eGovernance in India

Improving eGovernance in INDIA

Archive for the ‘eProcurement issues’ Category

DGS&D – C1 eProcurement contracts under investigation

Posted by egovindia on April 10, 2008

DGS&D – C1 eProcurement contracts under investigation

“E. Verwalten” <everwalten@gmail.com> wrote:
Indian Express Investigation 30th March 2008

Indian Express Investigation 8th April 2008

_________________

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Venkatappa Kumaraswamy <vmkumaraswamy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Subject: [eGovINDIA] DGS&D – C1 eProcurement contracts under investigation // Re: NIC joined hands with C 1 INDIA in eProcurement Scandle along with NISG, DIT and Govt. of INDIA !! READ THIS:: NIC eProcurement project irregularities in INDIA ???
To: dg@nic.in, ksdir@hub.nic.in, moni@hub.nic.in, mohan@tn.nic.in, lalitha@hub.nic.in, pspillai@hub.nic.in, kashinath@hub.nic.in, bkg@hub.nic.in, yks@nic.in, rpsaxena@hub.nic.in, bose@hub.nic.in, rkg@hub.nic.in, takhan@ub.delhi.nic.in, vsrk@hub.nic.in, sdgupta@hub.nic.in, dash@hub.nic.in, narao@hub.nic.in, shubhag@nic.in, rama@alpha.nic.in, amita@hub.nic.in, ambreesh@hub.nic.in, rgupta@hub.nic.in, anjana@hub.nic.in, padmavati@hub.nic.in, clmr@hub.nic.in, dcmisra@hub.nic.in, andaman@hub.nic.in, sio-ngl@hub.nic.in, sio@ap.nic.in, sio@hp.nic.in, sio-arn@hub.nic.in, sio@jk.nic.in, sio@pondy.pon.nic.in, sio-asm@hub.nic.in, sio-jhr@hub.nic.in, punjab@chd.nic.in, sio-.bih@hub.nic.in, sio@mail.kar.nic.in, sio@raj.nic.in, sio@chdut.nic.in, sio@kerala.nic.in, sio-sik@hub.nic.in, sio-cg@hub.nic.in, sio-laks@hub.nic.in, sio@tn.nic.in, sio-dadra@hub.nic.in, sio@mp.nic.in, sio-trpr@hub.nic.in, daman@guj.nic.in, siomsu@hub.nic.in, upstate@up.nic.in, skapoor@hub.nic.in, sio-man@hub.nic.in, manipur@msu.man.nic.in, utrnchal@up.nic.in, sio@goa.nic.in, sio-megh@hub.nic.in, sio@shillong.meg.nic.in, sio@wbsu.wb.nic.in, sio@guj.nic.in, sio-mizo@hub.nic.in, pratik@hub.nic.in, sastry@hub.nic.in, anshul@hub.nic.in, zsingh@hub.nic.in, mohan@hub.nic.in, cjairath@hub.nic.in, nagesh@hub.nic.in, vvsm@hub.nic.in, sbanerjee@hub.nic.in, harsh@hub.nic.in, rajput@hub.nic.in, gahlout@envfor.delhi.nic.in, shetty@cad.delhi.nic.in, opgoel@hub.nic.in, spr@hub.nic.in, ranjna@hub.nic.in, amishra@hub.nic.in, subodh@hub.nic.in, skr@hub.nic.in, hrn@hub.nic.in, srajiv@nic.in, bali@hub.nic.in, rverma@alpha.nic.in, shukla@hub.nic.in, krishan@nic.in, Miurmila@hub.nic.in, rpkapoor@hub.nic.in, msrao@hub.nic.in, nautiyal@hub.nic.in, pandey@sansad.nic.in, drjdass@hub.nic.in, rakesh@alpha.nic.in, vsharma@hub.nic.in, sksinha@hub.nic.in, rsingh@hub.nic.in, hps@ub.nic.in, Traiyks@nic.in, jkghosh@hub.nic.in, mchandra@alpha.nic.in, rgera@alpha.nic.in, kkumar@hub.nic.in, neeta@hub.nic.in, hpsharma@hub.nic.in, kalra@sb.nic.in
Cc: VMK <vmkumaraswamy@gmail.com>, minister@mit.gov.in, mos@mit.gov.in, secretary@mit.gov.in, srinath@mit.gov.in, rgilani@mit.gov.in, ekavi VEMAKU <ekavikumaraswamy@gmail.com>, “E. Verwalten” <everwalten@gmail.com>, egovindia <egovindia@yahoogroups.com>, ellakavi@yahoogroups.com

