Senate panel chief writes to Aurangzeb over FBR plan to buy 1,010 vehicles

ISLAMABAD: Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Revenue Senator Saleem Mandviwalla has written a letter to Finance Minister Mohammad Aurangzeb to urgently suspend the procurement of 1,010 vehicles for the FBR.

Earlier, the FBR issued a letter of intent to one of the major companies for procurement of 1,010 vehicles in two batches with the specification of the navigation system with reverse camera, high-grade interior, free four-period maintenance (20,000 km or 12 months), 4th year extended warranty (4 years or 100,000 km subject to regular maintenance at Honda authorised dealer), FBR logos on both front doors and front windscreen. The price also includes freight and delivery charges and M/S Honda Atlas will also install a tracker with one-year service charges at Rs8,500 exclusive of tax for which the FBR will bear the cost. In the first batch, the FBR ordered 75 vehicles in January 2025, 200 in Feb 2025 and 225 in March 2025. In the second batch, the FBR ordered delivery of 250 vehicles in April 2025 and 260 vehicles in May 2025.

In his letter, Senator Mandviwalla drew the attention of the finance minister to the procurement of 1,010 vehicles for FBR officers. The senator referred to the meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Revenue held on January 13, 2025. The committee sought explicit justifications and detailed information on the acquisition process. This inquiry specifically requested explanations for the procurement of a significant number of vehicles, and the associated tendering, bidding procedures and approvals involved.

Senator Mandviwalla further said the timing and scale of this procurement have raised considerable doubts about the transparency and integrity of the process, prompting a further review of the issue during the committee meeting on January 22, 2025. During this meeting, the committee members identified the deliberate exclusion of potential competitors from the bidding process. This action has been perceived as an instance of mismanagement and possibly mala fide intentions, compromising the principles of fairness and transparency that are fundamental to government procurement processes.