Amrit Pandurangi, ex-PwC
Four elements are
required to establish as to whether General Electric did commit this corrupt
practice and whether it was liable to be disqualified and blacklisted.
i.
Did Vinod Sharma work for GE in 2010 on
the bid for the Marhowra Project?
ii.
Did Vinod Sharma earlier act as an advisor
to the Railway Ministry for the same Project?
iii.
Did these facts violate clauses of the
2010 Marhowra RFQ which defined corrupt and undesirable practices and conflict
of interest?
iv.
What were the consequences prescribed by
the RFQ for such violation?
i. Material and evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma worked
for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project.
·
The Appellant in her writ petition
described her meetings with Vinod Sharma in the GE office in May, June and July
2010 where Vinod Sharma’s gave his advice on the draft bid documents that the
GE team had prepared for the Madhepura and Marhowra tenders and met Railway
officials along with the GE team on several occasions.
·
The appellant also produced on record two
internal GE emails referring to Vinod Sharma and his visits to the GE
office.
General Electric
internal emails dated July 5, 2010 sent in connection with Mr. Vinod Sharma’s
visit to the GE office. The first email was sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar at
8:17 am on July 5, 2010 with the subject “RFQ”. The email was sent to Mr.
Ashish Malhotra, Mr. Gaurav Negi, Mr. Ashfaq Nainar, Ms. Praveena Yagnambhat,
Mr. Ramesh Mathur and to the Appellant. It stated:
“Mr Sharma will be
coming to AIFACS around 11 am to go through D-Loco RFQ submittal.”
Mr. Ramesh Mathur
replied to this email at 8.20 a.m. and stated:
“We were planning for
tomorrow. If he is coming today we will share work-in-progress. Thanks.
Ramesh”
Mr. Pratyush Kumar
replied to Mr. Ramesh Mathur at 8:22 am and stated:
“Earlier the better –
can do another round. I DO NOT want things at the last moment.”
Copies of these three
emails are part of the court record in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 in
the Delhi High Court as part of Annexure P-7 to the Petition at page 219.
|
·
Even the unauthorised affidavit filed in
the writ petition on behalf of General Electric confirmed that Vinod Sharma was
working for GE in 2010 on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura tenders.
A
“Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit” dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents
(Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states on internal
page 62:
“ … the Answering
Respondents state that GE India did in fact enter into a written agreement to
govern its relationship with Mr Sharma’s company, Essvee Consultants,
effective August 11, 2009.”
|
Pratyush Kumar, ex-GE
ii. Material and Evidence
to establish that Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008 and 2009 advised the Railway
Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender
·
Internal Ministry of railways 2008
document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of
Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf
and titled “Annexture_1_4.pdf” contains the following statement on the role of
PwC as the consultant to the Indian Railways for the Marhowra diesel locomotive
factory tender:
“Ministry of Railways
have appointed a Consultant M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers for advisory on
setting up of new unit.
Final report for the
first part, which is on strategy, has since been received and the consultant
has been given a go-ahead for the second part of the report i.e. bid process
management.
A final decision on
Joint Venture will be taken based on the response in the bidding process.
Status on selection of
developer for setting up new Manufacturing Units in Joint Venture:
Draft Agreements
(Procurement contract, maintenance contract and shareholders’ agreement)
approved by the Board(MM).
Legally vetted copy of
final Land Lease agreement incorporating views of AM/Adviser’s Committee has
been submitted by the Consultant (PWC) and put up to Board(ME) for approval.
Legally vetted copy of
Procurement Contract has been received from the Consultant. Other draft
agreements (Shareholders’ agreement and Maintenance Contract) are under legal
vetting with the Consultlant.
Procurement Specialist
for validating procurement contract hired by the Consultlant, has started
work. Work likely to be completed in a week’s time.
After validation of
Procurement Contract and legal vetting of draft agreements, final bid
document (RFP) will be put up for approval by Board(MM, FC & CRB) and MR.
Likely date of submission is 30-04-2008.
A fresh RFQ based on
approval by Planning Commission will be issued shortly.
Further bid process
will depnd on the reply to the reference made to the Ministry of Finance.
Bid process is likely
to be completed by August, 2008.
The project is expected
to be completed in about 2 to 2½ years after CCEA’s approval is obtained for
going ahead with bidding process for Joint – Venture.”
|
·
An ADB document from November 2008
numbered T A 4998 (IND): Preparing the Railway Sector Investment Program Final
Report – Efficiency Improvement. This document includes Mr. Vinod Sharma’s name
as a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. This document appears to
be a consultancy report prepared by PwC for the Ministry of Railways under ADB
funding and includes advice on the Electric and Diesel Locomotive Tenders.”
