MUSEUM: Regional area of the proposed plan for the development, operations and maintainence of naval museum situated behind Science Center, Miramar.
Goa has developed a thriving tourism sector due to the presence of beautiful beaches, islands, tranquil lagoons and blissful, picturesque landscapes. Located along the western coastal region along the boundary of the large sea coastline of the Arabian Sea, Goa is a paradise of lovely beaches surrounded by lush green backdrops. With the aim of promoting the history of naval aircrafts in Goa, the Directorate of Tourism desired to appoint a private operator to develop a Naval Museum along with a toy train, and environmental park on land belonging to the Tourism department. The total developmental area of approximately 15,433 sq mts is located at Miramar beach in capital city Panaji…
By Joshua George
THE Goa Tourism & Development Corporation (GTDC) floated a tender for the project, namely “Development Operations and Maintenance of Naval Museum along with Toy Train and Environmental Park” in Goa on October 29, 2021. After following the due tender process the financial bids of all the technically qualified bidders were opened by virtue of the highest financial bid. The tender evaluation committee in its meeting held on December 10, 2021 had declared M/s Holidays in Goa as the successful bidder.
However, as is the case with every government tender, there were several discrepancies and these were noted in the bid submitted by M/s Holidays in Goa. Several alleged misrepresentations, misconstrued facts and forgery of documents submitted by M/s Holidays in Goa came to light after an unbiased scrutiny of the documents pertaining to the tender of “Development, Operations and Maintenance of Naval Museum Park in Goa. We present the misrepresented facts alongside evidence of forged signatures on official documents and false claims of having substantial experience in handling a project of this magnitude.
RTI REVELATIONS
On December 21, 2021 an RTI was filed by one of the bidders, namely Bagkiya Constructions. Accordingly, the necessary information was furnished to the applicant under the Right to Information Act 2005 by the Public Information officer of the GTDC. There are considerable reasons why the bid of M/s Holidays in Goa should have been dismissed without even clearing the technical evaluation round!
Post-examination of the bid documents submitted by the consortium headed by M/s Holidays in Goa as the lead bidder, several irregularities were found. Firstly, on the date of the technical bid presentation and evaluation, that is on December 10, 2021 the lead member of the consortium did not even have a valid GST number and the same remained suspended WEF 01-12-2021. Hence, according to Section 29 of the CGST Act 2017 the said legal entity M/s holidays in Goa could not make or receive any taxable supply of goods and services. This was confirmed by a copy of the screenshot from the official GST website which effectively shows the suspension of the GST registration.
On being notified with respect to the suspension of GST number the file was sent to the GST Commission for verification. In a letter dated 29-12-2021 the GST commissioner replied to the GTDC confirming that while the GST Registration Certificate enclosed in the bid was genuine and the taxpayer was registered under GST in the state of Goa, however, the GSTIN was suspended due to the non-compliance of statutory GST provisions in force. The CGST commissioner also said that as per a Cash Sales Tax Invoice dated 12.01.2020 submitted by the consortium, an amount of Rs 42,48,000 was paid by the buyer. This is in violation of Section 29 ST of the Income Tax Act which states that the transaction limit is strictly set at INR 2 lakhs only. The suspension of GSTIN is not the only issue here. There are several discrepancies noted.
FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS
EACH consortium was supposed to produce experience certificates and official documents of naval experts capable of supervising work related to transportation and dismantling of aircrafts. All supplementary documents for the same (duly attested) were supposed to be submitted before 5:30pm on December 9, 2021. However, the email with letters from two naval experts was sent only on December 10 at 02:51 pm, a day past the deadline. Keeping in mind that delays could happen in some cases, it is easy to ignore this faulty practice provided the documents are legit. In this case there is a trail of faulty practices which are enough for dismissal of the bid.
