& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Fresh tender for relief ministry choppers soon

By Asiuzzaman
The council committee for government purchases has finally rejected the bids for supplying two helicopters to the Ministry of Relief and Disaster Management, ministry sources said.
The committee headed by the Finance Minister at a meeting yesterday, also decided to float fresh tender for the procurement of two choppers.
The decision to procure two helicopters for the ministry appeared to have invited trouble In the past, informed sources said
despite strenuous efforts for the past two years the ministry had failed to make any headway for various reasons.
The ministry tried to purchase two Russian-made Ml-17 choppers on its own early last
year but had to abandon the plan under pressure from cer tain Interested circles.'
The authorities then assigned the* Directorate General of Defence Purchase (DGDP). to procure the helicopters this year but. according to sources, the DGDP too. has been facing similar problems.
A case had also been filed in this regard after two legal no tlces were Issued against those involved.
The DGDP floated tender in May this year for two latest model MI-17 helicopters. Eight firms participated in the bld. The third lowest and the seventh lowest blds were acceptable to the authorities as per requirement
The eight firms are: Euro-Aslatic Trade Ltd. M/s Meridian Consolidated (pvt) Ltd. Orient Aviation Services. Riverland Agencies. SunhiU Trading (pvt) Ltd.. MS Napin, Aviaexport and Rabll Trading.
The quoted price of the third and the seventh lowest bidders are 1.450.000 US dol iars and 2.990.000 dollars.
The evaluation was made in June.
The DGDP later pointed out that the choppers offered by the third lowest bidder were not the 1994 model which was _ the primary preference In the* tender.
The authorities constituted a two-member committee to investigate the matter. The committee asked the firm concerned to explain why had they mentioned that the choppers offered by It were manufactured in 1994 although the principal supplier had said it was manufactured in 1993.
In a reply, the firm said they thought they would be able to supply the 1994 model after consultation wtth their principal company based in Russia. The chief executive of the firm also said that within a few days, they expressed their . inability to supply the required 1994 model because the principal company said that the 1994 models were not readily available.
The letter sent to the probe body by the firm also said that their was no difference — as regards technical specification — between the 1992, 1993 and 1994 rpodels which all have 20-year lifespan each.
The third lowest bidder said that it was their intention to supply the 1994 models and
also to give a financial benefit
The company also issued a legal notice against the chief of the probe body and three others alleging irregularities
Earlier, the Tax Payers Association of Bangladesh also Issued a legal notice charging the authorities concerned and top political leaders of failure to uphold the country's interests
A government clarification issued earlier said that the third lowest bidder tried to push through a different type of helicopter MI-8 MTV made for domestic use In Russia and not suitable for the weather condition In Bangladesh. They also failed to produce the required certificate from the manufactures of the helicopters. So the offer was rejected
tn reply, the firm said that there was no difference between Ml-8 MTV and Ml-17 helicopters and only for marketing strategy it is called Ml-17 outside Russia