PAFDA under fire for flouting procurement rules

LAHORE: The Punjab Agriculture, Food, and Drug Authority (PAFDA) has come under scrutiny for allegedly flouting procurement rules in awarding laboratory equipment tenders worth over Rs400 million, prompting concerns from stakeholders about transparency and fair competition.

According to stakeholders, the tender specifications were allegedly tailored to favour a specific firm, raising serious concerns over the provincial government’s claims of transparency and compliance with the Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Rules 2014.

The tender, advertised in national newspapers on June 13 was initially scheduled to be opened in the presence of bidders on October 22. However, one bidding firm filed a formal grievance with PAFDA, alleging that the technical specifications were deliberately formulated to restrict competition.

Interestingly, the PAFDA management did not deny the notion of ‘tailored specifications’ and place the blame on another government agency. Despite the grievance regarding favourable specifications of the lab equipment purchase submitted on October 7, the aggrieved parties alleged that PAFDA did not move to address the issue.

According to PPRA rules, grievances must be resolved for further proceeding to ensure transparency in public procurement.Instead, PAFDA’s technical evaluation committee postponed the tender opening to November 6 and extended the bid validity for another two months. Interestingly, instead of a formal procedural letter, bidders were informed via a text message to comply with the decision or face exclusion from the process, which created further doubts about the transparency of the entire process.

One of the bidding firms alleged that the specifications for key equipment, including heating mantles, sample digestors, autoclaves, spectrometers, and safety showers, aligned with the offer of a particular firm.

Concerns have been raised over PAFDA allegedly bypassing the E-Pak Acquisition and Disposal System (EPADS) after the government-mandated cut-off date for its implementation. Aggrieved firms argue that unilateral extensions to bid validity and reliance on outdated procurement methods undermine the principles of transparency, competition and accountability required under PPRA rules. Furthermore, they claim, the tender required imports from specific countries and included exaggerated cost estimates, limiting the participation of other suppliers and driving up costs.

Another bidding firm pointed out that these specifications were unattainable for most suppliers and alleged PAFDA of sidelining competitors to favour a certain firm. It also raised concerns about inflated pricing, which it claimed undermined value for taxpayers’ money. PPRA rules mandate transparency, competition and fair-play in public procurement. However, PAFDA’s actions, including the failure to address grievances and extending the bid validity unilaterally, have drawn criticism. The aggrieved firms urged higher authorities to intervene and address alleged anomalies, and revise the specifications to ensure a level playing field.

In its letter to PAFDA, a competing firm highlighted that fair competition would lead to better pricing and quality while ensuring taxpayers money is utilised judiciously. “This blatant disregard for PPRA rules and transparency is unacceptable,” the letter stated, calling for immediate government intervention.

Sector experts and stakeholders are demanding a thorough investigation into the affairs of tender award by PAFDA. They argue that such practices erode trust in public institutions and discourage fair competition. “The procurement processes must be beyond reproach, especially when public funds are at stake,” said a procurement expert familiar with the matter.

When contacted, a senior PAFDA official said tender specifications are finalised by the IDAP and the authority has no role in it. In the tender of autoclave, he added, seven bidders participated and no other bidder raised any complaint in any stage of the process. Now the evaluation of autoclave is being finalised in a few days and if anyone has objection at any stage, they can file grievance to the independent forum, ie the home department, for remedy. “We will abide by the decision of the grievance committee of the home department.”

He claimed the tender was uploaded on PPRA before the launch of EPADS systems so this fall under the previous system of procurement. All vendors have been given an opportunity for extension in bid as per the PPRA rule. “Many vendors participated in the bidding process. A high-powered procurement committee observes the procurement process so there is no favouritism at all in the whole process of procurement.” He concluded that no firm has been finalised yet, and evaluations are in process, adding that “we have an open door policy to listen to the grievances of the bidders.”