[eGovINDIA] DGS&D – C1 eProcurement contracts under investigation

“E. Verwalten” <everwalten@gmail.com> wrote:

Indian Express Investigation 30th March 2008

Indian Express Investigation 8th April 2008

On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 7:16 PM, Venkatappa Kumaraswamy <vmkumaraswamy@gmail.com> wrote:

NIC joined hands with C 1 INDIA in eProcurement Scandle along with NISG, DIT and Govt. of INDIA !! READ THIS:: NIC eProcurement project irregularities in INDIA ???

http://egovindia.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/nic-joined-hands-with-c-1-india-in-eprocurement-scandle-along-with-nisg-dit-and-govt-of-india-read-this-nic-eprocurement-project-irregularities-in-india/

Does Prime Minister of INDIA want to LEGITAMIZE eProcurement scandle ? – IT Secretary RAO of AP writes: You are absolutely right on this one. We gave totally misleading figures.

http://egovindia.wordpress.com/2007/01/16/does-prime-minister-of-india-want-to-legitamize-eprocurement-scandle-it-secretary-rao-of-ap-writes-you-are-absolutely-right-on-this-one-we-gave-totally-misleading-figures/

What NIC is doing now ??

NIC needs to answer to the NATION !!

THIS IS WHAT eGovINDIA Group has written about NIC !!
Still NIC needs to answer to the eProcurement Scandle of INDIA !

Why NIC and NICSI sidelined ? Why NISG formed ? Derailing of eGovernance of INDIA by forming NISG by then Jt. Secretary of eGovernance NOW Add’l Secretary of eGovernance at DIT/MIT and CEO of NISG.

Proper eGovernance is the need of future !!

Bureaucracy of IAS Officers in eGovernance.

For effective implementation of RTI Act 2005 INDIA needs proper eGovernace in INDIA.

HUMILIATION / VICTIMISATION / MARGINALISATION OF IT SCIENTISTS OF NIC BY BUREAUCRACY OF IAS OFFICERS.

Subject:- Information Technology (IT) Scientist of National Informatics Centre (NIC) of Dept. of IT are being denied rightful promotion under Flexible Complimentary Scheme (FCS) of Fifth Pay Commission and , thus, they are being Victimized, marginalized and even targeted of elimination from government by IAS Bureaucracy

Dear Sirs/ Madam

It is tribute to dynamic and visionary  leadership of honorable  Sh. Rajiv  Gandhi  who had been architect behind the establishment of National Informatics Centre (NIC)  during late Eighties to make India becoming the first country in the world to achieve E-governance. It was one of the many scientific Institutes  he had established to see India prosper and developed through embarking on a  high level Knowledge society in India.

Some of the following subsequent actions taken particularly by your present government was great discouragement and humiliation for the IT scientist in particular :

The result of the Reviewed NIC  IT scientist-G  ( JS equivalent) under FCS ( Flexible Complimentary Scheme under central government of India) has been kept in abeyance for last one year and their calm, quiet and dedicated patience has been misused by new bureaucratic officials in Cabinet Secretariat to make the IT scientist suffer and get domoralised even though IT scientist of NIC are the main stake holder in Department of IT justifying the significance of DIT.

It is understood that IAS bureaucracy is trying to discontinue the Flexible Complimentary scheme (FCS) which has been formulated by  His excellency Shri Rajiv Gandhi ex-prime minister of India for promotion of scientific bodies  for building scientific knowledge society in India. In view of this  all the recommendations for promotion to Scientist-G ( Joint secy. Equivalent)  from the scientific ministries  including NIC, DIT and DST etc. are kept in abeyance in cabinet secretaries and DOPT for last one year.

  1. Scientific Contribution made to govt. sector by NIC IT Scientist.

NIC scientist have done many firsts/ second in the world in IT sector in govt. of  India during end 1980 when many countries including USA Govt. had not done in govt. sector.

1. Indian govt. is the first in the world to have such nodal computerization agency NIC for developing ICT applications for achieving e-governance in govt. sector.

2. NIC Scientist have established the 1st widespread VSAT based  Wide Area (WAN) named NICNET of Indian govt. Network in the World covering all Districts/State/Central governments of Indian Union. (that time USA has the first V-Sat based Network but is was in some of its states not wide spread up to grass root level like in India)

3. They have made  Indian govt. the 1st in the world in establishing computer center and LAN in all district/ state/central govt. offices including Leh and Andaman Nicober, Lakskhwadeep and Daman Diu.

