Allegations over bid evaluation and financial powers raise questions about the approval process; official records are needed to establish the basis of the decision and verify the reported ₹1.30 crore difference.
Committee Constituted by Additional Chief Secretary; We Cannot Approve It at Our Level”: Chief Engineer on Ekta Mall Tender Row
Srinagar, Oct 28 (KNB): The tendering process for the construction of Ekta Mall in Srinagar has come under scrutiny following allegations regarding the disqualification of the lowest bidder and a reported difference of around ₹1.30 crore between the rejected bid and the offer allegedly accepted.
The tender, floated by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads and Buildings), Central Kashmir, has raised questions about the grounds for rejecting the lowest bidder (L1), the evaluation process and compliance with the prescribed procurement procedures and delegation of financial powers.
According to the minutes of the Contract Committee meeting held on October 19, 2026, under the chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (Financial Commissioner), PWD (R&B), the advertised cost of the project was ₹127.80 crore, including GST.
The financial comparative statement recorded M/s Kapahi Construction Co. as the L1 bidder at ₹96,10,56,000, approximately ₹96.11 crore. M/s N.S. Associated Pvt. Ltd. was listed as the second-lowest bidder at approximately ₹99.87 crore, followed by M/s Rayou Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Abdul Salam Mir Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The committee minutes state that the Chief Engineer was authorised to finalise and award the contract to M/s Kapahi Construction Co., subject to completion of the prescribed formalities and compliance with the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and Standard Bidding Document (SBD) provisions.
According to the allegations, questions have been raised over the treatment of the lowest bidder and the justification for the reported financial difference. However, the available committee minutes do not, by themselves, establish that M/s Kapahi Construction Co. was disqualified or that a higher-priced bid was ultimately accepted. The alleged ₹1.30 crore difference also requires verification against the original bids and final contract documents.
When contacted by Kashmir News Bureau (KNB), the Chief Engineer, PWD R&B, Kashmir, said the Departmental Contract Committee had been constituted by the Additional Chief Secretary (Financial Commissioner) to the Government, Public Works (R&B) Department. He added that he believed the committee had been approved by the General Administration Department (GAD), stating, “We cannot approve it at our level.” He further said that the committee had approved the matter and that the concerned officers were present during the meeting.
However, as per the allegations, the financial bids were opened on October 17, 2026, at 6:37 pm, while the Contract Committee meeting was held on Monday, October 19, 2026. The sequence of events, the bid-opening record and the subsequent decision-making process warrant examination to establish whether the prescribed tendering procedures were followed.
The matter has also brought into focus the applicability of S.O. 15 of 2020, issued by the J&K Government’s Finance Department, concerning the delegation of financial powers and codal requirements for government works. The allegations maintain that, given the project’s advertised cost of ₹127.80 crore, the relevant provisions required the Administrative Department to submit a proposal to the General Administration Department (GAD) for constitution of the competent Contract Committee.
The allegations further question whether the Departmental Contract Committee relied upon by the Chief Engineer was competent to finalise the contract under the applicable rules. This aspect requires examination of the complete government order, the relevant clauses, the committee’s constitution order and the official approval file before any conclusion can be drawn regarding the committee’s authority.
The minutes also record that M/s M.M. Shawl Engineers & Contractors (JV) was declared technically non-responsive because its joint-venture partner, M/s Construction Engineers, had been debarred by HSCC India Ltd. until November 6, 2027. M/s Falcon Engineers Project Pvt. Ltd. (JV) was also declared non-responsive on grounds relating to the construction experience of its junior partner.
The dispute raises further questions about the authority under which the contract may have been approved and the Letter of Acceptance (LOA), if issued, granted. The relevant approval documents would be necessary to establish whether the required committee was constituted by the competent authority and whether the contract decision fell within the applicable delegation of financial powers.
While being the lowest bidder does not automatically guarantee the award of a contract, rejection of an L1 bid must be supported by valid grounds under the tender conditions and applicable procurement rules. The technical evaluation report, recorded reasons for disqualification and proceedings of the competent committee would be central to determining whether the decision was justified.
The reported financial difference has also raised concerns about the possible implications for public funds. However, the exact difference and any resulting additional burden on the public exchequer cannot be established without verification of the original financial bids, the accepted contract value and the final award documents.
The concerned authorities may examine the tender-opening records, technical evaluation, financial comparison, applicable delegation of financial powers and approval file to determine whether the procurement process complied with the prescribed rules.
The key questions remain why the alleged L1 bidder was disqualified, whether the relevant provisions of S.O. 15 of 2020 and applicable procurement rules were followed, which authority was competent to approve the contract, and how the reported ₹1.30 crore difference was calculated and justified.(KNB)