Penalised for going by the book
Can a superior thwart a subordinate from doing their job diligently and sincerely? This is exactly what transpired in the case of a Tk 463 crore telecom ministry project to get the infrastructure ready for 5G.
Documents pieced together by The Daily Star show the superior prevailed, while the subordinate was removed from his job for going by the book, in a demonstration of how projects in Bangladesh often end up with faulty designs or sub-par equipment.
In February last year, the telecom ministry tasked the Bangladesh Telecommunications Company Limited (BTCL) to install an optical fibre transmission network as part of the preparations for the 5G roll-out.
As the managing director of BTCL, Asaduzzaman Chowdhury was also the head of the procurement entity (HOPE). However, he was thwarted from performing his duty as the HOPE by Abu Hena Morshed Zaman, secretary to the posts and telecommunications division that oversees BTCL.
The tender floated by BTCL in December last year had three takers: Huawei, ZTE and Nokia.
However, all three applicants did not fully meet the technical requirements of the project, according to the report by the technical evaluation committee.
Chowdhury subsequently did not sign off on the technical evaluation report, which would have allowed the tender process to move to the next stage. He instead called for a fresh tender.
This was brought up at a meeting of the posts and telecommunications division chaired by Telecom Minister Mustafa Jabbar on June 19, where the approval for the fresh tender was given.
And this is when Zaman, secretary to the posts and telecommunications division, waded into the scene -- an undertaking that falls outside his jurisdiction.
The first unwarranted intervention occurred when Md Taibur Rahman, a joint secretary at the ministry, asked the project director for all tender documents citing a verbal order from the secretary.
The following day, the posts and telecommunications division issued two separate letters: one to submit the latest status report on the tender at the next BTCL board meeting and the other to send all information for the Central Procurement Technical Unit's (CPTU) opinion. This violates the law.
At the following BTCL board meeting, which was held on July 14 and chaired by Zaman, Chowdhury was told to quickly wrap up the tender process. He was categorically asked to approve the technical evaluation report, in yet another instance of Zaman overstepping his authority.
According to the law, the HOPE is the sole authority to approve the technical evaluation reports. Once that report is approved, the financial offers can be unsealed. The lowest offer would be selected and approved by the BTCL board.
On August 8, Chowdhury informed Zaman of his inability to do what he had been suggested to do. He said his hands were tied by the law, which bars him from walking back on his original decision.
At the next board meeting on August 29, the board expressed discontent over Chowdhury's actions and show-caused him, in yet another act of transgression by the board.
Chowdhury defended his stance in his reply to the show-cause notice by citing all acts and rules.
He further drew attention to one very important aspect: the tender sought additional capacity equipment that was beyond the approved development project proposal.
The additional equipment will expire long before they can be used as their standard economic life is seven years. This would cause a huge financial loss to the government.
Meanwhile, Huawei on April 16 complained about the delay in approval of a technical evaluation report, pointing fingers at Chowdhury.
The letters, which were sent to the secretary and director general of the CPTU, mentioned the date on which the technical evaluation report was handed to Chowdhury -- a piece of information that Huawei was not supposed to know.
Using Huawei's letter, the ministry on May 25 show-caused Chowdhury over the delay, in yet another violation of the law.
On the other hand, ZTE also complained to the minister that its technology is superior to the other bidders -- information that the Chinese company was not supposed to know. Jabbar forwarded this letter to Chowdhury.
Asked if it was an attempt to interfere with the tender process, Jabbar said he hadn't said anything to Chowdhury that could be construed as interference.
"However, my sole concern was ensuring proper technology for the betterment of the country," he told The Daily Star.
In both cases, the cited reasons for the complaint do not match with any of the reasons allowed by the law. Besides, the law and rules specify to whom to address the first complaint.
Sending such letters to the MD, secretary, minister or director general of the CPTU for non-allowable reasons violates the public procurement rules.
Chowdhury viewed both the letters, which contained ill-gotten information breaching secrecy, as an attempt to influence the decision.
On August 27, he rejected both ZTE and Huawei as the first step towards punishing the two as per the laws for their underhand tactics.
The following day, Huawei served a legal notice that was replied to by BTCL's lawyer. Huawei was informed that the unauthorised acts may lead to debarment.
Huawei made three consecutive administrative complaints and finally appealed to the review panel on October 2.
In the legal notice as well as all complaints and appeals, Huawei admitted that their letters do not constitute a valid "complaint" as per laws but opposed the actions taken by the BTCL MD.
To prove to the review panel that it did not gather any information illegally, Huawei cited a news report published on an online portal on May 7. This, however, was never mentioned in Huawei's legal notice and complaints.
Curiously, that news report correctly predicted the events that would transpire over the next ten days.
Interestingly, the CPTU's review panel scrapped Chowdhury's letter against Huawei's unauthorised communication containing secret information.
The review panel then went on to clear all three bidders for the next stage of the tender, which is beyond the scope of a review application.
The review panel's overreach did not end there. Although it has no jurisdiction to punish anybody, it ordered punishment against Chowdhury.
Taking advantage of this unprecedented review panel decision on October 17, Zaman convened a board meeting of the BTCL the following day.
In one day, he prepared and signed 31 pages of minutes, ordered all bidders eligible for the next stage and removed Chowdhury from the post of MD.
BTCL also reciprocated by executing all the orders on the same day.
Chowdhury subsequently filed a writ petition to the court challenging his removal. The court gave a stay order.
On November 7, the ministry temporarily suspended Chowdhury from his job, with the gazette signed by Zaman himself.
Zaman declined to comment, saying that the matter is now in the court.
Asked why the ministry interfered despite the decision to retender, Jabbar said he was not aware of any of the developments after the meeting on June 19. All decisions were taken by the secretary, he said.
Chowdhury said he followed all the public procurement rules at every step when rejecting the technical evaluation committee's report.
Contacted, Huawei referred The Daily Star to the CPTU's review panel's report.
Since none of the bidders' proposals matched the requirements, there should be a retendering, said Abu Saeed Khan, a senior policy fellow at LIRNEasia.
"It's imperative that the Anti-Corruption Commission investigates this as soon as possible."
Comments