4. They have made Indian govt. the 1st in the world to have Video Conference facility even at the remotest district/ state/central govt. level

5. They have made India 1st in the world during 1980s by declaring Indian Election result Live through VSAT communications up to district level

6. NIC IT scientist has established more than 700 computer centers, LAN and VSATs at district/state/ central govt. departments including research and public sector organizations of Government of India for providing E-mail/ internet connectivity and application software solutions. They have been effectively maintaining the services in all govt. sectors in India and adapting to new IT advancements.

7. They have been providing hands on computer training to all govt. staff and officers at district/state/central govt. offices for imparting computer cultures in India.

8. During mid eighties ( when there was almost no IT Pvt. Sector in India) NIC IT  professionals have developed/ implemented various e-governance software at district/state/central govt. offices after studying, analyzing and designing databases in accordance to the requirement of govt. officials at various levels.

9. NIC IT Scientists have been designing/developing/ maintaining more than 1000 web sites of various districts/state/central govt. offices and research and public sector organizations for providing better citizen services.

10. NIC has the state of the art advanced ICT infrastructures and IT specialization in various application areas.

The spectrum of services provided by NIC encompasses various dimensions of the Information Technology Arena .

II. How they do it and with what resources.

1. 3,500 strong young IT professionals enrolled in end-1980s with having strong educational background of Ph.D., M.Tech, MCA from reputed Universities and national institutes like IIT are the main motivator who have been working at grass root level of district/state/central govt. offices to provide sustainable computer culture in India.

  1. They prepare/manage the computer center, install hardware, install software, maintain day – to – day computer up keeping, provide individual attention of each and every user staff, understand their requirement and understand their priority and slowly and steadily bring computer culture in the govt. offices all over India. Whatever is achieved till date in govt. computerization it is due to devotion and perseverance of each and every NIC official.

  1. NIC has been provided with annual budget  around  Rs. 200 crores for provision of salary of its employees and for providing hardware, software, LAN, WAN and their maintenance of more than 700 computer centers. This also includes the expenditure of hiring of internet bandwidth. If we consider the annual budget of any important research institute of ICAR, IIT, ICMR and CSIR it would range from 500 to 600 crores. NIC annual budget of Rs. 200 crores in comparison to this is meager amount and the gamut of IT services provided by NIC for the govt. sector will well be worth of more than thousand crores per annum in IT market of India.

  1. The maximum amount of salary of a Director level scientist of NIC is Rs.35,000 which is much less than even the salary of junior most IT professional ( Rs. 50,000) in Indian IT market. Maximum of NIC IT Scientist ( who have been working in govt. sector for various of their personal reasons and national interest) worth even more capable in IT efficiency and proficiency than the their counter part in IT industry in India.

III. Humiliation, marginalisation and attempt of elimination of IT Scientist by Bureaucracy ( IAS officials) –Political Nexus

1. IAS officers and NIC IT scientists are the only central govt. officials who have been working in grass root level at district/state/ central govt. offices. Mostly, IAS officials being autocratic and having absolute administrative and financial powers they do not have any specific agenda for e-governance and try to define what suits their personal interest undermining the role of NIC officials and the IT infrastructure available to them.

2. The growing popularity of N IC officials among local and regular staffs of the govt. at district/state/central govt. offices for achieving transparency in govt. functions is misconstrued as threat to the supremacy of IAS official, therefore they try to marginalize and humiliate the NIC officials in order to make the govt. functions according to their whims without any goal and desire to make govt. functions  transparent for providing better citizen services.

3. In consequence of above, NIC was brought into bureaucratic control by merging with Department of Information and Technology (DIT) five years back. Since then, slowly and steadily, bureaucratic (IAS) officials through minister are attempting to eliminate the NIC officials by stopping promotion on Flexible Complimentary Scheme (FCS) so that they would loose motivation and ultimately theses motivated young and highly educated govt. IT professionals could be made dead-horse by the bureaucrat making them easy for its elimination from govt. In similar fashion, they have almost killed Indian Statistical Service (ISS) and Indian Economic Service (IES) which have been created by great planner Dr. Mahalonobis to bring effective planning at grass root and national level. They have been continuously marginalizing other 21 services of Govt. of India.

4. Being very close to Politicians/Ministers right from their service at cadre level, the IAS officials could misguide and give wrong impression about functioning of NIC and other services to the former for achieving their goal of supremacy over any other govt. services.

5. During the last five years IAS officers have created more than 25 IT Secretaries in State Govt. and more than 50 JS(IT) in Central Govt. These IT secretaries and JS(IT)s hardly have any IT experience and in spite of that they used to have IT manager tenure ranging from six months to the maximum of two years during which some of the corrupt officers outsource the procurement of IT products and system analysis, design, development of web sites and various other systems ignoring the advice and presence of NIC official. It may be mentioned that IT related activities outsourced by various departments and state govt. either are fractured or abandoned midway after huge amount of govt. money being spent by bureaucrat. Thus undisputed administrative and financial power of IAS officers at various level is the hindrance of any effective e-governance system in govt. sector in India.

