Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Regulation 5.58 and 5.59 of the World Bank Procurement Regulations mandate the rejection of bid in cases where only a single tenderer participates in the process:
5.58 Rejection of all Bids/Proposals is justified (for contracts subject to prior review, with the Bank's no-objection), when:
a. effective competition is lacking;
b. all Bids or proposals are not substantially responsive to the requirements of the procurement documents;
c. the bids'/proposals' prices are substantially higher than the updated cost estimate or available budget; or d. none of the technical proposals meets the minimum technical qualifying score.
(b) such firm submits more than one bid, either individually or as a joint venture partner in another bid, except for permitted alternative bids. This will result in the disqualification of all bids in which the Bidder is involved. However, this does not limit the inclusion of a firm as a sub-contractor in more than one bid. Only for certain types of procurement, the participation of a Bidder as a sub-contractor in another bid may be permitted subject to the Banks' no objection and as allowed by the Banks' Standard Bidding Documents applicable to such types of procurement: or
(d) such firm does not comply with any other conflict of interest situation as specified in the Bank's Standard Bidding Documents relevant to the specific procurement process.

15. He would further submit that the persons to whom the contracts have been awarded are closely related to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and he would submit that the World Bank guidelines requires that the borrower in this case being the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Hon'ble Chief Minister should not have conflict of interest in the projects. He would also submit that a project agreement has been entered into between the World Bank and the State of Tamil Nadu on 28.05.2015 and as per the project agreement, in respect of schedule regarding execution of project, implementation arrangements have been drawn wherein, in order to implement a project, the project implementing entity shall throughout the project of implementation maintain an Empowered Committee, a Steering Committee and a Project Implementation Committee. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Chief Minister as the Minister of Highways is the Chairman of the Empowered Committee and that all other members are officials under him. He would also submit that as stated earlier the Hon'ble Chief Minister being the Head of the State and also the head of the Empowered Committee had colluded with his relatives and the projects have been taken by his relatives as a single bidder and that the other contractors have been for various reasons and by various methods dissuaded from taking the contracts. He would further submit that though the petitioner being the informant was ready and willing to participate in the investigation by furnishing the details whereas, strangely he had not been called for enquiry even once. He would also submit that the persons who have taken contracts are closely related to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and thereby, it is a clear case of nepotisms leading to Conflict of Interest as per the World Bank guidelines. He would also submit that the persons who will be able to speak about the subject of Conflict of Interest are the representatives of the World Bank and strangely none of the officials from the World Bank have been enquired till date. He would further submit that as per the administrative structure of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, the investigating officer has to get details and technical inputs from the engineers belonging to the Public Works Department and the Highways Department and in this case both the departments are under the control of the Hon'ble Chief Minister against whom serious allegations are made. When the department investigating and the department who are supposed to furnish the information are under the control of the Hon'ble Chief Minister there is absolutely no possibility of truth coming to light and there is a possibility of the complaint being closed as no case made out and he would submit that this is a case with peculiar facts and circumstances wherein the respondent had in complete defiance of statutory duty and law had formed an opinion at the behest of persons in power and thereafter conveniently closed the case. He would submit that this Court as a Constitutional Court has got powers to interfere and transfer the investigation to the specialized unit or pass any appropriate orders so as to instill confidence that a fair investigation is done.