in terms of tender, after the opening of tender.
G: If ECC agree with the alleged statement of Anwar Mansoor Khan quoted in point 6 as a valid reason to condone violation of Public Procurement Rules 2004, it will be another Doctrine of Necessity, which the Supreme Court of Pakistan has buried for once and all" Statement of Chief Justice of Pakistan of January 2012 .
H: If SSGCL is allowing 48 percent rate of return, and the company will get back their investment in two years, exchequer is being fleeced of the hard earned tax payer's money.
No comments:
Post a Comment