Why did MTNL’s Managed Leased Line Data Network (MLDN) project got
extra-ordinarily delayed? Why did Alcatel, the L1 bidder for MLDN equipment did
not get the order? In spite of getting the approval from Tender Evaluation
Committee, Telecom Engineering Center, and the board of directors, the minister
of state for communications overruled the decision, and the contract was awarded
to L2 and L3. VOICE&DATA uncovers behind the scene manipulations and
intrigue that led to the fiasco. And now, Congress party is threatening to bring
back the ghost of the telecom scam.
One cannot rule out the interference of bureaucrats and
politicians in the day-to-day affairs of any public sector organization. But if
the decision leads to an extra burden on the company, it should be quite
alarming for the company as well as its investors, both present and future.
First, it delays the process of procurement and substantially increases the cost
for the company. Second, in a competitive scenario where private companies are
becoming more aggressive, it becomes all the more difficult for the public
sector organizations to compete with their competitors.
Take the case of MTNL, which released a global tender on 19
June 2000, for the turnkey project of Managed Leased Line Data Network (MLDN)
equipment, for Mumbai and Delhi. Though Alcatel was the lowest bidder in the
tender, the purchase order was allotted to the L2 and L3 bidders, which is quite
surprising. And MTNL had to pay the price of procuring the equipment at a higher
price when the L1 vendor was planning to provide it at a much lower price.
Thanks to the interest and interference of the bureaucrats and the minister.
Chain of Events |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On the due date of the tender (31 July 2000), companies which
submitted their bids were Alcatel with NewBridge, ITI with Tellabs, HTL with
Tellabs, Ascom with Rad, and Mro-Tek with Rad. A month later, the Tender
Evaluation Committee consisting of the three members–SS Nijjar, GM (T&MM),
CO, convener; PK Agarwal, GM (IT), CO, member; and Udita C Kumar, DGM (F), CO,
member–submitted its report and evaluated the ranking. The report is as
follows:
M/s Alcatel Network System India Ltd bid meets all the
conditions of techno-commercial part of the tender except the AMC clause, which
as per Telecom Engineering Center (TEC) shall be taken care of during the LoI
stage, in case their bids are found successful. TEC recommended opening up of
their financial bids.
In the report, Alcatel was the L1 bidder at Rs 63.16 crore.
ITI was the L2 bidder at Rs 139.12 crore (120 percent higher than L1 bidder) and
HTL was the L3 bidder at Rs 183 crore (190 percent higher than L1 bidder).
|
|
Mani |
It is amply clear that Alcatel should have been given the
order. However, it is here that the games start. Unable to be the L1 bidder,
Tellabs wrote to MTNL, on 4 September 2000, pointing out certain technical
deficiencies in the bid. Then Tellabs partner ITI persuaded AP Jithender Reddy,
a Lok Sabha MP, who wrote on the same day to the minister of state for
communications complaining about the injustice done to ITI. On 7 September 2000,
C Ramesh, CMD, MTNL, replied to the MP clarifying all the issues and explaining
how the bidder had complied to the requirements of the tender, and concluded by
saying that in the view of these facts, MTNL is going ahead with the process to
award the MTNL tender to the L1 bidder.
On 8 September 2000, MTNL issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) to
the L1 bidder, Alcatel, with a note that "In addition to the items and
quantity mentioned above, any extra items or quantity required for successful
commissioning and operation of the system, shall be supplied free-of-cost by M/s
Alcatel Network Systems India Limited".
Not convinced with MTNL’s response, AP Jithender Reddy
again wrote to the minister of state for communications on 13 September 2001,
which read as "The response from the CMD, MTNL, is not at all satisfactory
and does not address some of the issues raised by me. I request you to get the
matter investigated thoroughly, in view of the injustice being done to ITI, in a
business involving approximately Rs 139 crore".
After receiving the letter, the minister of state for
communications, wrote to CMD, MTNL, on 13 September 2000, to keep in abeyance
the LoI issued to Alcatel till further instructions, and calls for the MLDN file
to have a look at it. After this, on 22 September 2000, instruction was given by
AK Roy, APS to the minister of state for communications, to MTNL not to issue
any purchase order regarding the MLDN tender. Interestingly it is on the same
date, i.e 22 September, Narender Sharma takes over as the new CMD of MTNL.
In response to the MP’s letter, the office of the minister
of state for communications directed MTNL to appoint a group in TEC to
technically re-evaluate the tender and then submit its report. Responding to the
minister, the CMD of MTNL sent a letter to TEC on 11 October 2000, to look into
the technical re-evaluation of Alcatel and ITI. On 27 October 2000, NK Gupta,
DDG (I), TEC submitted its report to CMD, MTNL, saying both the bidders have
complied to all the clauses.
