Its rejoinder says, "IIFC is mandated to be a commercial organisation and charge for its services. The agreement calls for the price to be negotiated between the two parties, not for a unilateral decision through file notings. The payment to IIFC was not 'hasty', taking BTRC 16 months, while it consulted with the Ministry of Posts & Teleco-mmunications and Ministry of Finance. Being a fully government-owned, specialised consultancy firm, referenced in the Bangladesh Private Sector Infrastructure Guidelines, a competitive process is not needed to engage IIFC.

"BTRC paid only a part of the payment proposed by IIFC. BTRC's receipts of over Taka 40 crores in PSTN license fees, far outweighs the payment of Tk 48 lakhs. The investment in the country will run to thousands of crore[s of ] taka. Instead of 'dumping' IIFC, BTRC has very much valued their work. An 'unsuccessful venture' would not be able to attract the major Bangladeshi companies that have taken licenses and are participating in PSTN.

"The services that BTRC 'never got' would have created monopoly and will not be done. The service that BTRC received and paid for are aimed at creating competition in PSTN."

OUR REPLY
Our report is composed of the statements given by the BTRC high officials regarding the payments made by BTRC despite not receiving the service. Therefore, IIFC should have blamed BTRC, instead of accusing The Daily Star, for making "misconceived, misleading and contrary to the facts" statements. Khandker Abu Bakar, former BTRC commissioner, had been objecting to this unjustified payment. "I clearly wrote in the file that BTRC may, at best, reimburse IIFC's costs in their unsuccessful venture. But they never produced any expense vouchers in this regard.

"Therefore, BTRC should not have paid anything to IIFC," he said to The Daily Star. Syed Marghub Murshed, former BTRC chairman, also confirmed his colleague's objection. "Khandker Abu Bakar had reluctantly consented to the amendment of paying (Tk 48 lakh) to IIFC," admitted Murshed.

IIFC has, unwittingly, substantiated our report when it tried to establish an impractical logic to squeeze money from BTRC. "BTRC's receipt of over taka 40 crores in PSTN license fees, far outweighs the payment of Tk 48 lakhs [to IIFC]," its rejoinder says. Therefore, it is not the quality of IIFC's so-called consulting service but the amount of cash BTRC had acquired out of licence fees is the logic of making such payment to the state-owned consulting outfit!

Its rejoinder claims, "Being a fully government-owned, specialised consultancy firm, referenced in the Bangladesh Private Sector Infrastructure Guidelines, a competitive process is not needed to engage IIFC."

This is not based on facts. In reality, the Public Procurement Regulation of 2003 (PPR 2003) explicitly prohibits any bypassing of competitive process while engaging a consultant for the services being offered by IIFC. Therefore, the PPR 2003, which is a law, supersedes the Bangladesh Private Sector Infrastructure Guidelines and IIFC has neither any reason nor any merit to be exempted from this legal provision and any exemption being rendered to it while appointing for consulting services is, in fact, ultravires.

Two years back, the energy ministry and IIFC had jointly organised an investment promotion workshop on 'Remote Area Power Supply Systems' at Dhaka Sheraton Hotel. While speaking as the chief guest in that event, M Saifur Rahman, the finance and planning minister, had lashed out at IIFC for "little or no action in project identification." Saifur said IIFC "should be liquidated and a committee formed to investigate its failure."