Tuesday, April 11, 2017

What happened in the CommonWealth Games Scam(Was it actually a scam of huge proportions as had been made out by the media)

One of the issues flagged by the CAG was the development of competition areas for squash, badminton and table tennis, and training areas for squash, badminton and table tennis. In the bidding for Design Consultant, the lowest bidder "Peddle Thorp of Melbourne' was selected for the quoted bid of 16.60 crores. The selection of the contractor was made in June 2006 while the contract finalisation was made in May 2007. As a result, the design consultant tendered for contractors after a 11-month delay. According to the CAG, this led to the design consultant splitting the foundation of the building and the superstructure into two contracts, which led to a lack of quality verification of the foundation.

Another issue was the selection of Design Consultant for building the Archery Competition venue and refurbishment of the training facility. Architect Bureau (AB)in consortium with Group GSA Pty Limited of Australia won the contract after the other bidder Kapoor & Associates was disqualified. The contract for 6.25 crore was signed in November 2007. The CAG says the contract did not deliver drawings on time, which would have been by March 2009, while they had been delivered only in April 2010. As design and specifications for toughened glass, a part of the original contract, was delayed by AB, this was executed by a different contractor for an additional cost of 2.29 crore. Similarly, Court MAt and Synthetic Flooring had to be executed at extra cost of 1.54 crore. Soil investigation which was required to be done by AB was done by DDA at an extra cost of 200,000.

Justification of rates, by providing market estimates, had been faulted by the CAG for chairs installed at the archery venue. Nussli-Comfort Net supplied retractable chairs at a justified price of 17,556 per chair. CAG says the tax invoice showed a price of 1,850 per chair. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Limited supplied upholstered chairs at a justified price of 13,764 with the supply rate being 17,470. CAG says there is no market quotation for this as also for ordinary chairs which were justified at Rs 7184 and supplied at Rs 9,890.


According to the CAG, tendering and contract for the Timing, Scoring and Results System (TSR) was unusually delayed as it spanned a year from March 2009 to March 2010. The contract was awarded to Swiss Timing Omega as a 'Nomination' on the recommendation of a Technology Consultant. A second tender was introduced prior to the award wherein the conditions stipulated led to the rival contender MSL, Spain not being qualified. The CWG terms these conditions as not being entirely sustainable. The award at 135.27 crore for the TSR system is compared by the CAG with the same company supplying the same system for the 2006 Melbourne CWG at 39.84 crores. For the 'Games Management System' three of four bidders were disqualified and the award to Gold Medal Systems at 25.29 crore is compared by the CAG with supply of the same system in Melbourne for 4.15 crore. This contract was awarded six months before the games.

In terms of functioning, the CAG points out that the Commentary Information System, a part of the TSR, did not function properly during the games. The same happened with the Games Information System. These two failures were not used to block the Performance Guarantee of 5.63 crores that had been provided by Swiss Timing Omega.

Advance Tech Engineering executed the 3.40 crore contract for building the structures to house the scoreboards supplied by Swiss Timing Omega. the CAG says this contract was awarded without global tendering and through specification of unclear rules and conditions for bidders.

Planning for the Official Games website was not initiated until June 2010, the CAG finds. The award to HT-Hungama in August 2010 was done after givign ten days time for bidders. Further, the CAG says the bids were received in unsealed sheets of paper. The award was finalised at 2.94 crore.

About 1650 Laptops that were leased were done so at almost 95 percent of the cost, the CAG reports.

No comments:

Post a Comment