Lately, there has been a trend of killing contracts in collusion. This is a matter of concern. There are limited companies in Nepal that can work on big projects. These limited entrepreneurs are highly accessible and powerful.
The contractor also has a say in the parliament. They try to keep the system in line with the policy. Laws are also affected. There are contractors in the development committee of the parliament. From this, their power and strength become clear. Due to their financial resources, they are also strong within political parties.
A small number of large contractors know each other very well. Although politically divergent, they are in the same business. That is why cartels can flourish in the contract. There is a situation where the contract is divided by saying 'I will take such and such contract, you will take such and such.
Earlier, Chulthe-Mundre was used to limit competition in the contract, but with the advent of electronic bidding systems, outside collusion has started. It is seen that the number of people getting contracts by promising only a little less than the estimated cost has increased. There has been a 'trend' of compromising on contract eligibility and boundaries since the package was made.
The tendency to compromise by pre-planning has an impact on contract management. The effect is multifaceted. The compromise affects the time, cost, quantity, and quality of the contract
The tendency to tailor the experience and qualifications required for a contract to a particular contractor is also frightening. For example, to pave the runway at Suketar Airport in Taplejung, work experience is required at another airport of the same height and geographical location. It favorably favors certain contractors.
If someone wants 'me', the name will not be called 'Madhu Regmi', but not only my height, the thickness of my life, but also the wearing of thick glasses. Even if someone enters into that contract, it is made to fail by placing some such condition. Competition for contracts has shrunk by placing 'loopholes' to make other potential contractors fail.
While I was in the Public Procurement Monitoring Office, a public body in Birgunj found that only Nepalis could participate in a contract worth over Rs 1 billion by forcibly reducing the cost.
That work was done in collaboration with the businessmen of the Birgunj area. What kind of amount can be expected from the contract that has been made by reducing the expenses incurred? As such problems continue to plague, public concern over the state's commitment to good governance will only increase. From this, the resources of the state are reaching the pockets of a limited number of people. Which is corrupting the entire state system.
The tendency to compromise by pre-planning has an impact on contract management. The effect is multifaceted. The compromise affects the time, cost, quantity, and quality of the contract.
The work that can be done cheaply through competition has to be done expensively. That also affects the quality. Many of the newly built and under-construction bridges of the river were washed away during the rainy season. Due to the lack of speedy work, state resources have been misused and the people have been deprived of the benefits of the project.
Such distortions seen in contract management have many effects. The contractor may not have much interest and priority to work on the project that has been contracted amicably. If there was an atmosphere of fair competition in the contracts, they would also have the hustle and bustle of working well and fast. On the whole, when the giver and the taker forget the moral ground, it is affecting all the economic and social aspects of the country.
I don't see much problem in law. Unless there is a change in the mindset of the contractors and those in public office, it is difficult to remove such distortions from the law alone.
Instead, the role of 'oversight agencies' in monitoring such malpractices should be decisive. Bodies and mechanisms including the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, Hello Government, Public Procurement Monitoring Office, Parliamentary Committee seem to be silent on such issues. Instead, it is heard that they get along with each other. Rather than preventing such collusion, they are seen as 'one more door for corruption.
Observers use the Rajarshi facility provided by the accused and the disputing party. Such expenses are calculated by the contractor by agreeing on the cost and quality of the project.
The action was taken by the 'oversight agency' is also weak. At present, fines are many times less than the benefits of bullying. As a result, more and more people are moving in a perverse direction. The problem is compounded by a lenient attitude towards wrongdoers.