It may also be noted that as part of the technical experience clause the presence of a number of Naval/ Technical Experts/ Aircraft engineers was a must with 10-years-experience in maintenance and repair of aircrafts either on a payroll or tie up basis. This in turn has a marks weightage with the highest allotment
being 10 marks. The consortium enclosed an undertaking along with self-certified identity proof of two Navy experts namely Shailendra Mishra and R Ganesh Kumar. Close observation revealed that the signature endorsed on the original undertaking and the signature on the PAN card were mis-matching. Shailendra was called in at the GTDC office to sign and submit a fresh undertaking in person. When the signature was endorsed on the fresh undertaking it was noticed that the signature matched with the signature endorsed on the PAN Card. When Shailendra Mishra was questioned by the GTDC official about the reason for the mis-match of the signature on the original undertaking, he informed that the original undertaking which was submitted was signed by his wife.
The letter submitted by the consortium providing details of naval engineer Ganesh Rao is misleading. The expert whose details were supposed to be provided had a different retirement date listed on two separate documents. In the letter sent as part of the bid the retirement date listed is October 31, 2021. However, on his identity card the date of retirement is January 31, 2008. Here are more points indicating malicious motive to cheat the authorities.
The selection of the tender bid of a project of this magnitude requires substantial experience and technical know-how and the processing should have been carried out with due diligence; the discrepancies came to light only after an RTI was filed by rival bidder Bagkiya Constructions. It remains to be seen how the audit firm, in this case KPMG approved the legitimacy of the winning bid.
GTDC RESPONSE
WE reached out to the GTDC office in Panjim for clarification. Department sources told the Goan Observer that once the RTI was filed and the irregularities brought forward to the GTDC, an enquiry was undertaken. To further questions the answer was, “The current government does not wish to pursue any deal with suspicion.” In other words, “trust your citizens.” So, in a situation like this with the government permitting the self-attestation of documents, with due diligence lacking, do we have a case of wholesale cheating and fraud or not? According to GTDC the files pertaining to this matter are now on Chief Minister Pramod Sawant’s desk and it is likely the fraudulent consortium shall face severe consequences in terms of criminal and civil prosecution, as well as being blacklisted from participating in all government tenders in the future.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
IT is also revealed that the tie-up with technical experts having experience in dismantling, transporting and reassembling of major aircrafts has misleading documents. The firm listed to carry out this due process is Moni Ji Enterprises. However, the signatures of the authorised person Kulwant Singh are different in all documents. This kind of forging of documents falls under the purview of Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code and is liable for prosecution. Why were such irregularities ignored?
We have received mounting evidence pertaining to several misrepresentations and irregularities in the bid that was successfully selected by the GTDC. It is even more surprising that this tender did not even ask for an EMD-Earnest Money Deposit. This is taken by an organisation to ensure that only serious bidders participate in the tender. This is a refundable deposit which acts as a deterrent to bidders to avoid giving false/ fraudulent documents to avoid lapses in the fulfilment of contractual obligations. The EMD amount for a project of such a scale could have easily been between Rs30-40 lakh. GTDC sources said that due to the cash crunch caused because of the pandemic lockdowns the Ministry of Finance issued a notice not to collect EMD amount for any government-related tenders!
A show cause notice was issued to the consortium in February. Three months have passed and yet the faulty party has not been disqualified despite a series of irregularities. The GTDC had given M/s Holidays in Goa seven days in its show cause notice and if no satisfactory response comes in the party should be disqualified with immediate effect and the bid should go to the second highest bidder. Closer to the truth is three months, no action, and the case is hushed up. How can an audit firm like KMPG audit documents with so many discrepancies? Says GTDC, “Once the government makes its decision either a re-tender will be conducted or the second highest bidder of the original tender offer will be given the contract. A re tender however would be in violation of clause 3.7.2 of the GTDC tender notice.
This states that……
“If the bidder is a consortium, then the entire consortium may be disqualified/rejected”. “If such disqualification/ rejection occurs after the financial proposal have been opened and the highest ranked bidder gets disqualified/rejected then the authority reserves the right to invite the second highest ranked bidder to match the financial proposals of the highest ranked bidder”.
This article showcases how government departments when it comes to financial deals and tenders are careless in their management. The Successful bidder in this case M/s Holiday in Goa could have gone scot free had an RTI not been filed by rival bidder Bagkiya Constructions. Perhaps introducing transparency in tendering where other bidders are privy to information of rival bids has opened an opportunity to scrutinise authenticity of all documents.