ISLAMABAD : An Engineering Company, Trace Engineering and Consultant (TEC) has reportedly approached Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) against Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO) for alleged against anti-competitive and exclusionary procurement behavior.
In a letter to Managing Director, PPRA, the TEC has brought the case of serious violations of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules and EPADS (Electronic Procurement & Auction Domain) Guidelines committed by GEPCO in the procurement process carried out under tender No. NCB-STG-21, for 200KVAR Capacitor Cells, opened on May 12, 2025.
According to the complainant, this procurement was initiated as a revised exercise following the scrapping of Tender No. NCB-STG-RTC-16, which was cancelled by GEPCO on March 21, 2025, on technical grounds. The present tender was supposed to rectify the previously observed technical and legal shortcomings.
However, regrettably, the re-initiated tender has once again failed to adhere to the PPRA Rules, EPADS guidelines, and the principles of fair and open competition-all of which appear to have been deliberately bypassed to favor M/s Siddique Sons Engineering (Pvt) Ltd.
M/s TEC, in its letter has informed MD PPRA that the tender was not uploaded on the PPRA website, violating Rule 12(2) of the PPRA Rules, 2004, which mandates publication on the Authority’s website for procurements above the prescribed threshold.
Only local newspaper advertisements were issued, violating Rule 13, which demands broad publicity to ensure competition and accessibility. Standard Bidding Documents (SBDs) approved by the Authority were not used.
GEPCO failed to make bidding documents publicly and electronically accessible, violating both Rule 21 and Rule 23(2), thereby restricting access to fair participation.
The firm has further accused that GEPCO has again failed to adopt the mandatory EPADS procurement system in violation of Rule 47-A, which was made enforceable via S.R.O. No. 442(1)/2022 of March 30, 2022. Manual handling of bids increases risks of procedural abuse and lacks traceability and transparency, thereby undermining the public trust and the legal mandate.
It has been claimed that the entire process violates Rule 4, which outlines the fundamental principles of procurement, fairness, transparency, open competition, economy, and efficiency.
The repeated favoring of one bidder (i.e., M/s Siddique Sons Engineering) and the exclusion of a level playing field demonstrates clear discrimination and lack of accountability.
In Appeal No. PPRA/AP-54/2024 (M/s Siddique Sons Engineering (Pvt) Ltd vs GEPCO), the Authority highlighted serious lapses by GEPCO, including: (i) failure to utilize EPADS for procurement ;(ii) failure to use Standard Bidding Documents and ;(iii) failure to ensure transparency and accessibility.
In Clauses 19 and 20 of the aforementioned Appeal, PPRA emphasized that GEPCO did not adopt a proper procurement process, which was a primary requirement under the applicable rules. Despite being reprimanded, GEPCO has once again disregarded Authority’s directives.
M/s TEC has further accused that GEPCO’s conduct also violates Section 4 and Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2010, as it restricts fair competition and promotes exclusionary practices.
” The targeted favoring of M/s Siddique Sons Engineering (Pvt) Ltd to the exclusion of other qualified bidders amounts to abuse of dominant position and reflects elements of collusive behavior,” said TEC.
TEC has requested MD PPRA to: (i) initiate a formal investigation under Section 5 of the PPRA Ordinance, 2002, into GEPCO’s procurement practices in the instant matter ;(ii) cancel Tender No. NCB-STG-21, and direct GEPCO to re-initiate the process strictly in accordance with PPRA Rules and EPADS guidelines, using Standard Bidding Documents ;(iii) issue a show-cause notice to GEPCO for repeated disregard of PPRA laws and previously issued directives ; and (iv) refer the matter to the Competition Commission of Pakistan for appropriate action under the Competition Act, 2010 against anti-competitive and exclusionary procurement behavior.
” We are confident that the Authority will take the necessary legal and administrative measures to uphold the rule of law, restore transparency in public procurement, and protect the interests of all eligible bidders,” said the Company’s Deputy CEO. Ends
