5.0 Brief Introduction:

A tender was published for the supply of Different types of ‘Strainers’such as Duplex, Simplex, Sea guard & Y-Type of various materials like Cast Steel, Gun metal etc. with size varying from 15mm NB to 350mm NB.

5.1 Background:

The experience to supply Strainers to Warships was required as Pre-Qualification Criteria defined in the tender. As per this criteria, the bidders were asked to submit the supporting documents indicating their experience having supplied “Similar” type of equipment / system to any warship. Non-submission of such documents related to warship experience and proven design on naval ship were covered under ‘liable for rejection’ criteria of bids.

On investigation it was observed that a bidder with experience of supplying basket type of strainers and Y type strainers to Coast Guard through private shipyard was qualified. Another bidder having supplied only T type and wire mesh type strainers to MDL was also qualified. Both of them had no past experience of having supplied complicated type strainers like Duplex strainers. During the CTE type examination of the contract, Vigilance Department noticed the lapses and discrepancies during the procurement process and the contract execution stage. In both cases ‘Similar’ and ‘Proven Design’ were ambiguous terms leading to lapses in technical evaluation.

5.2 Implementation:

The following Systemic Improvements were suggested and implemented.

(i) Utmost care is to be taken while framing Pre-Qualification Criteria (PQC) in the tender terms and as well as in the TSP.

(ii) Definition of ‘Similar’ items is to be stated clearly in the PQC.

(iii) If required, capacity and capability of the bidder is to be assessed through factory visits before technical qualification.

5.3 Impact and Benefits:

The tender was scrapped and the required items were re-tendered with correctly framed Pre-Qualification Criteria without any ambiguity.

Back