- o

with EE(Mech) and EE(Elect), PPCL

193. During the meeting held
of SE-cum-HoD, Electricity Department,
site office Karaikal in the Chamber
March 2021, the following issues were raised
Puducherry/MD, PPCL on 20
to be placed before the Board for its
in connection with battery bank proposal
approval.
installation and
i. The tender has been invited for supply,
bank on buyback basis Whereas in
commissioning of 110 KV battery
above tender, the capacity of
Part 4 Technical specification for the
V x 60 nos= 125 V. In
each battery has been mentioned as 400 AH, 2
how a battery bank shall
this regard, EE(Elect) is requested to clarify
volt battery.
be constructed with 125 volt by having 60 numbers of 2

ii. The tender has been invited on buy-back basis, whereas in the BOQ
(Excel format), it has been mentioned as Supply of battery bank
on

buy-back basis as per Specifications in PART IV of the Tender

document and as per terms and conditions specified therein. No
column for furnishing the buy back rate separately has been provided.
It is given to understand that during previous purchases, such option
was given separately. The reason for not providing separate column in
this tender for quoting buy back rate may be clarified.

ii. On verification of the technical specification, the technical

specification is found to be not in detail. Particularly charge rate of
each battery, construction features etc have not been mentioned
properly. Further, the applicable
mentioned in the tender document
standards have also not been

iv. It has been indicated at

para 82 that the batteries are urgently
required. But the first tender has been floated on 04/05/2020 and
cancelled as only one bidder qualified in technical
specification. The
second tender was called on 05.09.2020 and cancelled due to
receipt of
only one bid and this tender ie. third call was made on 13/10/2020,
without any changes in PQR in the tender
document and opened on
20/11/2020, which also resulted in only one bidder. It is observed that
the PQR is more restrictive. As
per GFR, the PQR should not be
restrictive. Had the PQR been changed after
cancellation of first
itself, more competitive bids would have been received tender
and the
Corporation could not have entangled in such situation and time also
have been saved.

v.Further during the

inspection of the
undersigned, it is observed that there is no plant
on 24/03/2021
by the
maintained. In the absence of battery maintenance register
be possible to ascertain the battery maintenance register, it could not
condition of each
lack of failure on the
part of concerned official.
battery. This is a total
vi. Rule 173
(XXI) GFR 2017 provides that, when an
results in only one effective
offer, it shall be treated as open tender
contract. Rule 173 (XX) Single Tender
determined on the basis ofprovides
that lack of
competition
number of bidders. Further shall not be
criteria shall not be unduly the
qualification
restrictive.
restrictive in nature and hence satisfied In this case, PQR seems to be
the
condition.
Hence, in order to get
concerned officials maycompetitive offer,
be instructed
we
may go for fresh tender
and the
to
GFR guidelines and the tender shall be floated the tender document as per
prepare
No. l222/PPtL/MD/ getting the approval of the within a week,
time, after
undersigned.
2020-2 dlo o3 92|
EE (Mech) Om s0
Managiny Dirécior!
EEC#)