2.0 Brief Introduction:

A capital item comprising of Battery operated Transmitter and Receiver to be used at outdoor site was tendered out on open tender basis.The minimum required technical parameters were specified in the tender and the bidders were asked to quote a specific make/model or its equivalent for the tendered item.The Pre-Qualification Criteria (PQC) was to have experience of supplying this type of item during last 3 years.

2.1 Background:

The minimum required technical specifications were defined based on the specified make with minor changes to make it generic item.Offers were received from 6 bidders quoting 3 different makes/models. Out of 06 bidders, only one bidder was techno-commercially qualified and considered for price bid opening. Remaining 05 bidders were disqualified due to non-compliance to eithertechnical parameters or PQC.

On investigation, it was observed that the items were required with ‘auto-off feature within selectable time of 5, 10, 20 and 30 min to save battery life’. One of the bidder had specified in the offer that based on their experience this feature is not essential and hence notoffered.The justification for deviation given by the bidder was accepted by TNC without any correspondence.

Another bidder has offered an item with broad compliance to technical parameters and specified in the offer that they would be happy to give point wise compliance as the tendered item appears to be similar to a specific make. This bidder was disqualified due to technical deviation in a single parameter without any correspondence. The deviation in the same parameter offered by other bidders was accepted but they were disqualified against non-compliance to PQC. The technical deviations were not specified in the final Technical Acceptance / Rejection Report.

The technical irregularities were found due to technical in-competency of the executives involved in defining the tender specification and technical evaluation.

2.2 Implementation:

As a systemic improvement the following was suggested and the same was implemented through a memorandum from the Functional Directorconcerned.

When requirement of any item is projected based on technical specifications equivalent to any make / model available in market, due care should be taken in defining minimum (mandatory) requirement of technical specifications/parameters in the tender in such a way that,

(a) the specifications do not belong to only a single make/model.

(b) the specifications should be available in TOTO in more than one make.

(c) the specifications are not overrated w.r.t. the place and environment where the item is intended to be used.

(d) If such parameters / operational features are available at variance in different Make / Model, then the Tender should clearly specify the equivalent acceptable options so as to avoid ambiguity during technical scrutiny stage.

(e) If some variations in parameters / operational features which are considered equivalent and acceptable as they meet tender requirement, then such range or options of parameters / features should be clearly defined in the Tender to maintain transparency.

(f) TNC recommendation regarding acceptance / rejection of the offers should be given by the committee as a whole. Responsibility of the members of the committee is not restricted only to their domain (i.e. either technical or commercial). The joint verification of technical evaluation would help eliminate the lapses on individuals’ part.

(g) Dealing commercial executive needs to be more careful as negligence or avoidance on his part in verifying whether the bidders are Local Suppliers or Non Local Suppliers, may lead to further violation of Make in India Policy and injustice to the qualified Local suppliers, if any.

2.3 Impact and Benefits:

With the implementation of the above mentioned Systemic improvement, the possibility of favouring any single brand/make during procurement is eliminated and transparency as well as competitiveness in procurement is increased.

Back