& 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

Row Over Power Plant Tender

Chinese firm now denies complaint

Sharier Khan
A Chinese company that lodged a formal compliant against another Chinese company in a power plant tender, dramatically in a letter to the government on Tuesday denied filing of any such allegation.
Shandong Electric Power last month filed a complaint with the Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU) under planning ministry alleging that the Power Development Board (PDB) was unduly awarding the contract for Ghorashal 200 to 300 megawatt power plant to Chinese Sinohydro Corporation.
On behalf of Shandong, one Shang Yang also paid the CPTU taka five-lakh fee to review the tender. In the compliant, Shandong alleged that Sinohydro's bid documents were 'fabricated' and the company should be disqualified. The CPTU subsequently formed a review panel
to reviewthe case.
In the Ghorashal tender, Shandong was evaluated the third lowest bidder. The company had submitted the bid under two of its enterprises "SDEPCI” and “SEPCO-1
Following Shandong's formal compliant, the cabinet purchase committee last week refused to approve awarding the Ghorashal power contract to Sinohydro and observed that the matter must be resolved by the CPTU first.
A purchase committee member at the meeting blasted the PDB chairman for pursuing the approval, sources said.
On October 3, Shandong sent a letter in response to CPTU's invitation to put forward its allegations. The letter signed by Shang Yang (who had lodged the formal complaint) was forwarded to the power ministry and PDB.
The letter notes, “We do hereby confirm that
the subject complaint appeal submitted to the CPTU is beyond SDEPCI and SEPCO 1's knowledge. We would request you to cancel all future course of action on the said appeal letter, if there is any.”
Director General of CPTU Amulya Kumar Debnath told The Daily Star Shandong had paid taka five-lakh fee seeking remedy. Now this letter has created a puzzling situation.
“The decision [on the complaint] will be taken by the CPTU review panel,” he said replying to a query as to whether the arbitration proceedings would now be dropped.
“We shall take a quick decision. As per the law, CPTU would have to decide on it within 12 working days of lodging a complaint.”
PDB chief Alamgir Kabir acknowledged receiving the letter from Shandong, and said he was due to submit PDB's account before the review panel today as to why they selected Sinohydro.
Sources said Shandong has decided not to send anyone to the review committee's meetingtoday.
A reliable power ministry source said a powerful ruling party man who unofficially represented Shandong in this particular tender deliberately created the muddy situation.
This is the second time in Bangladesh that a Chinese company lodged complaint against another company in a tender of power plant. In the past, a company named CMC had levelled a complaint against the PDB for unduly favouring Harbin power to award the 150-MW Chandpur power project in 2005.
The PDB floated tender of the Ghorashai plant for the second time in late July. The first tender was floated last year along with nine other
government-funded power projects. The tender for Ghorashal plant was cancelled, as it drew just one bid.
Eleven companies participated in the second tender. During evaluation in August, the PDB ranked Sinohydro at the top followed by two other Chinese companies --Shanghai Electric and Shandong.
During the evaluation, information about the selection was leaked. The PDB received an anonymous complaint that the selection of Sinohydro was wrong, as it had submitted fabricated documents.
According to PDB officials, Sinohydro submitted two certificates to prove its experience. The first certificate was issued in March 2002 against a hydropower project in Ghazi Barotha in Pakistan stating that the plant was running satisfactorily.
But it was alleged that construction of this plant was actually completed in April 2004. Also, the certificate was issued by the project consultant instead of the Pakistan Power and Water Development Board, the plant owner.
In the other certificate, Sinohydro claimed to have constructed a power plant in Paunglaung, Myanmar. But its opponents are accusing that it had supplied only the construction materials, while another Chinese company constructed the plant.
Though the complaint was anonymous, the PDB verified the complaint regarding the Myanmar plant and was satisfied that Sinohydro had actually constructed the plant in Paunglaung. The one in Pakistan, according to PDB high officials, was completed in 2002.
The PDB submitted the final recommendation to the ministry in late August.