Construction
site of the 2,000 MW Lower Subansiri Hydro Power Project, being built
at Gerukamukh in Arunachal Pradesh. Photo: Amarjyoti Borah
New Delhi: Two board members
of the state-run hydropower producer NHPC Ltd raised questions last year
over a Mumbai-based construction firm, whose promoters are from
Gujarat, bagging a major work contract in a 2000 MW hydel project in the
Northeast.
The controversy, sources say, has escalated to the very top echelons
of the government, possibly resulting in a delay in giving final
vigilance clearance to Abhay Singh, the chairman and managing director
(CMD) of NHPC, a little over year and a half after he was appointed to
the public sector unit (PSU).
A seemingly innocuous construction contract for work on a
hydroelectric project in the Northeast sparked friction within the board
of directors of NHPC Ltd in late 2020, according to company documents
reviewed by The Wire.
In particular, two NHPC directors raised concerns about the company
that won the bid – particularly on grounds of its past performance and
whether one instance of previous debarment in a different state should
disqualify it from winning.
One of the directors even
accused the hydropower PSU of allegedly favouring the firm in some
matters, a charge that that Singh dismissed as being without substance.
The contract was eventually awarded to the company in question, with
NHPC’s CMD and the rest of the board overruling the dissent.
However, records of board’s meeting minutes raise questions about the role of the power ministry in overseeing this move.
In particular, The Wire has learnt the power ministry’s
representative on the board did not give an opinion on whether the final
awarding of the contract was appropriate, even though the board agreed
that the representative’s ratification would be required in light of the
issues raised.
The Wire has reached out to both NHPC and the power ministry for comment, but did not receive a response until the time of publication.
Sequence of events
In early 2020, NHPC invited bids for construction of balance civil
works in the Subansiri lower hydroelectric project in Assam and
Arunachal Pradesh (referred to as ‘Lot SSL-6).
After a tender process, the PSU had to choose between two final
bidders: an infrastructure and construction services company called
Patel Engineering Ltd and Larsen and Toubro (L&T). The tender
evaluation committee chose the former, whose winning bid was Rs 1,564
crore.
However, during this time, L&T submitted a complaint, alleging
that the Mumbai company’s past track record should disqualify it from
the process.
While complaints during any government bidding process are usually a
run-of-the-mill affair, when the matter was discussed during NHPC board
meetings in August 2020, it sparked tension.
The minutes of the meetings show that NHPC’s director (finance) M.K.
Mittal argued that the winning bidder’s past performance and debarment
by the Jharkhand state government should have disqualified it. And,
equally importantly, that L&T’s charge that the company allegedly
misrepresented facts should have been subjected to an inquiry by the
PSU’s central vigilance officer.
At one point, in a meeting, the minutes show, Mittal even alleged
that undue favour had been shown to the winning bidder in other cases,
but the CMD did not allow him to “speak further in the matter”. This
allegation was countered by the CMD as not being “substantiated” and
best addressed through a separate agenda note to the board.
At least one other director also dissented and appeared to lend
weight to Mittal’s concerns, with NHPC’s director (personnel) saying
that the decision to award the contract could be taken during a board
meeting when the government’s nominee director (joint secretary-hydro
Tanmay Kumar in the power ministry) was in place.
Another independent director, J.K. Mohapatra, appears to have agreed
with this, noting that work could be awarded subject to ratification by
the government’s nominee director – a development that was recorded at
the end of the board meeting.
What happened?
However, records of board meeting minutes show that this ratification
never took place, because Joint Secretary Tanmay Kumar had “no
comments” on the decision.
For instance, one meeting in August 2020 refers to the decision to
award the Subansiri contract to Patel Engineering as needing
ratification from Kumar, but that he was not able to attend the meeting
due to his health condition. Nevertheless, Kumar allegedly said that he
had “no comments” on the matter and that a decision could be taken by
the board.
When
quibbles broke out, led by Mittal and the director (personnel), over
whether Kumar’s ratification would be needed in writing, NHPC’s CMD
argued that Kumar’s statement that he had “no comments” on the matter
could be taken as ratification.
A later record of board minute meetings shows that Mittal agreed that
the minutes could be “considered final” if nothing in writing had been
sent by Kumar to the board.
0 Comments