To,                                                                                                   17 June 2019

Shri Deepak Mishra,Scientis F, CPIO,

Room No 314, DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg

New Delhi-110011       

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of  M/s R D Konsultants,  C-9, Vasant Kunj, Local Shopping Complex,, Delhi – 110070. As per enclosed CVO, BEL investigation that firm name was suggested by DRDO for consultancy work of Approx 7900 Cr IACCS project. In investigation few documents revealed that M/s R D Konsultants claimed that the firm involved in consultancy in DRDO projects worth 3000 Cr. In one document of BEL two DRDO officials name is reflected while in processing of awarding consultancy assignment of said IACCS project

1. WhetherM/s R D Konsultants claimed of consultancy assignments in DRDO past and present projects are correct (document enclosed )Yes or No

1. If yes then correct value of consultancy only amount paid by DRDO to M/s R D Konsultants till date.
2. Please provide that M/s R D Konsultants Partnership Company has any kind of registration in DRDO. Yes/No
3. Please confirm that the names of DRDO officials Shri S K Singh, Additional CCE, Shri M S Rathore, Scientist E are reflected in BEL tender processing documents are correct (document enclosed) Yes/No
4. Please provide the copy of BEL request for these officers to attend such tender processing meeting if any yes/No
5. If no then these officer can attend such tender processing meeting unofficially yes/no

Note – the matter is related to very high value corruption Rs 7900 cr as per media reports published, it is observed that as per CVO investigation report that DRDO officials were played a vital role in  awarding consultancy assignment to M/s R D Konsultants  approx 16 cr. 

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed –  BEL tender processing document page where two DRDO name is reflected

   M/s R D Konsultants document where he claimed the work.

 Registration Number           MODEF/R/2019/51863

BEL CVO Recommendations

BHARAT ELECTRONICS

CORPORATE VIGILANCE

No.:21328/399&426/BEL./GAD/18-19

Date 29^th March 2019

SUB: Detailed enquiry done on the allegation of irregularties & Gross Violations in the appointment of Design Consultants and in the execution of IACCS Project.

This has a reference to email complain: dated 31^st   August 2017 received at Corporate Vigilance from Shri‘ Mimish Aggarwal, Advocate. Supreme Court of India regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL. Ghaziabad in the 10 construction sites projects allotted for defence and also regarding appointment of Mr Manish Goyal. Corporate Vigilance has verified the identity of the complainant . The complainant was verified through the stated email id advn1maggarwaI@gmail.com.

A Fact verification request was sent to the V0/GAD vide ref. 21328/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 07.09.2017. Based on the request of VO/GAD vide email dated 28″‘ September 2017, to appoint technical personnel for investigating the case, Corporate Vigilance has constituted the following Technical committee vide Ref No. 21328,/399/BEI./GAD/17-18 dated 14^th  December 2017‘.

a)   Shri Satyanarayana H N, Sr DGM (Civil/BG)

b)   Shri. Y.K Sharma then DGM (lACCS-Infra)/GAD

c)   Shri M M Roy, then DGM (Vigilance/Central GAD & Delhi Offices]

d)   Shri.Anil Kumar Gupta, then DGM&VO (NCS&SCCS]

There was a request from GM (NCS) vide letter ref 13708/143)/GM(NCS),/GAD dated 14^th December 2017 regarding importance of Shri. Y K. Sharma in the IACCS project and also there was an email dated 20^th  February 2018 from Shri. Satyanarayana HR. Sr DGM (Civil/BG), regarding his ill health, which were received at Corporate Vigilance. Hence the committee has been reconstituted vide Ref. 21323/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 01^st  March 2018, with the following members, after discussion with Shri. Charan Singh, the .then GM (Radar & Unit Head) for the nomination of Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja. AGM (CS/GAD).

a)   Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja, AGM (CS/GAD)

b)   Shri. Syed Shakir Hussein, DGM (Civil Estate) /Bg.Cx

c)   Shrl Madan Mohan Roy then DGM (Vigilance /Central GAD & Delhi Offices]

The above committee has to make an independent verification of the complaint, study the contracts pertaining to the same and submit its report The technical committee has visited the —— site on 22.03.2018 & 23.03.2018. The committee had failed and deviated from the main complaint and submitted its two page perfunctory Report pertaining only to —— site without proper investigation vide nil ref dated 20.03.2019.