Copies of relevant extracts from this were annexed as Annexure P-3 to the
Appellant’s rejoinder affidavit dated 9/7/2012 filed in WP Civil 1280/ 2012. This
document establishes that in 2008, Mr Vinod Sharma was working for
PricewaterhouseCoopers which was advising the Ministry of Railways on the bids
for the diesel locomotive factory.
·
A news report dated 3 October 2008
published by Live Mint which stated “PwC is advising the railways on the diesel
locomotive bids.”
“Govt
shortlists five MNCs for $8 bn Indian Railways orders
The
firms will compete for deals to build and supply 660 electric locomotives and
1,000 diesel engines”
Rahul
Chandran and K.P. Narayana Kumar
Posted
Friday October 3, 2008 at 12:46 AM IST http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/03004601/Govt-shortlists-five-MNCs-for.html
·
An article titled ‘Indian Railways:
Steamrolling towards new horizons’ by Vineet Unnikrishnan published in the
India Law Journal in the fourth quarter of 2008 described the engagement of PwC
by the Indian Railways in these terms:
“PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC), a renowned professional consultancy company and Singhania &
Partners, a distinguished legal firm are handling the financial and legal
nitty-gritty’s respectively. These firms are currently in the course of
preparing the details of the structure for some of the projects which
includes the procedure of the entire bidding process, ownership shares,
management, etc which will lay a foundation for future projects of a similar
nature. The primary focus of the two firms is on the work related to the
establishment of new mainline factories (NMF) and identifying and
acknowledging the legal issues that can impact the said ventures, reviewing
and preparing the requisite project and transaction documentation, conducting
legal vetting, providing valuable advice legal questions in the management of
the bidding process collection of significant legal data needed for the
successful development of the factories and creation of inventive strategies
to manage the bids and pick competent developers for the new factories.” See
http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume1/issue_4/article_by_vineet.html
|
·
In its counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012
the Railway Ministry first attempted to mislead the Court by stating that it
“has never engaged Shri Vinod Sharma for any work in connection with the said
tenders” referring to the 2010 tenders and thereby incorrectly implying that the
prohibition on conflict of interest was in respect of the same tender and not
the same Project. This was countered by the appellant in her response where it
was pointed out that both Clause 2.2.1 (d) and Clause 4.1.3 (a) of the 2010
Marhowra RFQ used the word Project.
·
Attempt by the Railway Ministry to mislead
the Court by perjury and fabrication of false evidence in its affidavit dated
14 January 2013 filed in reply to CM 19501/ 2012.
·
In its affidavit dated 14 January 2013,
the Ministry of Railways actually produced two patently fabricated letters
which were used to make a false statement in the affidavit that Vinod Sharma
did not advise the Ministry on the Marhowra Rail Project. Both these letters are
reproduced and analysed below. This conduct by the Railway Ministry where it
failed to honestly answer the question as to whether or not Vinod Sharma ever
advised the Ministry on the Marhowra Project, and where instead the attempt was
to lie based upon fabricated documents is by itself evidence and material
sufficient to lead to the inference that the Railway Ministry is trying to hide
the true facts. These documents establish that the Railway Ministry has tried
to protect GE and to cover up its corrupt practice by deliberately misleading
the Court on the point of Vinod Sharma. This conduct by the Railway Ministry it
is submitted constitutes perjury and contempt of court and involves a criminal
conspiracy to deceive the court and to fabricate false evidence.
·
Fabricated letter dated: 27.12.2012
addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Ltd. from G.K. Gupta,
Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project) Railway Board filed with the
Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD
No.
2012/M(W)/964/26 New
Delhi, Dated: 27.12.2012
Chairman-cum-Managing
Director
RITES Ltd.
Gurgaon
Sub. Setting up of
Diesel locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref. Writ Petition No.
1280/2012 in Delhi High Court.
A Writ Petition No.
1280/2012 has been filed in Delhi High Court against M/s General Electric
Company and others in which Ministry of Railways is also one of the
Respondents. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has raised certain issues
related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers, who had been engaged by M/s RITES as
consultant for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra. The
contents of Writ Petition are posted on website of Delhi High Court.
You may kindly get the
same examined and submit your comments by 31.12.12 positively as the same are
to be discussed on 1,1.2013 with Counsel of Central Government for finalizing
the Counter Affidavit. Concerned officers may discuss and seek any
clarification on the matter with undersigned on 28.12.12.