IV. NIC has been considered as threat/ stumbling block for corrupt politicians/ bureaucracy/ Pvt. IT Vendors, therefore, it is being fragmented/isolated

1. Since last 25 years NIC has been following sound and fair track record of procurement of hardware, software, networking and consultancy services in competitive prices through a transparent and standard evaluation process. In view of this, many central and state govt. organizations used to procure IT products through NIC services Inc NICSI.  Politicians – bureaucrat nexus could not favour the IT vendor for corrupt practices, therefore, Chairmanship of NICSI has been changed now from DG(NIC) to an IAS officer. The fate of NICSI will happen as it has happened to many sick PSUs.

2. Govt. e-governance systems are basically open ended in nature. NIC officials have  been steadily developing the system after understanding the requirement analysis and the capability of the users to adopt and adapt to new systems by actively involving themselves in the process of development and implementation. Our govt. systems are very complex and these systems are evolutionary in nature and therefore have to be evolved by taking along with varied level of efficient and proficient staff so that there would be no antipathy to introduction of e-governance software. There is no short cut for sustainable implementation of E-governance software in govt. sector. Since IAS officer has short tenure and he wants to get it done immediately by outsourcing to Pvt vendors   in his biased way in very short span of time lot of govt. money and unplanned efforts gets wasted without any achievement in this direction.

In spite of that, during the last three years IAS officer have created more than 25 IT secretaries in state govt. and more that 50 JS(IT) in central govt. These IT secretaries and JS(IT)s hardly have any IT experience and in spite of that they used to have IT manager tenure ranging from six months to the maximum of two years during which some of the corrupt officers out sources the procurement of IT products and system analysis, design, development of web sites and various other system ignoring the advice and presence of NIC official. It may be mentioned that IT related activities outsourced by various departments and state govt. either are fractured or abandoned midway after huge amount of govt. money being spend by bureaucrat. Thus undisputed administrative and financial power of IAS officers at various level is the hindrance of any effective e-governance system in govt. sector in India.

3. Bureaucracy and e-governance/transparency in govt. can never go hand by hand. Bureaucrats will never allow e-governance and transparency in govt. be achieved in real sense. They are only enjoying the fruit of IT revolution world wide through traveling more and more countries in the pretext of attending training, conferences and carrying out bilateral projects and so on so forth. They do themselves IT savvy by associating themselves with important IT industries in India and abroad.

4. Because of NICs 20 years of govt. informatics development and its appreciation by all staffs and local officials of state and central govt.,  many unscrupulous IT industries are trying to defame NIC in political and ministerial levels to gain IT business in govt. sector. NIC has been thus squeezed from all sections and its achievement have been sidelined. Many of the MNC-IT industries whose head offices are located in developed countries they provide mostly free IT services to their respective govt. but their profit making commercial centers established in developing countries like India are only meant for generation of profit from developing countries. In view of this, none of IT industries in India have developed any meaningful e-governance software for govt. sector even after being paid heavily by the govt.

V. Bureaucrats have established  National Institute of SMART  Government (NISG)  at Hyderabad to  counter the scientific organization like NIC and NISCI

National Institute of SMART Government(NISG) has been established by bureaucratic lobby to  counter Scientific body like NIC and NICSI  so that  bureaucrats can have honeymoon with Private companies for institutionalizing the corruption and favoritisms for reaping the personal benefit.  NISG is basically a company under government like NICSI.  No projects should be financially approved to NISG without going for open tender. However, it is observed that some of the projects even awarded  by DOPT finance  to NISG breaking all rules of financial rule so that bureaucrats in NISG could take up the project with private vendors.

V. Suggestion

1. IT scientist of NIC should be rightfully promoted under FCS ( Flexible Complimentary Scheme of fifth pay Commission) as has been in the case of Ministry of Science, Department of Spare, CSIR, ICAR and other national Institutes.

IT scientist, like other scientists of above organizations, have been deprived of promotion and are resorted to humiliation and have been paying price of being put under the control of IAS officials who would finish and wipe out the emerging IT Scientist who have been working tirelessly to bring transparency through E-governance for citizens of the country by making IAS official answerable to the autocratic and corruptive actions at all levels.

2. The pending file regarding promotion of IT scientist ( reviewed in 2004) lying with Ministries during last one year should be cleared as early as possible so that next review of eligible IT scientist under FCS should be completedsoon. Unless it is done, whatever has been achieved during last 20 years will be hampered and it would give opportunity to  IAS bureaucrat to finish the NIC to make E-governance a mockery in their hands by playing with Pvt. Vendors.

