Two days before the Commonwealth Games (CWG) Organising Committee (OC) received a quotation from a bidder, the OC officials allegedly awarded the R4.78 lakh contract to a another firm for branding vehicles in July 2008.
Later, in August 2010, a few accused OC officials allegedly awarded the contract for the supply of synthetic carpets to a firm a day before receiving quotations from two rival bidders. The carpets were to be used at a ceremonial occasion at JLN Stadium, and the OC officials allegedly paid the firm a day before it even got the carpets.
Both these contracts were found to be invalid. These are just some irregularities related to around 10 CWG contracts that were concluded by a few accused OC officials. This was found by the CBI, which is probing the alleged irregularities in the preparations for the games. The CBI has so far registered 12 FIRs and is likely to register fresh cases.
“Our probe has found that in these 10 deals, a few accused OC officials had not awarded contracts through a fair, open bidding process. Instead, they awarded the contract/s to handpicked firm/s in an arbitrary manner and the whole tendering process was a sham,” said a CBI source. The source added, “A scrutiny of the OC documents has shown that the accused officials acquired comparative bid offers from firms with suspicious credentials— mostly the addresses shown in their tenders were fake. In some cases, addresses were common or were untraceable.”
In the award of contract related to the supply of civil and electrical works worth R3.67 lakh, a few accused OC officials allegedly procured contracts from three firms. Out of them, two firms had a common address.
“We found that in a bid to disguise the fact that the two firms had a common address, there was an attempt to tamper with one of the addresses by applying white fluid on it,” said the CBI source.
Similarly, a few accused OC officials had procured three bid offers for the award of a R6.89 lakh contract for the supply of tee-shirts, caps and ties in an allegedly irregular manner, too.
The firm, which bagged the contract, had allegedly shared its address with one of its two rival bidders—the firms’ addresses, while being identical, were also untraceable.