Tags:
Journalism of Courage
PUNE, Sept 27: Resenting the personal criticism8217; from corporators about the scrapped multi-crore water supply and sewerage management project, former Pune municipal commissioner Ramanath Jha today provided a chronological sequence of events to categorically deny that the PMC members had ever been kept in the dark.
Jha, during whose tenure the scheme was initiated, told media persons that he was no longer competent to answer any questions about the scheme. He refuted the allegations including the undue haste8217; with which the tender process was rushed through.
The PMC general body meeting on September 25 had rejected the Rs 735-crore water supply project, called for its re-drafting and floating tenders after obtaining the civic body8217;s approval. Several corporators attacked Jha and demanded an inquiry.
Countering the allegation that the PMC was never taken into confidence about the scheme, Jha said the project was initiated in October 8217;95 and in the budget for 1996-97, a comprehensive long-term proposal had been prepared. In April 8217;96, the standing committee gave its approval while in December 8217;96 the State Government approved the proposal appointing a technical and financial advisory committee.
Even as the standing committee gave its nod to Kirloskar Consultants to prepare the pre-feasibility report in February 8217;97, the Government later endorsed it and in March an expression of interest was issued in the form of an advertisement in Delhi, Mumbai and Pune. Subsequently 14 firms were shortlisted and in the budget in June 8217;97 too sufficient details were given about the project. In the budget presented in March this year too figures were provided about how much expenditure might be entailed.
Refuting the second allegation that the bid documents were issued without taking the PMC approval, Jha said that the documents were distributed after budgetary approval of the project. Jha said that confusion did arise due to the docket placed on October 23 before the general body. While the docket was pending, Jha said that there was no problem for the scheme as already there was adequate budgetary approval. Moroever, at two meetings a presentation of the scheme and its implications was made in the presence of corporators, Mayor, MPs and MLAs.
He also refuted the charge of undue haste8217; with which the tendering process was rushed through and said that when the cabinet gave approval on April 10, this year, he had been summoned to answer why the scheme had been delayed and docket not been cleared on October 23, 1997. 8220;I was asked why the delay and I had to answer I was not getting the clearance.8221;
8220;However on the basis of the budgetary approval, the project went ahead. Even as I received transfer orders on April 23 this year, one of the reasons I waited on was the issue the bid documents on April 28.8221;
Jha also hit back at the charge that the original shape of the project had been intentionally changed. The build, finance and transfer model was never changed, Jha said.
The project finance entails PMC bearing 10 per cent of the project cost, 23.33 per cent from the Government of Maharashtra and the PMC also could raise additional funds through institutional resources and market borrowings. The contractor was also expected to mobilise funds and therefore the original idea of BFT has not been changed.
Reacting with surprise on the final charge of favouring a particular firm,8217; Jha stressed that the evaluation method employed, entailed that the competitive bidders are tested for their technological knowhow and responsiveness to the scheme. The pre-qualification criteria is decided earlier and after the bids are technically qualified, they are financially opened. It is a highly mathematical model operating on capital costs, debts servicing and management fees that the firm is selected and therefore the question of favouring any particular firm does not arise at all.
