Days after alleging that changes were being made in tender conditions to help select companies secure the contract to build the Metro Bhavan at Aarey Colony, the Congress claimed on Thursday that the same tactic was being used to award contracts worth around ₹14,000 crore under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) in Navi Mumbai.
Congress leader Sachin Sawant said the government and its Urban Development Department, headed by the Chief Minister, is tinkering with tender terms to favour a few construction companies to manage the “economics” of elections. The Opposition has demanded scrapping the tenders and instituting a high level inquiry into the projects.
Repeated changes
Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to Kalyan earlier this year had laid the foundation stone of a ₹14,000-crore project to construct 89,771 houses under PMAY in Navi Mumbai. As per the minutes of the meetings held to execute the project, the tender conditions underwent changes in successive tender evaluation committee meetings.
Mr. Sawant said, “Initially, it was decided to divide the project into eight to nine packages worth between ₹1,000 crore and ₹1,600 crore. On the pretext to inviting companies of bigger repute and turnover, the project was divided into only four packages. Owing to huge differences in the package project cost, changes were made to ensure that the package cost was fixed at ₹3,500 crore.”
Mr. Sawant said the four packages went to Shirke, Capecite, Shapoorji Palajee and L&T and no explanation was given on why the changes were made to the terms of the tender process. He alleged, “Nagarjuna Construction Company was roped in to make the tender process competitive. The same company is now being awarded the Metro Bhavan project. This is a cartel of infrastructure companies minting government money.” Mr. Sawant said the BJP is using such projects to fund their election campaign.
‘No explanation given’
In PMAY, there are two types of construction: precast technology and cast-in-situ building system. Mr. Swant said, “The criterion sought from the applicant companies were different. There is no explanation on why this was done. The rules were bent in such a manner that only a particular company benefited and the competition was eliminated.”