3. As earlier, NIC should be brought under the Planning Commission which could play an effective/ pivotal role in implementing E-governance in state and central govt. by encouraging IT scientist and making the bureaucracy answerable for their autocratic attitude for playing the bottleneck to the achievement of E-governance. Since last 50 years, even though a cadre service, IAS bureaucracy has always been victimizing and paralising the scientists, subject matter specialist of all scientific/ technical and policy making bodies in central govt. sector of India to suit their hegemony, corruptive practice and bureaucratic autocracy.

4. Planning Commission being a nodal body in policy making and allocating of funds by effective monitoring of different schemes to central and state governments It should be strengthened by bringing NIC in its fold to play vital role in promoting E-governance in state and central government and to play a watch dog against IAS bureaucracy who play hindrance to E-governance and transparency.

5. It may be mentioned that since last five years IAS bureaucrat have been making mockery of E-governance by organizing national conference/IT managers Conference through D/o AR & PG where at the most 4 to 5 state IT secretaries/IT managers hardly present in these conferences. More importantly, there is no meaningful agenda in all these conferences without having any fruitful recommendations. These conferences are only meant for IAS officials for site seeing and enjoying the hospitality of MNC IT vendors in five star hotels.

6. The need of NISG should be questioned. Since NIC and NICSI have already been established to cater to the requirement of govt and pvt interface for achieving the E-governance the duplication of activities of NISG is questionable and is considered as  counter offensive of bureaucrats to scientific agencies like NIC and NICSI. The   establishment of  NISG should be discouraged. E-Governance is basically an attempt to free the citizens from bureaucratic control and hegemony. In case bureaucratic organization like NISG is encouraged  it would  encourage them to have more control  on the administration to have their choice and whims on transperancy

7. India has huge potential in government IT  manpower like nodal IT agency  like NIC and NICSI  whose  presence at center state and district administration   is considered unique in comparison to other developed countries. IT scientist in all level of administration have gained lot of experience in providing IT supports. But irony  is that because of lack of initiative of IAS officials at these center, state and district level  E-governance application developed  by NIC is not being implemented. The lack of initiative  is because  of the  fear of loosing their control on administration  due to transparency offered by E-government.

8. What we need at present in Govt. of India is to outsource the management work

( rather than Software application already developed by NIC) being handled presently by bureaucrats to the MBAs  of  reputed  IIMS for effective implementation of E-Governance software already developed by NIC rather that E-governance software applications to MNCs.  E-government Software application have already been developed  by NIC with its 15 years experience on govt sector what they need is these software should be effectively implemented by  good management support of the  government administration. Implementation  requires 85 % management supports whereas Software support constitutes 15 %. NIC  could not implement vast number of the software  developed by it because of lack of administrative and management support in government.

9. In view of these, in order to effectively implement the e-Governance the Planning Commission should be strengthened by bringing NIC in its fold which can enforce e-Governance in state and central govt. by the way of monitoring the e-governance projects through provision of funds and evaluation / implementation through NIC.

E-governance is national agenda therefore it should be part of the national coordinating agency like Planning Commission rather than it should be restricted to any bureaucratic department.

Department of IT may be responsible for regulating hardware, IT Infrastructure, IT manpower policies and regulation etc. However, e-Governance being a national agenda cutting across the state/ central govt. organizations NIC should be brought back under Planning Commission.

Whatever NIC had achieved in e-Governance while it was in Planning Commission during 1988-2000 its achievement has been reversed by bureaucrat during last two years by hobnobbing with many private vendors only to satisfy their personal interests. We can never achieve e-Governance through the IAS bureaucrats who have been traditionally non-transparent, corruptive and autocratic.

Unless we give NIC its right place we will re-wind the progress of E-governance in each succeeding year.

I request and pray to all concerned not to deprive the NIC-IT scientists their rightful timely promotion, under FCS of fifth pay commission, which not only give them encouragement but also make them feel confident to fight for achieving e-governance in spite of humiliation by IAS bureaucrat at all levels up to district/central/ state government level.

This is one of the social responsibility of all concerned to realize that the scientific organizations which have been contributing significantly for the developmental work for citizen friendly govt. should not be eliminated by bureaucratic and political nexus. It may be brought to the notice of Minister ( Communication and IT), PM, President of India and Dy. Chairman of Planning Commission, Leader of the Opposition etc. for their kind perusal.

