Staff REPORTER
ITANAGAR, Nov 11: M/s Agam Construction has raised allegations of irregularities, unequal treatment and lack of transparency in the tender process for a Rs 28.52-crore approach road project connecting Lasum Patte with Namorah in Pakke Kessang district.
Addressing a press conference here on Wednesday, the firm's proprietor Birendra Tallong alleged that the tender process conducted by the PWD Pakke Kessang Division involved arbitrary conditions and exposed bidders to unequal treatment.
Tallong claimed that the firm faced difficulties in obtaining mandatory land clearance certificates from the concerned Gram Panchayat Chairpersons (GPCs), as required under Clause 42.1 of the tender document. Despite repeated attempts, he alleged, the representatives concerned were either unavailable or unwilling to issue the certificates.
Suspecting selective issuance of certificates and possible external interference, he called for an independent examination of the applications, communications and issuance records.
Tallong also alleged that the firm faced difficulties in submitting its original bidding documents to the Executive Engineer, prompting it to approach the Gauhati High Court through WP(C) No. 529/2026.
Referring to the court’s November 2 order, he said the court had addressed the acceptance of the original bidding documents before the opening of technical bids. He clarified that the order should not be construed as a finding of favouritism or as confirmation of the firm’s technical eligibility.
Questioning Clause 42.2, Tallong said it requires bidders to bear forest mitigation costs and associated expenses without specifying the estimated amount, assessment methodology or maximum financial liability. He maintained that the absence of these details makes it difficult for bidders to assess their financial exposure while preparing their bids.
He clarified that the firm was not opposed to fulfilling its lawful environmental obligations but sought transparency in determining the financial implications. He also demanded disclosure of the sanctioned Detailed Project Report (DPR) and relevant land and forest clearance records.
Regarding the forest mitigation affidavit, Tallong said the firm had executed it on October 20 but did not include it in the original electronic or physical bid due to concerns over the undefined financial liability. The affidavit was subsequently submitted along with its representation dated November 3, which was received by the Division on November 5.
The firm sought an independent inquiry into the alleged obstruction in obtaining land clearance certificates, possible selective treatment and external interference. It also demanded a review of the circumstances surrounding the non-acceptance of its original bidding documents, suitable amendments to Clause 42.2, and disclosure of relevant project and forest mitigation records.
Emphasising that the firm was not seeking preferential treatment, Tallong said it only wanted a fair and transparent tender process in which no eligible bidder was unfairly excluded. He added that the firm had submitted relevant documents to the competent authorities for verification and urged the government to address its concerns in accordance with the law.