Following is a response sent by Secretary to the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation, K. D. S. Ruwanchandra, to the ‘expose’ article carried in the Daily Mirror and published on July 11, 2024 under the headline ‘Airport and Aviation Services Ltd rocked by alleged tender fraud’ and written by Nirmala Kannangara.
The reply:
“I vehemently condemn the allegations mentioned in the article and there are a lot of erroneous facts. Those should be corrected as per this letter and be published. Please see my concerns for the quotes in the article below.
1.“The procurement entity is Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation”
The procurement entity of this project is the “Airport and Aviation Sri Lanka (Private) Ltd” and not the Ministry.
2. “Awarding of a tender to a bidder rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee .....”
This statement is false since the Ministry does not have any authority to award tenders to any party which is in the Cabinet Procurement Level as per the Government Procurement Guidelines of Sri Lanka. Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) recommendation is submitted to the Standing Cabinet Appointed Procurement Committee (SCAPC) and its recommendation is submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers. The awarding decision is taken by the Cabinet of Ministers which is not yet made.
The SCAPC of this Ministry at the time of this procurement is as follows:
Ms. Wasantha Perera - Then the Secretary to the Ministry of Education -Chairperson
Mr. K. D. S. Ruwanchandra - Secretary to the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation - Member
Mr. B. L. A. J. Dharmakeerthi - Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Plantation - Member
Mr. J. M. U. P. Jayamaha - Director of the Department of Public Finance – Member
Mr. H. M. Prabath Jayantha - Managing Director of Sri Lanka Ports Authority - Member
3. “Eng. Susil Rodrigo told this newspaper how they were kept in dark”
This is completely wrong and the successful bidder M/s Sanken Construction (Pvt) Ltd was informed the decision by my letter dated 18 March 2024 (A copy is attached herewith.)
4. “However the Ministry Secretary deliberately did not inform this to the successful bidder, but all the unsuccessful bidders requesting them to appeal………”
Usually only the unsuccessful bidders are informed to appeal if any. The successful bidder was already informed about the determination of the SCAPC to award the project to him (As mentioned in item 3 above). The decision of the Procurement Appeal Board (PAB) is confidential and sent directly to the Cabinet of Ministers with a copy to the Secretary. The Ministry does not have any authority to disclose the decision of the PAB to any party.
5. “Following this, sources from the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation on strict”
This is completely wrong and the procedure at the Ministry was very transparent and there is no fraud regarding this procurement.
6. “All attempts to contact, Secretary Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation Mr. K. D. S. Ruwanchandra”…..
This is a false allegation. I have not received any telephone call to my official telephones or the private telephones from the Daily Mirror or from the writer. I never skip responding to missed calls which are received during important meetings.
In addition, I would like to emphasise that the Ministry or I as the Secretary to the Ministry do not have any authority to influence the PAB which is an independent body under the Presidential Secretariat.
Reporter’s note
I vehemently refuse Secretary Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation, K.D.S. Ruwanchandra’s claim that the aforesaid article carries erroneous facts as I am in possession of copies of all the documents pertaining to the above tender, despite the Ministry Secretary, in his right to reply, stating that he denies the allegations mentioned in the article.
Although the Ministry Secretary states that the procurement entity of the said project is not the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation, but Airport and Aviation Sri Lanka (Pvt) Ltd, as per the Invitation for Bids appeared in the newspaper advertisement on December 4, 2023, the procurement entity is both Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation and Airport and Aviation Sri Lanka (Pvt) Ltd.
He further states, that the Ministry has awarded the tender to the bidder rejected by the TEC is incorrect. We never stated so, but the Ministry sources said that they believe this is a repetition of the 2020 fiasco where a bribe was solicited by a higher ministry official from a Japanese Company.
Further Ruwanchandra states that it is completely wrong to say that he never informed the successful bidder as he informed them through letter dated March 18, 2024.
Although Ruwanchandra says so, he deliberately failed to inform the successful bidder on time, but only after this was exposed through normal post which the successful bidder received only on June 14. This letter carries the same reference number MPSA/ PRO/ 02/ AASL/ SCAPC/ 113/ T/ 2023 sent to one of the unsuccessful bidders- Thudawe-CHE Joint Venture on March 18. Although all letters sent to the other bidders were sent through registered post.
According to Ruwanchandra, usually only the unsuccessful bidders are informed to appeal. As per Government Procurement Guideline Chapter 8.2.2, the Secretary to the Line Ministry shall within one week of being informed of the recommendation of the CAPC/MPC inform in writing to all the bidders of the selection of the successful bidder and the intention to award the contract to such bidder. But Chapter 8.2.3 further states that the Secretary shall within one week inform the unsuccessful bidders in writing to make their representations if any to the PAB.
This shows clearly that the Ministry Secretary has deliberately failed to adhere the instructions stipulated in Chapter 8.2.2.
He also states that it is completely wrong to level allegations as the Ministry was very transparent and there was no fraud involved in this procurement. These allegations were levelled against the Ministry was not made by this newspaper, but by the Ministry staff itself.
According to Ruwanchandra, this newspaper never contacted him for a comment either to his personal or official telephones.
We kindly request Ministry Secretary K.D.S Ruwanchandra to check the calls received on his land phone in office to see how many calls were taken to reach him. Since his office staff didn’t provide a mobile phone number to contact him, this newspaper left a message with his staff assistant Mr. Raja and conveyed our requirement which was to seek a comment from him. Even this writer’s mobile number was given to the office assistant to be passed on to him, but he failed to respond to our query.
I stand by my reporting.
Nirmala Kannangara
