The CEO's Inbox

Framework.

• Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and the Rules of 2000: transparency, competitive bidding, published pre-qualification criteria, and a recorded justification for any restricted or limited tender.
• E-procurement requirements and CVC guidelines: no post-tender negotiation except with the lowest responsive bidder, and no tailoring of eligibility to fit a firm.
• Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966: a duty to report improper orders and a bar on favours to relatives of public representatives.
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018: 'undue advantage' does not require proof of personal gain, so an inflated estimate is not a technical error alone.

Vulnerabilities.

1. A 22 per cent inflated estimate, if true, means the L1 price may be above market and the 'competition' is nominal.
2. A technical sanction without a site inspection destroys the basis of the estimate.
3. Only two bids: examine whether turnover or 'similar work' criteria were drawn to exclude others.
4. The relative's firm is not automatically disqualified - but it demands a recorded conflict-of-interest check, not silence.
5. The PA's oral calls leave no trace; that is a governance risk to you, not to him.
6. The kharif deadline is genuine and is also the classic justification for limited tender - which must be exceptional and recorded.

Key distinction. You have evidence of an inadequately documented file, not yet of illegality. The right response is re-examination on record, not cancellation on suspicion, which damages the exchequer and invites litigation.

Steps.

1. Same day. Write to the Divisional Commissioner reproducing the junior engineer's letter and seeking written instructions - converting oral pressure into a file record. A verbal 'follow procedure' is not an instruction until it is on paper.
2. Days 1-10. Constitute a three-member committee (a Chief Engineer from outside the district, the district finance officer, and a PWD nominee) to re-verify the estimate and the technical sanction. Give it a 10-day deadline.
3. Parallel. Cancelling the present tender and re-tendering with the same scope, open pre-qualification and a 15-day bid period. Record the reason: materially defective technical sanction, not suspicion of a bidder.
4. Do not route it through limited tender or 'urgency' unless the committee certifies that open tender is impracticable - and then record why.
5. Schedule. Build a milestone-based construction programme so that the kharif window is protected even if the award slips: approach road and culvert first, the bridge span later.

On the time constraint - attack the false binary. A three-week slip costs part of a season; a 22 per cent inflated award costs the exchequer and legitimises capture for a decade. But there is a third path: split the work. Repair or strengthen the existing causeway now as maintenance below the tender threshold (with a recorded, photographed condition survey), while the main bridge is re-tendered. The farmers get a passable road this season; the procurement stays clean.

What to avoid. Awarding 'in the farmers' interest' on a defective file, and cancelling without a re-tender plan that meets the season. Both are the same failure - letting the deadline decide the merits.

Junior engineer.

• Acknowledge his letter in writing within 48 hours. Do not name him in any communication with the Minister's office or the MLA.
• Put his allegations to the committee for a merits finding, and record explicitly that the finding is on the merits, not on the source.
• If he is threatened with transfer or harassment, record it and write to the Chief Secretary; the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 exists but its machinery is incomplete, so practical protection comes from documentation, not from the statute alone.
• Advise him to put everything in writing from now on. An oral warning cannot be protected.

RTI applicant.

• The comparative statement and the price bid are disclosable after award. The Section 8(1)(d) exemption for commercial confidence does not cover the price at which public money is committed.
• Respond within 30 days. If any part is withheld, issue a speaking order citing the specific exemption and the public interest test in Section 8(2). Do not use 'third-party information' as a blanket shield.
• Publish the award on the panchayat website - proactive disclosure under Section 4 is cheaper than 40 RTI replies.

Your noting must contain: the chronology; the source of each fact (letter, call, inspection); the statute or rule relied upon; the alternatives considered; the reason for the choice; and the date and time of each oral instruction received, with the name of the officer who gave it. Write it for the officer who will read it after you are transferred - that is the real audience and the real test.