With regards

Supporters of the Govt. of India

ABOUT V. M. Kumaraswamy, MBA

This is Mr. V. M. Kumaraswamy, MBA. in business since 1971.
Founder and Moderator of India’s largest e-governance Yahoogroup under the title eGovINDIA.

______________________________

__________

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING FOR WHAT IS HAPPENNING.

NISG need to LEARN to RESPOND to EMAILS first to solve problems that it has created in INDIA.

Mr. R. Chandrashekar needs to respond for emails and answerable to all these email letters. He can’t escape. RTI will make him to do it.

We all know that Mr. R. Chandrshekar came from AP to DIT/MIT.  This is when the idea of formimg NISG was started by Mr. R. Chandrashekar. He had a motive behind forming the NISG.

Mr. J. Sathyanarayana is also from AP. He was made the CEO of NISG. These are all understanding between these TWO IAS Officers to DERAIL the eGovernance in INDIA. Also these TWO probably had ideas helping few companies with a motive behind it. These can be seen and read through the DATAQUEST article called E-Governance MUDDLE. This article has exposed the CLOSE RELATINSHIP of NISG with PWC, RAM INFOTECH, CMS and otehr companies.

Mr. J. Sathyanarayana be fore becoming CEO of NISG has cretaed problems of eProcurement SCAM in AP. We all know about this now. He has convinced the WORLDBANK also on C 1 INDIA eProcurement SCAM.

NISG can’t HIDE under Mr. R. Chandrashekar of DIT/MIT to PROTECT from wrong doings. This is happenning.
How long Mr. R. Chandrashekar is going to keep on doing this ?

Formation of NISG is itself QUESTIONABLE now ? How did Mr. R. Chandrashekar made UNDP to INVEST FUNDS into NISG without CABINET APPROVAL ?

UNDP has been led by Governament of INDIA.

NISG need to post all the SOURCES of FUNDS and USES of FUNDS on it’s WEBSITE that it has received from UNDP, MICROSOFT and all other MNC’s and WORLD BANK and other institutions.

Copies to:

Minister, Ministry of Communication & IT

Minister of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pension

Dy. Chairman, Planning Commission

Prime Minister

President of India

Copy to : Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha

Posted in eProcurement issues | 2 Comments »

Let us ask GoAP and NIC and NISG : Whose server the info of eProcurement is ON ?

Posted by egovindia on January 21, 2007

Can GoAP, NIC, NISG, Add’l Secretary R. Chandrashekar, CEO of NISG J. Sathyanarayana answer this question ?

About the eProcurement of GoAP information on whose server it is on ?

Did GoAP followed the IT Act of 2000 ?

Did GoAP IT Secretaries followed Accountability and Transparency in awarding the eProcurement contract ?

How did GoAP disqualified other bidders before awarding the eProcurement contract ?

Did It Secretary of GoAP followed instructions from NISG on this ?

Posted in eProcurement issues | Leave a Comment »

Who are all involved in the eProcurement Scandle of INDIA.Started in AP State

Posted by egovindia on January 20, 2007

1. GoAP – We have letter from Secretary of IT of GoAP. We will list all of the Secretaries involved. We will name all the people involved. Problems of eGovernance of INDIA all started in AP State. Both Mr. Chandrashekar and Mr. J. Sathyanarayana comes from AP State IAS Cadre. Both have inroad into these things. That is why NISG office is located in Hyderbad. Thye know that NIC and NICSI similar type entities are in New Delhi.

2. MCIT – Transactions lead to Secretary and Joint Secretary of MIT/MCIT. Also current Add’l Secretary Mr. R. Chandrashekar, Mr. Brajesh Kumar,

3. eGovernance Secretary of GoK, Mr. Rajeev Chawla. There is complaint filed with Lokayuktha of Karnataka. Also High Court of Karnataka has admitted a PIL on the eProcurement issue. Rajeev Chawla has cunningly got signed the eProcurement from CM of Karnataka. Did he pay any money to Govt. ? Another Minister tells Rajeev Chawla has paid off the Govt.

4. NIC – The premier eGovernance agency of the country is also involved in eProcurement FRAUD. This has happened by NIC RIGGING the conditions of BIDDING. We have a court case to show for this.

5. CEO of NISG Mr. Sathyanarayana who has promoted C 1 India in all the states of India, BY NISG becoming the sole Consultant to advise the State Govt.’s. We have numerous emails and Letters to this effect.

6. NASSCOM – 51 % partner in NISG. Is also involved in eGovernance FRAUD of the NATION. Where did NASSCOM got money to invest in NISG ? NASSCOM is an Association of IT Companies.