Yours sincerely,
(G.K. Gupta)
Executive Director
Mechanical Engg. (Project)
Railway Board
|
·
Fabricated letter dated Dt. 7.1.2013
addressed to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.) Railway Board from Anil
Vij, GGM/RW&IE at RITES filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14
January 2013
RITES
LTD
(A
Government of India Enterprise)
RW&IE DIVISION
2ndFloor, Centre Wing, RITES BHAWAN
PLOT No 1, Sector 29
Gurgaon- 122,001, Haryana, (India)
Telefax : +91(0124)2571627
No.
2012/RITES/RW&IE/DLF/Marhowra
Dt.
7.1.2013
Executive
Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.)
Railway
Board
Rail
Bhawan, Raisina Road,
New
Delhi – 110001.
Dear
Sir,
Sub:-
Setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref:-
Rly. Bd.’s letter no. 2012/M(W)/964/26 dt. 27.12.12
In
reference to the above letter from Railway Board in regard to the writ
petition no. 1280/2012 filed in Delhi High Court, the issues related to M/s
PricewaterhouseCoopers raised by the petitioner have been examined and the
comments of RITES are as under:-
i)Railway
Board, vide letter no. 2006/Infra./PPP/Consultancy dt. 11.10.2006 (copy
placed at Annexure-1) communicated to RITES that Railway Board has approved
appointment of RITES for providing consultancy services to the Ministry of
Railways to engage Consultancy firm for advisory on setting up new
manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single
Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell.
ii)
Accordingly, RITES went through with the process of engaging a consultancy
form on behalf of the Ministry of Railways and issued Letter of Award dt.
2.3.2007 to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (PwC) – copy placed at
Annexure-2 and signed an agreement dated 6.3.2007 as the Employer’s
Representative on behalf of the Ministry of Railways (Employer) and M/s
PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (Consultant) – copy placed at Annexure-3.
iii)As
regards the issue of Mr. Vinod Sharma raised by the petitioner, it is brought
out that the relevant records have been checked and as per the Technical
Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006, the Team Composition of PwC
for the consultancy assignment mentioned in Para I above, was as under:-
Further,
at no stage during the currency of the assignment, M/s PwC informed
RITES/Ministry of Railways about any change in the team composition.
Thus
from the information furnished by PwC, it is seen that Mr. Vinod Sharma was
not a part of the PwC team that worked on the consultancy assignment.
The
above is for your information please.
Thanking
you
Yours
faithfully,
(Anil
Vij)
GGM/RW&IE
Encl.
:- As Above.
|
·
The second letter from RITES to the
Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to a consultancy contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007
and then uses the list of the proposed team composition in the Technical
Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006 to state that Vinod Sharma was
not a part of the team that worked on that consultancy assignment.
·
As a matter of fact, there were two
separate consultancy contracts entered into between the Railway Ministry/RITES
and PwC.
·
The first was the contract dated 6.3.2007
which was a consultancy to advise on the process the Railway Ministry should
prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing
factories.
A
news report dated February 18, 2007 available on the internet at http://www.steelguru.com/indian_news/Indian_Railway_selects_PWC_as_advisor_for_rolling_stock_venture/18380.html
states: “Business Line reported that Indian Railways has selected Price
Waterhouse Coopers to advise it on the process it should prefer for setting up
its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories. The report
cites an Indian railway official as saying that "PWC is required to submit
an inception report within a fortnight. And the final advisory report has to be
submitted within another two and a half months.” On behalf of the Railway
Ministry, RITES had invited competitive bids from consulting firms to provide
advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for
selection of developers for new factories.”
This contract with PwC
dated 6.3.2007 was only for 3 months and this assignment was completed by June
2007. This contract was also not specific exclusively to the Marhowra Project
but was for provision of advisory services on development strategy and bid
process management for selection of developers for the new proposed locomotive,
coach and wheel manufacturing factories.
·
In 2008, the Railway Ministry either
directly or through RITES entered into another consultancy contract with PwC
which is referred to in the internal Ministry of Railways 2008 document
downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways
website at
http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf
and titled “Annexture_1_4.pdf” which has been reproduced above. This is also
the contract mentioned in the news report dated 3 October 2008 published by
Live Mint which stated “PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive
bids.” This is also the contract mentioned in the article published in the
fourth quarter of 2008 in the India Law Journal, the relevant part reproduced
hereinabove. It is under this 2008 contract with the Railway Ministry that PwC
provided advisory services on the bid documents and bid evaluation for the
2008-2009 Marhowra Project and tender. Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team
advising the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender under this
2008 contract with PwC.
