M. L. Melly Maitreyi
HYDERABAD: The selection of vendors to record the biometric evidence of residents under the ‘Aadhaar' project has run into rough weather over differences in enrolment price.
The government had invited agencies empanelled with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to send their bids quoting the price per enrolment and the number of stations (one station comprises 10,000 people) they would operate in each district. The Aadhaar scheme envisages giving unique ID number to every resident to help them get better access to benefits and services extended by the State.
The problem arose when Sanjay Jaju, Registrar of UIDAI and Commissioner, Civil Supplies, noticed wide variations in the L1 (lowest bids) amounts quoted by vendors for the seven districts of Srikakulam, East Godavari, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Adilabad, Chittoor and Anantapur and started negotiations with vendors to rework their price. He finally sought quotations from all of them again by October 18.
The vendors lamented that seeking fresh price quotations, after selection of L1 bidders, was in violation of the RFQ tender guidelines. They alleged that the Commissioner was using his discretion indiscriminately as tender committee chairman.
Mr. Jaju, however, told The Hindu that the exercise of re-negotiations was to arrive at a floor rate.
UID was a unique project and there were no estimates for the bench mark. When the difference in lowest enrolment price quoted in different districts was huge, for instance Rs.23 in Hyderabad, Rs.43 in Adilabad, Rs.30 in Anantapur, how could one accept it without knowing what was the right price, he questioned. Thus barring Hyderabad for which Rs.23 was quoted, vendors were asked to give their quotations again for the remaining six districts.
Minister's justification
In every district, if any shortlisted vendor came up with a lower rate than the one quoted by the L1 bidder, the L1 vendor would be given the first opportunity to match with it, then to L2 and so on. While rates could not be uniform in all districts, there could not be so much variation, he said. Civil Supplies Minister J. Krishna Rao to whom vendors submitted a representation felt the Commissioner was right in trying to arrive at a fair price in the absence of a bench mark.
HYDERABAD: The selection of vendors to record the biometric evidence of residents under the ‘Aadhaar' project has run into rough weather over differences in enrolment price.
The government had invited agencies empanelled with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to send their bids quoting the price per enrolment and the number of stations (one station comprises 10,000 people) they would operate in each district. The Aadhaar scheme envisages giving unique ID number to every resident to help them get better access to benefits and services extended by the State.
The problem arose when Sanjay Jaju, Registrar of UIDAI and Commissioner, Civil Supplies, noticed wide variations in the L1 (lowest bids) amounts quoted by vendors for the seven districts of Srikakulam, East Godavari, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Adilabad, Chittoor and Anantapur and started negotiations with vendors to rework their price. He finally sought quotations from all of them again by October 18.
The vendors lamented that seeking fresh price quotations, after selection of L1 bidders, was in violation of the RFQ tender guidelines. They alleged that the Commissioner was using his discretion indiscriminately as tender committee chairman.
Mr. Jaju, however, told The Hindu that the exercise of re-negotiations was to arrive at a floor rate.
UID was a unique project and there were no estimates for the bench mark. When the difference in lowest enrolment price quoted in different districts was huge, for instance Rs.23 in Hyderabad, Rs.43 in Adilabad, Rs.30 in Anantapur, how could one accept it without knowing what was the right price, he questioned. Thus barring Hyderabad for which Rs.23 was quoted, vendors were asked to give their quotations again for the remaining six districts.
Minister's justification
In every district, if any shortlisted vendor came up with a lower rate than the one quoted by the L1 bidder, the L1 vendor would be given the first opportunity to match with it, then to L2 and so on. While rates could not be uniform in all districts, there could not be so much variation, he said. Civil Supplies Minister J. Krishna Rao to whom vendors submitted a representation felt the Commissioner was right in trying to arrive at a fair price in the absence of a bench mark.