This clearly shows that Alcatel bid had no technical
deficiencies, and on the basis of price it is rightly the L1 bidder. But this
apparently did not satisfy the detractors. Even after the TEC’s re-approval in
favor of Alcatel, CMD of MTNL, appointed a "High Powered Committee" of
three members to look into the MTNL MLDN equipment tender, and asked the
committee to submit its report within a week’s time. The committee constituted
of Ramani Iyer, CGM, Mumbai; KH Khan, CGM, Delhi; and S Sundresan, director,
finance. Interestingly and strangely, the committee in its report submitted that
the bid is not completely compliant with respect to some items of technical
requirements. Remember that it has been approved twice by the Tender Evaluation
Committee and Telecommmunications Engineering Center.
Commenting on the formation of High Powered Committee and its
decision, Mani Shankar Aiyar, senior congressman who raised the MLDN case of
MTNL in the Parliament said, "After a competent technical director in the
Tender Evaluation Committee, and the Telecom Engineering Center, not to mention
two separate chairmen of MTNL and Telecom Engineering Center, and the entire
board of MTNL have certified technical compliance, what is one to make of a
minister who imposes a committee headed by the finance director and two
relatively, junior officers of the organization, to cast some marginal doubt on
technical compliance and then pretend that this committee’s opinion is
paramount by describing a low-level committee as a "High Powered
Committee". Why should this so-called "High Powered Committee",
on a purely-technical question, have been headed by a finance director, instead
of a technical director, and since when has the English language accepted that
the chairmen of the two regional offices are more "High Powered " than
the chairman of the enterprise and the members of the Telecom Commission?"
Mani Shanker Iyer might not be very generous in calling CGMs of MTNL as ‘junior
officers’ but it is very difficult to understand how the earlier
recommendations of a range of more senior and technically-qualified people at
MTNL and Telecom Engineering Center were over-ruled.
Of course, the story does not ends here. Since there was a
difference of opinion, MTNL sought legal advice from the New Delhi Law Office on
18 October 2000. The New Delhi Law Office submitted its opinion on 14 November
2000, stating that the LoI cannot be canceled, as all the conditions of the LoI
were fulfilled by the bidder. The text says:
"On the receipt of an unconditional acceptance of the
said LoI along with the performance bank guarantee, which has been found valid
by the CAO, Banking of MTNL, is obliged to issue the purchase order to Alcatel
as per the set clause 35.1 of the general terms and conditions of the tender
document. In the event, MTNL supersedes the LoI issued to Alcatel, the same may
result in the breach of tender conditions by MTNL, thereby tendering MTNL liable
for legal consequences".
The mystery deepens further. In spite of the New Delhi Law
Office, another legal opinion was sought from the additional solicitor general
of India who advices MTNL to cancel the LoI, since no purchase order has been
issued so far, and then issue the LoI to ITI–the L2 bidder.
In the meanwhile, ITI was contacted to match the price of L1
bid, but it showed its inability to do so. Nobody at MTNL can explain why was L2
contacted? As according to the central vigilance commissioner’s guidelines,
"Tenders are generally a major source of corruption. In order to avoid
corruption, a more transparent and effective system must be introduced. As
post-tender negotiations are the main source of corruption, post-tender
negotiations are banned with an immediate effect except in the case of
negotiations with L1".
In the midst of all this drama, on 6 January 2001, CMD, MTNL,
decided to go ahead with L1 Alcatel and adviced bill of material as per the TEC
requirement. Alcatel submitted a detailed bill of requirement to MTNL, which was
approved by CMD, MTNL, for issuance of the purchase order.
However the drama refuses to end and the plot thickens. On 30
January 2001, the GM, IT, on the instructions of director, finance, met the
minister of state for communications where two officials from the L2 bidder
along with AK Roy and Samdev Dasgupta, MD, India Laminating & Packaging Ltd
(Kolkata-based company) were present. Interestingly, according to a confidential
report of SC Ahuja, company secretary, MTNL, on the 30 January meeting,
"......Samdev Dasgupta, who appears to be an outsider was also
present". This clearly points to the suspicious nature of the meeting as
well as one of its participants.
Reacting on the people present in the meeting, Mani Shankar
Aiyar has raised two valid points. First, how can the minister possibly justify
the presence of his additional private secretary, a Kolkata-based businessman
who is personally known to the minister but has no business connection with
telecom, in the meeting with the MTNL GM. Secondly, why were the representatives
of L2 and L3, not present in the meeting of the additional private secretary
with the MTNL GM?
No wonder that on 9 February 2001, the minister issued a
directive to MTNL giving the following options: (i)to cancel the LoI of the L1
bidder, and place an order on L2 at the offered price; or (ii) tender be
scrapped and a fresh tender be called. It also ordered that the L1 had mis-represented
product and technical facts in its tender bid and therefore role of L1 be
investigated, and disciplinary action to be initiated against the MTNL
personnel.