·
So when called upon by the Delhi High
Court to answer as to whether Vinod Sharma had advised the Ministry of Railways
as part of the PwC team for preparation of bid documents and for bid evaluation for the
Marhowra Project and tender in 2008, officials of the Railway Ministry and
RITES were made to write fabricated letters dated 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 which
referred not to the relevant 2008 contract with PwC but to an entirely
different, earlier and irrelevant contract dated 6.3.2007 and this letter was
then used to create false evidence by way of the RITES reply dated 7.1.2013
which was in turn used by the Railway Ministry to lie on affidavit that Vinod
Sharma had not advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project.
·
This lie also stands exposed because the
PwC contract dated 6.3.2007 mentioned in the RITES letter dated 7.1.2013
involved advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International
Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed
by PPP cell. The Bid Process that was finally adopted by the Railway Ministry
for both the Marhowra and the Madhepura Projects in 2008 involved a two stage
bidding process with separate RFQ and RFP stages.
·
That there was a deliberate conspiracy to
mislead the Court by the Railway Ministry is also evident from the following:
o
The letter to RITES from G.K. Gupta,
Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project), Railway Board dated 27.12.2012
did not provide a copy of the writ petition to RITES. Instead the letter
resorts to the falsehood that a copy of the writ petition was available on the
website of the Delhi High Court. This letter does not state the conflict of
interest complaint against GE, Vinod Sharma and PwC. In fact, it does not even
mention Vinod Sharma. This letter which asks RITES for comments on a complaint
of corruption and conflict of interest in a pending writ petition for the
express purpose of drafting a court affidavit does not even disclose to RITES
what the complaint was, and what the issue and facts in contention were.
o
The response from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE,
RITES to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.), Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers
to as explained above a contract signed with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and states that
copies of the letter of award dated 2.3. 2007 and contract dated 6.3.2007 are
attached to the letter, but these attachments were not included in the railway
affidavit which produced this letter before the Delhi High Court. This for the
obvious reason that the persons who drafted, signed and affirmed the affidavit
were aware that this contract dated 6.3.2007 was not the relevant contract and
the relevant contract was from 2008. These persons were aware that they were drafting
and/or signing a false and misleading statement on oath in an affidavit with
intent to mislead the court and to cover up corruption by General Electric
Company.
o
While the letter dt 27.12.2012 from the Railway
Ministry is addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RITES, the reply
dated 7.12013 from RITES has not been issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, but under the name of one Mr Anil Vij with the words GGM/ RW&IE
printed underneath. The letter does not bear a full signature and instead has
merely been initialled and even these initials are illegible.
·
The affidavit dated January 14, 2013 filed
for the Railway Ministry states at page 12 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma
that: “A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s.
RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team
nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of
the DLF, Marhowra”.
·
It is submitted that this statement in the
Railway Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is false and that the officers who have
signed this affidavit authors of the Railway affidavit have attempted to
protect themselves by using the words “evidently discloses”. The phrase
“evidently discloses” is commonly used to distance oneself from a statement of
fact and to deny any personal responsibility for the fact being asserted.
·
The Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 filed for
the Railway Ministry is signed and affirmed by two officers from the Railway Ministry,
one of whom is Gopal Krishan Gupta, Executive Director, Mechanical Engineering
(Project) Railway Board, the same person who wrote to RITES on 27.12.2012. The
other officer is Nihar Ranjan Dash, Executive Director, Electrical Engineering
(Development) Railway Board. Both G K Gupta and N R Dash therefore in their
affidavit dated January 14, 2013 have denied personal responsibility and
ownership of the statement that “A bare perusal of the communication dated
07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma
was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory
assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra”.
·
For the reasons set out hereinabove, the
statements made on behalf of the Railway Ministry in its affidavit dated
January 14, 2013 in paragraphs 17, 18, 20, and 32 on the issue of Mr Vinod
Sharma are false and incorrect. These statements and the misleading record
produced and sought to be created by the Railway Ministry are clearly the
result of a planned conspiracy under advice of lawyers, by Railway Ministry
officials to deceive and mislead the court with intent to cover up the corrupt
nature of the dealings between Vinod Sharma and General Electric in 2009 and
2010. These statements amount to perjury and the fabrication of documents and
evidence attracts the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
· GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt
Even the affidavit-in-reply verified on 23
March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents contains the
following statement:
“The
Answering Respondents are unaware of the percentage of text from the 2010
diesel tender documents that is similar to the earlier project documents.
Further, the Answering Respondents are unaware of what role, if any, Mr. Sharma
or PwC served in reviewing documents associated with the 2008 diesel locomotive
tender”.
The
fact that PwC was advising the Railway Ministry on the 2008 Marhowra tender was
public knowledge and widely published. GE executives would have attended formal
pre-bid meetings with Railway officials and PwC representatives in 2008. So
this statement in this affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed
on behalf of the General Electric respondents is also false.
