Para 4.8.2 — GOODS_MANUAL

Risk Mitigation 1. A major risk in this mode is that the demand may be artificially split to avoid OTE or higherlevel approvals The e-procurement portal may be programmed to raise an alert if the same item is repeatedly attempted to be procured through LTE. 2. There is a risk that LTE may not attract enough bids, and sometimes there may be a single acceptable offer. It could be due to tender documents not reaching the targeted bidders – intentionally or otherwise. It could also be due to bidders not getting adequate time to submit bids. This could also be due to an insufficient database of registered/known vendors. To ensure sufficient response, in addition to mails/emails to selected vendors, web-based publicity should be given for limited tenders, with suitable clarifications that unsolicited bids shall not be considered. Sufficient time should be allowed for the submission of bids, say two weeks. A shorter or longer period, if considered sufficient for the submission of bids, could be allowed if justified according to the urgency/ complexity of the requirement. Further, a limited or open tender that results in only one effective offer shall be treated as a single tender enquiry situation, with relevant powers of approval, etc. See para below for an insufficient database of vendors. 3. There is also a risk that the selection of vendors may not be transparent. At the evaluation stage, some invited bidders may be passed over on the grounds of being ineligible/unreliable. On the other hand, unsolicited bidders may also quote, causing a dilemma of transparency regarding the consideration of such offers. Maintenance of a panel of registered suppliers for each subject matter of procurement is a sine-qua-non for LTE (Ref Rule 150 GFR 2017 and para 3.8 of this manual). Such panels of vendors should be reviewed every year to ensure an adequate number of registered suppliers. The panel should not be changed after the LTE tender has been published. All past successful vendors/ bidders should invariably be invited. In case it is proposed to exclude

4.8.2 LTE - Risks and Mitigations

4.9. Special Limited Tender Enquiry (SLTE) for Procurements more than Rs. 50 (Rupees Fifty) Lakh LTE mode is permissible in certain special circumstances for values higher than Rs. 50 lakh (Rupees Fifty Lakh) (Rule 162 of GFR 2017), where normally OTE should have been done. Powers to sanction procurement on an LTE basis in such exceptional cases may be laid down in SoPP based on a certificate of urgency signed by the indentor. This mode has the merit of being quicker, but the VfM obtained may be less than in the case of OTE; hence, it should be restricted to the following situations:

Risk Mitigation any registered/ approved vendor/ contractor from being shortlisted for inviting LTE, detailed reasons, such as failure in supply, should be duly recorded, and approval of the CA should be taken before exclusion. Bidders should be selected with due diligence to ensure that bidders who do not meet eligibility criteria are not shortlisted. At the evaluation stage, in LTE, passing over of a duly shortlisted bidder on grounds of poor past performance or eligibility may raise questions about transparency.

1. The competent authority in the Ministry / Department certifies that there is an existing or prospective urgency for operational or technical requirements, and any additional expenditure involved by not procuring through advertised tender enquiry is justified in view of urgency. The Ministry/Department should also put on record the nature of the urgency and reasons why the procurement could not be anticipated earlier. 2. There are sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing by the competent authority, indicating that it will not be in the public interest to procure the goods through advertised tender enquiry. 3. The sources of supply are definitely known, and the possibility of fresh source

(s) beyond those being tapped is remote. 4. Government policy designates procurement from specific agencies.