7. UNDP – Who has funded NISG. UNDP has not done any audit of NISG for the funds invested in NISG. UNDP is covering all the issues with NISG. UNDP is also leading CORRUPTION in eGovernance in INDIA.
8. Govt. of INDIA – How did GoI invested in NISG without proper approval by the committee?. How did Govt. Secretaries made UNDP to invest in NISG without proper documents and approval from GoI.

Mr. R. Chandrashekar

Mr. J. Sathyanarayana

Mr. Rajeev Chawla

Mr. Brajesh Kumar

Mrs. Maxine Olsen – UNDP

C 1 INDIA Company

NIC

NICSI

List will grow !!!!!

Posted in eProcurement issues | 1 Comment »

NIC eProcurement project irregularities

Posted by egovindia on January 19, 2007

NIC eProcurement project irregularities

This is with regard to the NIC tender for Supply, Installation, Testing, Training and Customization of eProcurement system (No.4(29)/2004-PS (T)) Published by Joint Director, (Purchase Section – Technical), National Informatics Center, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of information Technology, A Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003, Phone 011-2436-1605.

eGovINDIA just wants to inform all of you the following:

1. In the prequalification criteria Page no.2, item no 2 (VI) NIC said that “the vendor or the prime bidder in the case of consortium should be CMM level 4 or ISO 9000-3 certified”. (Please note that there is no certification called ISO 9000-3 in this world and it is only the guidelines for software companies. Through this ITI which has deployed more than 20 eProcurement projects across the country has been prevented from participating in the tender)



2. Apparently ITI Limited a PSU under MCIT has made a representation to NIC stating that the prequalification criteria is wrong and ITI should be allowed to participate in the tender which has been refused by NIC orally.

3. Further STQC experts also informed that the prequalification criteria is wrong.

4. Without listening to the STQC and ITI, NIC went ahead and executed the tender for eProcurement.

5. Interestingly (??) the consortium of PWC and C1 bagged the order form NIC.

6. How beautiful and professional this entire transaction is:

– The PWC who is the consultant to GOAP is the Prime bidder of Consortium.

- The C1 which bagged the project from GOAP through the recommendations of PWC is the consortium partner.

- Though the pre-qulaification criteria was wrong and ITI as well as STQC have submitted the note to this effect, NIC went ahead and awarded the tender to PWC & C1 consortium.


– Now the NIC along with PWC and C1 can go to any state/central/PSU and deploy eProcurement project to enhance transparency (??). however there is no transparency in the NIC’s Procement itself?

Now eGovINDIA Group questions are:

Can NIC Put a wrong Qualification criteria to prevent their own sister concern ITI Limited and do not respond to the representation made by ITI Limited?</ SPAN> Can a consultant (PWC) become the supplier (PWC & C1 consortium)? When a consultant (PWC) recommends some company (C1 ) for the award (in GOAP), can the consultant (PWC) join with the same company (PWC) for another project (NIC) as supplier. http://\nwww.c1india.com/partners/partners.html#) http:// http://www.c1india.com/partners/partners.html#)

Interstingly PWC (Consultant of GOAP project) is also a deployment partner of the C1 (Visit

Posted in eProcurement issues | Leave a Comment »

CVC calls for transparency in procurement process

Posted by egovindia on August 6, 2006

CVC calls for transparency in procurement process

Hyderabad, Aug 4: Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), P Shanker, today said strict adherence to procurement procedures and transparency in tendering process were key to prevent corruption in the goverment and PSU departments.

Delivering the inaugural address at a one-day seminar here on ‘onwards effective vigilance’, organised by Vigilance Study Circle of Hyderabad, Shanker said by diligently following the systems and strengthening procedures in procurement, India can improve its standing in the corruption perception index.

“We should strike a balance between achieving targets and taking care of public money by having sufficient checks and balances,” he said.

The seminar was attended by CEOs of PSUs, Chief Vigilance Officers and vigilance officals of various PSUs and government organisations.

Posted in eProcurement issues | Leave a Comment »

eProcurement Case Background

Posted by egovindia on June 27, 2006

 eProcurement Case Background

1. October 2000
Information Technology Act 2000 was passed. Use of 128 Bit SSL & Digital
Certificate made mandatory for ecommerce activities. As per IT ACT 2000 for
any electronic document to be legally valid, it should be digitally signed by
Digital Certificate issued by any Liscensed Certifyign Agency (CA) approve by
Controller of Certifying Agency (CCA).

2. September 2001
Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) Core implementation committee was
formed to implement eProcurement and PWC (Price water house coopers was
appointed as consultant). They were paid Rs. 1.75 Cr for 5 projects, approx Rs. 35Lakh/Project as consultancy fee. Ref. pwc hired as consultant.pdf.

