2013. However, the tender was announced with the specific model no: 35D-V300 clearly stating that they had already pre-selected the model, therefore, no one else other than the specified model can be qualified. But, the particular model did not specify the capacity that they had required hence, it had to be called off.
The department announced the tender for the third time which was opened on February 24, 2014, but this time, the tender document specified country of origin and restricted the participation. On this, the participating companies raised objection to the procuring agency as well as PPRA and the tender was called off.
The documents further reveal that the department again advertised the tender for the fourth time which was opened on March 25, 2014. The department announced the tender with updated specifications and demo was requested which was presented and the purchase committee approved the company’s bid being the lowest bidder. However, without citing any reason, the department cancelled the contract and re-advertised the tender for the fifth time which was opened on August 26, 2014.
The companies were demanded for presenting demos whereas the said company requested for time to arrange a fresh unit to be imported for the purpose of DEMO at the requested site. Copies o/LC, shipping advise, and BL were also submitted to the offices of the procurement agency from time to time. However, despite approving the demo earlier, the department awarded the contract to a company whose quoted prices were more than 60 percent. It is pertinent to mention here that the said company has already supplied the fork lifters to Punjab and Sindh police up to 50 units.
The price offered by the lowest bidder was Rs3 million per unit whereas the department awarded the contract to successful company has much higher prices which would cost Rs50 million extra to the national exchequer.
The procurement department of police said in its reply that they advertised the tender for four times but the procurement could not be materialised as the bidders failed to offer quoted samples.
Similarly, in the fifth tender, the department specifically mentioned that the demo should be presented before the technical evaluation committee. The technical committee carries out evaluation of technical proposals. Apart from police officers, two experts from other departments are also members of the technical evaluation committee. One expert is from transport department while the other one is from mechanical engineering department of Engineering University, Peshawar.
The procurement department further stated that the firm was asked to produce the item for demonstration before the technical evaluation committee on 30.08.2014. However, the firm did not produce the sample on the target-date. Even the demo date was extended till November 2014 but it could not be presented. After failing to present the demo, the company was disqualified automatically.
About difference of quoted prices, the department said the financial proposal of the complainant firm was not opened on the ground that it was declared as unqualified by the technical evaluation committee. Hence, there is no question of lowest rate offered by the complainant firm.
On the other hand, the company contested the department through its letter that although it was re-tendered for four times, yet the question remained why this was re-tendered when Demo was arranged of 3.5 tons forklift dated: June 10, 2014 that absolutely matched the tender specifications.
To the question regarding why the department re-tendered it for four times, the department replied that it was re-tendered because the bidders failed to offer the quoted samples.
About changing model, the procurement department said in its reply that the department wanted the machines having capacity of 3.5 tons and this was the reason the KP police department clearly spelled out this specification.