Vigilance Compedium - CCL

Case Study -03
Irregularities in tendering proceedings pertaining to purchase of Parking
BrakeConversion Kit by the MM Department, CCL
In course of Investigation into a complaint alleging irregularities in tender proceedings
pertaining to purchase of Parking Brake conversion kit, several procedural
lapses/irregularities were observed. Salient points of the case are as under:
1. The subject procurement was proposed for the conversion of drum type brakes of
Dumpers by caliper type parking brakes as per the direction of Safety Department of Coal
India Limited. The above direction was issued in view of the fact that conventional drum
type brakes were found less reliable by the user department. Accordingly the subject NIT
was issued for the purpose. After observing the various formalities, the supply order was
issued to one of the participating Firms.
2. On perusal of records connected with the case during the course of investigation, it was
observed that certain obvious lapses/ irregularities were committed while dealing the
subject tender. They were:-
2.1 Acceptance of the offer of one of the firm even when it was not fulfilling the
eligibility criteria
a. It is seen that the said firm was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria but still the firm was
declared qualified by the technical scrutiny committee as well as the TC.
b. In support of the prove, the said firm had submitted one order copy of one of the Areas of
a Subsidiary Company of CIL issued to it for supplying Parking Brake Kit. From the
above submitted supply order itself it was evident that the Parking Brake Kit covered
under it was different from that covered under the subject NIT. In the said supply order
submitted by the said Firm, the parking brake kit to be supplied comprised of 33 items
whereas the instant NIT was floated for a kit comprising of 22 items only. Even the
dealing officers of the case had above doubts in their mind and accordingly they had
sought clarifications from the said firm in this regard on two occasions in course of tender
proceedings. But the said firm kept on submitting the same order copy each time it was
asked to clarify on the above said shortcoming.
c. Later on it was also proved during the course of investigation that the above order copy of
the said Area of Subsidiary Company was for Drum /Shoe type, whereas the instant
tender was for replacement of drum/shoe type brakes with caliper type brakes.
d. It is evident from the above that in spite of the fact that the above said firm had submitted
order copies for supply of Drum /Shoe type brakes against the NIT for replacement of
drum/shoe type brakes with caliper type brakes and even when no satisfactory
clarifications were furnished by the said firm in response to the said letters issued to it
seeking clarifications, the offer submitted by the said firm was declared technically
qualified.