Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Informant had submitted that Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (BMRCL) invited single tender for a proprietary product based on DPR furnished by the DMRCL as a consultant. But, the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), in March 2009, directed BMRCL to modify its tender document and not to go for a proprietary product and also wrote to Ministry of Railways, (MoR) to examine and advise about the use of Pandro|'s rail fastening on Bangalore Metro Rail Projects. The Informant had alleged that despite the advice of MoUD the tender was awarded for the Vossloh fastening systems by the BMRCL, which has resulted in exclusive dealing with one enterprise and refusal to deal with others.
Whether it is a fact that the DMRCL and other three Metro Rail Corporations, namely, BMRCL, DMRCL and DAMEL had invited and awarded tender on a single source favouring "Vossloh systems" for its rail fastening system in the Metro Rail Projects?
(ii) Whether such conduct of invitinglawarding single tender by the Opposite Parties had resulted in exclusive supply agreement and refusal to deal with other competitors in the procu,g_e.rnte;n,t_,,VA, of rail fastening system in contravention to Section 3(1) ai)c,f:é 7.1
(iii)Whether the awarding of contract to Vossloh on a single tender basis, in total disregard to the merits of the product of Pandrol systems, was a deliberate and malafide action to kill the competition?

(iv)Whether the public procurement system based on a single tender basis is anti--competitive in nature to create appreciable adverse effect on the market, within the provision of Section 3(4) read with Section 19(3) of the Act?

(v)Whether the DMRCL and others had abused their dominant position by inviting/awarding single tender and also issuing DPR, favoring Vossloh system for its other Metro Rail Projects in contravention to provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act?