Copy of the report is enclosed as Annexure-A. The technical committee’s report was irrelevant and does not cover the allegations of the total complaint The enquiry done by the technical committee pertains only to —— site without going into the allegations and details contained in the complaint

As the V0’s report was not Comprehensive and incomplete, this has necessitated appointing a Senior Officer of repute for conducting the investigation in total. Corporate Vigilance had appointed Shri. MM Pandey GM [PS], the senior officer of repute, as investigation officer, to investigate the above‘ matters related to cases vide Ref 21328/399/BEL/GAD/18-19″dated dared 18^th July 2018.

The investigation officer [IO) & GM [P5] had submitted a detailed report on 03-10-2018                        

There are very important observations made by the IO in his inquiry report, in the subject investigation. After careful study of IO’s report» such observations are concurred and agreed upon by Corporate Vigilance. Important observations from IO’s report are enclosed

The lapses and serious violations observed are enclosed

After examination of Technical committee report. Fact verification  report of Mr  MM Roy, VO/GAD and detailed investigation report of IO & GM {P5} and related documents’ the following are observations of Corporate Vigilance. ‘ –

Corporate Vigilance Observations;

1. As per BPE guidelines given under letter no BPE/GL/025,178,!Prodn./PCR/2/77,/BPE/Prodn. Dtt 15 July, 1978. Which was  circulated under” CVC circular No. 31.-IRC 1 dated 10.01.1983, for any new projects expansions, modernization/ modification of the existing projects involving an expenditure of Rs. 5 crores and above, “the final selection and commissioning of the consultant should be done with the approval of the board of public sector enterprises”. In the subject case of appointment of M/s RD Konsultants during 2011 & 2013, the files are approved bv CMD. However board approvals were not taken in the subject cases.
2. As per CVC guidelines, the pre-qualification  public notice should be issued to enlist names -of suitable consultants. However the same was not Followed by the committee and hence CVC guidelines in this regard was found violated.

3)          As per noting mentioned by Shri P.K. Bhola, the then DGM[Marketing), at the initial stages, BEL has taken the support from M/s DRDO citing non expertise in the field of underground structure, and went on to appoint M/s RD Konsultants  on nomination and adhoc basis for the preparation of Preliminary Project Report  at a cost of Rs 13.23 Lakhs. However there were no “documents or written correspondences are available in the file, indicating the recommendation of DRDO. As per above CVC guidelines “Even though individually such works are less than Rs 5 Crores, it is necessary that the appointment of consultant should not be made arbitrary or ad-hoc. In the subject case, the CVC guidelines with respect to appointment of consultant was found violated.

4)          The value of contract awarded to Mfs RD Konsultants during 2013 is Re. 15.04 Crores. The Scope of work includes

a]    Preparation of draft detailed project report of all 10 sites including cost estimates on non-exceeding basis with conceptual design of structure and services, geotechnical and topographical surveys and preparation of final detailed project report for all the 10 sites.

b]    Detailed design engineering of structures and services, preparation of working drawings tender documents etc.

c]     Regular designer supervision and submission of inputs/ working drawings /documents for work to be executed at all 10 sites up to completion and handing over of sites to user

5)          It is observed that, . there were suppression and concealment of facts by the Committee, in the proposal initiated during 2013, with respect of appointment of Consultants during 2011, for preparation of Preliminary Project Report. It is pertinent to mention that in the proposal for appointment of consultants during 2011, there is a noting from Sr.DGM(F)/CO that as per CVC guidelines issued vide Ref 011/VGL./063-134657 dated 24^th   June 2011,  if M,/s RD Konsultants is hired.as consultant for preparing preliminary project report then he cannot be considered for future similar re1uirements for IACCS project. Though the proposal was agreed by CMD, these facts are not brought in the consecutive file raised and the committee have succeeded to give order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants. ‘

6)          Because of concealment of information wrt previous appointment and delinking of old files and notings, led to the misrepresentation and concealment of Fads  which resulted in placing of order on prefixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants though open tender has been called for formality.

