Para 3.3.3 - Fair Procurement | KartavyaDesk
Original Rule Text
a) not indulge in the following prohibited practices, either directly or indirectly, at any stage during the procurement process or during execution of resultant contracts: i) “Corrupt practice”: making offers, solicitation or acceptance of bribe, rewards or gifts or any material benefit, in exchange for an unfair advantage in the procurement process or to otherwise influence the procurement process or contract execution; ii) “Fraudulent practice”: any omission or misrepresentation that may mislead or attempt to mislead so that financial or other benefits may be obtained, or an obligation avoided. This includes making false declaration or providing false information for participation in a tender process or to secure a contract or in execution of the contract; iii) “Anti-competitive practice”: any collusion, bid rigging or anti-competitive arrangement, or any other practice coming under the purview of The Competition Act, 2002, between two or more bidders, with or without the knowledge of the Procuring Entity, that may impair the transparency, fairness, and the progress of the procurement process or to establish bid prices at artificial, non-competitive levels; iv) “Coercive practice”: harming or threatening to harm, persons, or their property to influence their participation in the procurement process or affect the execution of a contract; v) “Conflict of interest”: any personal, financial, or business relationship between the bidder and any personnel of the procuring entity who are directly or indirectly related to the procurement or execution process of the contract, which can affect the decision of the procuring entity directly or indirectly; vi) “Undue Advantage”: improper use of information obtained by the bidder from the procuring entity with an intent to gain an unfair advantage in the procurement process or for personal gain. This also includes if the bidder (or his allied firm24) provided services for the need assessment/ procurement planning 25 of the tender process in which he is participating; vii) “Obstructive practice”: materially impede the Procuring Entity’s investigation into allegations of one or more of the above mentioned prohibited practices either by deliberately destroying, falsifying, altering; or by concealing of evidence material to the investigation; or by making false statements to investigators and/or by threatening, harassing or intimidating any party to prevent it from disclosing its knowledge of matters relevant to the investigation or from pursuing
What This Means
Para 3.3.3 of the Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services is all about ensuring fairness and integrity in the process of hiring consultants. It basically says that bidders (the companies or individuals trying to get the consultancy contract) and anyone involved in the process must not engage in any corrupt, fraudulent, or anti-competitive practices. This rule applies from the very beginning of the procurement process (when the government is deciding what kind of consultant they need) all the way through to the end of the contract (when the consultant is doing the work).
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- •Prohibits corrupt, fraudulent, anti-competitive, coercive, and obstructive practices during the procurement of consultancy services.
- •Defines specific prohibited practices like bribery, misrepresentation, collusion, and threats.
- •Addresses conflicts of interest and undue advantage gained through insider information.
- •Applies to all stages of the procurement process, from planning to contract execution.
- •Aims to ensure transparency, fairness, and integrity in government procurement.
Practical Example
Imagine the Ministry of Urban Development is seeking a consultant to advise on a smart city project. Company 'TechSolutions' bids for the contract. However, Mr. Sharma, a senior official in the Ministry's procurement department, is secretly a shareholder in TechSolutions. He uses his position to influence the evaluation committee to favor TechSolutions, even though their proposal isn't the best. This violates the 'Conflict of Interest' clause. Furthermore, if TechSolutions had previously helped the Ministry define the requirements for this very consultancy, and now they are bidding on it, this would violate the 'Undue Advantage' clause. If discovered, TechSolutions could be disqualified, and Mr. Sharma could face disciplinary action and legal consequences.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
What constitutes a 'conflict of interest' under this rule?▼
What happens if a bidder is found to have engaged in a prohibited practice?▼
Does this rule only apply to the bidding companies?▼
What is 'bid rigging' and how does it violate this rule?▼
If a company provides initial need assessment for a project, can they bid on the consultancy for that project?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Test Your Knowledge
Question 1 of 3
According to Para 3.3.3 of the Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services, which of the following actions constitutes a 'Fraudulent practice'?
Related Rules
Need help understanding this rule?
Ask Niti — your AI assistant for Consultancy Manual and other government rules