·
As stated above, a “Sur-Rejoinder
Affidavit” dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents (Nos. 1, 6 and 7)
in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states that GE India entered into a
written agreement with Vinod Sharma’s company, Essvee Consultants, effective
August 11, 2009.
There
are no records for such company with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
A
search on the internet for Essvee Consultants shows that there is a website
with the domain name http://www.essveeconsultants.com/. The “company profile”
on this website reads:
“Established in 2009,
*Essvee Consultants* is a trusted placement agency providing total
recuritment solutions for diverse industries having its offices in Ajmer
(Rajasthan) and Faridabad (Haryana). We are engaged in providing manpower
solutions in India as well as abroad. The company has been established with
the sole objective of dedicatedly serving the Human Resource Sector with
quality service. The company is providing consultation and value added HR
services to Corporate and other small Business Houses. Our prime focus is on
offering HR Services that exactly match the requirements of our esteemed
clients”.
|
The
“management team” and “contact” pages on this website list the following three
names: Sandeep Dutt Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Rahul Sharma. All three names
share the surname “Sharma” with Mr Vinod Sharma. It is pointed out that this
Essvee Consultants claims to have been established in 2009.
·
General Electric therefore engaged Vinod
Sharma in 2009 and 2010 for advice on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura
Projects. Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008-2009 been part of the PwC team that
advised and consulted with the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and the
2008-2009 Marhowra tender. This PwC team advised on bid strategy, it drafted
bid documents, and it evaluated the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender bids including
the bid of General Electric.
iii. & iv
The above facts and
evidence establish that General Electric violated Clause 2.2.1 (d) [conflict of
interest], Clause 4.1.3 (a) [corrupt
practice] and Clause 4.1.3 d) [undesirable practice] of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ.
As a result General
Electric was liable to be not only disqualified under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ but
also liable to be blacklisted from all Railway Ministry Projects for a period
of two years under Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ
respectively.
·
The relevant clauses of the 2010 Marhowra
RFQ
Clause
2.2.1 (d)
"An
Applicant shall be liable for disqualification if any legal, financial or
technical adviser of the Authority in relation to the Project is engaged by
the Applicant during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or
after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning
of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, in any manner
for matters related to or incidental to the Project.”
|
Clause
4.1.3 (a)
""corrupt practice" means
(i) the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly,
of anything of value to influence the actions of any person connected with
the Bidding Process (for avoidance of doubt, offering of employment to or
employing or engaging in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any
official of the Authority who is or has been associated in any manner,
directly or indirectly with the Bidding Process or the LoA or has dealt with
matters concerning the Agreement or arising therefrom, before or after the
execution thereof, at any time prior to the expiry of one year from the date
such official resigns or retires from or otherwise ceases to be in the
service of the Authority, shall be deemed to constitute influencing the
actions of a person connected with the Bidding Process) or (ii) engaging in
any manner whatsoever, whether during the Bidding Process or after the issue
of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till
commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP,
any person in respect of any matter relating to the Project or the LOA or the
Agreement, who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical
adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the
Project".
|
Clause
4.1.1
“The Applicants and their respective
officers, employees, agents and advisers shall observe the highest standard
of ethics during the Bidding Process. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, the Authority shall reject an Application without
being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Applicant if it determines that
the Applicant has, directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged in
corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable
practice or restrictive practice in the Bidding Process.”
|
Clause
4.1.2
“Without
prejudice to the rights of the Authority under Clause 4.1.1 hereinabove, if
an Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or
through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent
practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice
during the Bidding Process, such Applicant shall not be eligible to
participate in any tender or RFQ issued by the Authority during a period of 2
(two) years from the date such Applicant is found by the Authority to have
directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any
corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable
practice or restrictive practice, as the case may be.”
|
Clause
4.1.3 d)
“undesirable practice” means (i)
establishing contact with any person connected with or employed or engaged by
the Authority with the objective of canvassing, lobbying or in any manner
influencing or attempting to influence the Bidding Process; or (ii) having a
Conflict of Interest”.
|
Clause
1.2.1”. “The term “Project” is defined by this RFQ in Clause 1.2.1 as
follows:
“The
Project for which the Applications are being invited pursuant to this RFQ
Document shall comprise of the following:
i. setting up a new
Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives factory at Marhowra, Bihar (hereafter
referred as the “Site”); and
ii. supplying Mainline
Diesel Electric Locomotives to the Authority; and
iii. providing
maintenance support for the Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives procured by
the Authority from the new factory.”
|