7)          During the Open tender, though 26 agencies have responded to expression of interest, it was reduced to 6 agencies after pre qualification. These points are brought in detail in IO’s report lt is observed that the committee during the initial screening has brought down 26 agencies to 14 agencies with shallow scrutiny and with total arbitrariness, as-explained-by lO. After presentations further screening has resulted in qualifying only 6 agencies. It is pertinent to mention that after presentations M/s Super Dynamics was disqualified citing only two years turnover against required pre-qualification of 3 year turnover. However preferential treatment was given to M / s RD Konsultants and the same prequalification criteria was not applied uniformly especially to M/s RD Konsultants. This shows a clear cut case of vendor favouritism.

8)          During evaluation of prequalification criteria, the committee had violated the CVC guidelines and company’s work contract procedures with respect to evaluation of documents with respect to turnover submitted by M/5 RD Konsultants, non-evaluation of relevant documents pertaining to works completed by M/s RD Konsultants but only taken on face value and non-visit of sites completed by Mfs RD Konsultants. The details are brought out in the I0’s report enclosed at Annexure-C. It appears that wrongful clearance was provided to M/s RD Konsultants and the committee had facilitated M.s RD  Konsultrants for-prequalification by violating the Company‘ s procedures,  to place the order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.

9)          The committee during evaluation of pre-qualification criteria had created confused trends by changing the pre-qualification criteria twice without anv reason and during such changes, post facto approvals are taken from CMD forcing the management to committee’s decision. The dilution of prequalification criteria by the committee had subsequently led to the qualification of M/s RD Konsultants. It is observed that the pre-qualification criteria were not defined properly at the initial stages of tender. In this subject case, it is a clear cut and definitive violation of CV(I guidelines. .

10)        It is further observed, the agency M/s RD Konsultants was established during April 2010

Recommendations:

1. To blacklist M/s RD Konsultants for the fraudulent transactions with M/s BEL and also as the agency had involved in collusion of interest by executing the works through his affiliates M/s CS constructions Pvt Ltd, through subcontracting from M/s L&T. which has resulted in conflict of interest in the transactions with BEL . Financial penalty to be levied on M/s RD Konsultants as one way of punishment.

• Disciplinary Proceedings to be initiated on the committee members   for violating company’s procedures   & CVC guidelines and facilitated the selection of M/s RD Konsultants during evaluation of prequalification, without scrutinizing the submission of works experience, site visits and clearing the fake turn over documents of M/s RD Konsultants. Theviolations were brought in the Corporate Vigilance observations points 1-15.

The following committee members are to be held responsible even though few of the delinquent officers are retired

1. R K Handa then GM(NCS)     – Retired
2. Gurjeet Singh then Sr. DGM(CS) – Retired
3. T.K. Moitra    then DGM(F&T)
4. Virender Kumar    then DGM(AC) CS
5. Saleem Parveez.    Manager (Civil) CS

3     With respect to appointment of Mr. Manish Goyal, it is observed that his experience falls short of minimum criteria of 10 years. These facts are not checked by HR/GAD. Disciplinary Proceedings on Shri. Dibyendu Bidyanta, AGM(HR&A) & Shri. B.K. Pant, DGM (HR&A)  who are involved in the recruitment of Shri. Manish Goyal, as per CDA rules. Mr. Manish Goyal shall be kept under suspension henceforth for fair conduct of department/legal proceedings.

4     The unit has not prepared their own instructions and procedure duly approved by the board for the appointment of consultants to ensure that the selection is made with maximum attention to the suitability, competence and proven track record.

• CCTVs installed at the behest of vigilance has not kept in proper record which led to non-maintenance of measurement books, subleasing and collusion of parties.

• It is important to mention that IACCS is a time bound project of armed forces viz Air Force. Hence care to be taken to ensure customer get real value for money procedural proprietaries are maintained, no collusion of interest and involve customer at all possible levels, abiding by CVC guidelines and no corrupt practices are involved, in such important projects.

CVO