In the meanwhile, L1 bidder had already approached the High
Court. On 14 March 2001, the High Court asked MTNL to tell what is the final
decision to be taken, and should inform on the next hearing on 21 March 2001.
Defying minister of state’s directives, on 19 March 2001,
MTNL had its 147th meeting and after a detailed discussion among the board
members, it was decided to convert the LoI placed on Alcatel into a purchase
order. On 20 March 2001, the file was sent to Ramvilas Paswan, then cabinet
minister for communications. Paswan noted on the file that his colleague, the
minister of state, has raised certain doubts on the technical compliance of the
L1 bidder, and directed the MTNL board to take an appropriate decision in this
regard, at the earliest. In effect Paswan stuck to his colleagues view on the
matter, and threw the ball back in MTNL’s court.
Reacting about the meeting Mani Shankar Aiyar said, "Is
it not a fact that the MTNL board in its meeting on 19 March 2001, decided,
without dissent, to convert the LoI issued to Alcatel into a purchase order? Is
it also not a fact that the same director, finance, on whose report the ministry
is relying for cover was a part of that unanimous decision. Is it also not a
fact that CGM, Delhi and Mumbai, were present in the 19 March 2001 board
meeting, and expressed no-dissent from the unanimous decision? What right then
did this minister or his senior ministerial colleague have to force yet another
board meeting of MTNL, the following day? "
An another interesting thing about the 147th meeting was that
it was the only meeting in the history of MTNL’s board whose minutes were not
issued. Expressing his views, Mani Shankar Aiyar said, "Was the minister
not aware of that he cannot save himself on those grounds alone, as the entire
proceedings were taped and audio tapes of the proceedings were freely
available?"
In the 148th board meeting of MTNL held on 20 March 2001, the
case was referred to Soli Sorabjee, the attorney general of India. Soli Sorabjee’s
opinion was as follows:
"In view of the technical non-compliance by Alcatel, as
confirmed by both TEC and and the High Powered Committee, it would neither be
prudent nor in the public interest, to award the contract to Alcatel. I am
however not in favor of awarding the contract to L2 bidder, namely, ITI,
considering the facts and circumstance of the case, and also the tendency of the
Write Petition in the Delhi High Court. In my opinion, re-tendering would be the
most appropriate course to be adopted by the queerest (MTNL)".
|
|
Mani |
Since the tender was scrapped, the single judge (Delhi High
Court) and the division bench (Delhi High Court), felt that there was no merit
in the appeal and dismissed the appeal. Though the minister might claim that he
is covered by two judgments (27 April 2001 and I June 2001) of the Delhi High
Court (by a single judge and then by a bench). But it is not the case.
"However, the question referred to the High Court was whether the issue of
natural intent and its acceptance, does or does not constitute a binding
contract", says Mani Shankar Aiyar. "Of course, it does not and I
believe Alcatel made a serious error of judgment in taking the wrong question to
the court", he added.
In the next meeting of the MTNL board on the MLDN case, the
board was unable to come at an unanimous decision, and there was a tie of 5:5
and the CMD voted its casting vote against the release of purchase order to
Alcatel, and it was decided that the tender will be scrapped and fresh tender
will be called for.
The result, the MLDN equipment tender was scrapped. Since
MTNL had an urgent requirement for MLDN equipment, MTNL, Mumbai, decided to
place the order on L3 bidder–HTL whereas MTNL, Delhi, put its plan on hold.
Seeing, MTNL, Delhi, backing out; MTNL, Mumbai, reduced the price of the
purchase order by 10 percent after the purchase order was given, which is again
very surprising.
"The real question is whether in a purely commercial
affair, the minister is entitled to overrule the entire board of directors, and
their commercial and technical judgment, to force the Navratna to award the
contract to L2 and L3 after L1 had proved its technical capacity to meet the
requirement at virtually, half the price demanded by other suppliers", says
Mani Shankar Aiyar. "I do not have any proof of corruption but as I said in
the Parliament, I do believe the minister’s action constitutes impropriety,
amounting to the possible corruption of this order, which is keeping
multinationals away from the Indian market, giving India such a bad name in the
international business circles, and therefore, a call for a thorough
probe", he added. "The minister is mistaken if the issue is dead and I
intend to pursue the matter and press for a JPC when the House intervenes in the
winter session of the Parliament", said Mani Shankar Aiyar. If Congress
really lets out the ghost of telecom scam again, the government will be once
gain in an embarrassing situation.
While the ministry may now debate the merits and demerits of
the entire drama that took place, the fact is that there were too many
controversies and un-answered questions. All this will have a very negative
impact on the work culture of the telecom ministry, which now needs to think and
work in a radically different manner, given the critical nature of
communications in the future of the country. And last but not the least, the
vendors and investors will only be demoralized with such happenings. One expects
that Tapan Sikdar, as well as the new communications minister, Pramod Mahajan,
takes note of the seriousness of this issue and ensure that it is not repeated
in the future.