KOCHI: Even as Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) is digging out evidence to prove former PWD minister VK Ebrahim Kunju’s role in the Palarivattom flyover scam, new documents reveal that massive irregularities in awarding the project to RDS Project Ltd were first unearthed by Accountant General (AG) of Kerala.
Documents accessed by Express from the state secretariat show letters were sent between Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala (RBDCK) and Kerala Road Fund Board (KRFB) on the AG’s 2014-15 audit findings that revealed violations in the tender process. In a letter sent to RBDCK managing director, KRFB Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had sought details after the audit report mentioned in detail the violations by the agencies concerned to favour RDS Project, which constructed the flyover, in the tender process. The contract for the `42-crore project was awarded in 2014 and the flyover was opened in 2016. Within three years, it had to be closed down after the structure started developing cracks.
PWD officers said the vigilance team had seized the letters as part of the investigation. “The audit report had clearly outlined the irregularities. The accused in the case are all part of the conspiracy,” said a senior PWD officer.
The vigilance probe had already found that the request by RDS Project for a mobilisation advance was not discussed in the board meeting of RBDCK and the same was forwarded to the state government for approval without the approval of the board. Even in the agreement signed between RBDCK and RDS Project on March 4, 2014, there was no clause for releasing the mobilisation advance.
The tender conditions clearly stipulated that there was no provision to pay a mobilisation advance. In the pre-bid meeting, the companies that evinced interest in the project requested for advance but the request was rejected. So the bidders quoted rates considering interest on investments to be made. If the bidders had known about the provision of advance payment, they would have quoted a lesser and competitive amount. The release of advance amount on a low-interest rate to the successful bidder after completing the tender procedures vitiated the process of tendering and resulted in undue favour to one particular bidder.
The payment of advance at a low-interest rate of seven per cent for the above work also resulted in undue favour to the contractor. The report said if the provision of mobilisation advance was declared in the pre-bid meeting, the contractors would have quoted a much lower amount and it would have benefited the public exchequer.