3. Feb 2002
CCA granted license to Safescrypt on 5th February, 2002, India’s first CA.
SAFESCRYPT Ltd, a Satyam Infoway company affiliated with VeriSign Inc,
issued the country’s first digital signature certificate to the Minister for
Communications and IT & Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Pramod Mahajan, at an
official ceremony here on Wednesday.
SafeScrypt is the first Indian company to get a certifying authority licence for
digital signature from the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA). The
company received this licence earlier this week.

4. In Feb 2002,
Department of Public Relation, Madhya Pradesh floated a tender for eTendering,
eProcurement which categorically specified that IT ACT 2000 needs to be
complied and Digital Certificate/SSL/PKI should be used to ensure secrecy of
price bid. No MNC consultant appointed to draft tender document. 5 Companies
participate in the same including Applitech Tenercity.com I Pvt. Ltd (Tendercity),
NexTenders, ITI/Antares, CNet, etc.

5. May 2002
Sometime in May 2002, GoAP floated a Tender for eProcurement software more
specifically eTendering and Reverse Auction engine by Govt. of AP. No mention
of PKI/SSL/Digital Certificate � what was Rs. 35 Lakh paid to then to PWC?

6. Mid 2002
Out of many bidders who had submitted the tender a consortium comprising of
C1 India Pvt. Ltd., Microsoft & Antares System Ltd & Compaq had submitted the
bid. Other bidders included companies like Wipro and consortium of Boradvision
and TCS. Consortium head by C1 India Pvt. Ltd (C1) won the tender. GoAP
approves rate of Rs.4500/Tender (GoAP Pays) & 0.24% of the Tender Value
(winning bidder pays to C1 India Directly)

7. In June 2002,
GoAP enters into a secret agreement with C1 India to do a pilot project and not
the consortium which had won the contract? WHY?

8. On 29 th Jan 2003,
www.eprocurement.gov.in launched without compliance to IT ACT 2000, Digital
Certificate, PKI. GoAP gives lame excuse that since Digital Certificates are not
available, hence the same was not integrated in spite of the fact that first Digital
Certificate was issued to Shri. Promod Mahajan as early as Feb 2002.
What started as a Pilot Project for nine months, gets extended for another 9
month unilaterally in spite of the fact that system did not comply to IT ACT
2000.

9. Jan 2003
C1 India gets a 128 bit SSL Certificate from Verisign for
www.eprocurement.gov.in domain? WHY?
1.) .gov.in domain belongs to only government organizations, how come the same was issued to a private company.
2.) 128 Bit SSL was procured from a US Company, whereas IT Act mandates that it should be procured only from liscensed CA. Why was the same not procured from TCS, Safescrypt.
3.) TCS, Safescrypt would have never issued a 128 Bit SSL certificate to C1 India Pvt. Ltd, as .gov.in domain belongs to only Govt. departments. A US company issued the same without any verification, because they were interested in dollars.

10. March 2003
PWD, Chhattisgarh floats a tender for eTendering with Department of Public
Relations, Madhya Pradesh specifications.
Tendercity, C1 India, Wipro, Antares/ITI, Nex Tener & other 3 companies
participated in the tender. Tender gets awarded to NexTender, a mumbai based
company in spite of Tendercity Being the lowest Bidder.

11. April 2003
C1 quotes to PWD, Chhattisgarh Rs. 1000/Tender as fix service charge
irrespective of Tender Value & No fee to be paid by PWD, Chhattisgarh?
Tendercity shares the same information with GoAP. GoAP calls for a steering
committee and yet no action is taken to revise fee being paid to C1 India i.e.
Rs. 4500/Tender (GoAP pays) & 0.24% of Tender Value (winning bidder pays)

12. July 2003
The first lawsuit under Indian cyber law, Antares Systems Ltd, the Bangalore-
based IT firm, has filed a case against an e-governance project in the Delhi High
Court for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and unfair
competition. The case has been filed against C1 India Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of
Nasdaq-listed CommerceOne. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Principal
Secretary, Department of IT and Communications, AP have been arraigned as
parties.
Antares has urged the Delhi HC that C1 India and the AP Government be
restrained from infringing its copyright in its e-tendering software product
Tenderwizard and from relying upon, in any manner whatsoever, the features of
Tenderwizard, said the company’s Senior Vice-President, Mr R. Kamath.

13. July 2003
India’s First Digitally Singed eTender was enabled by Tendercity for Madhya
Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd, Madhya Pradesh Electrictiy
Board, MP (MPPKVVCL, MPSEB,MP). 10 Digital Certificates (TCS) were
issued to contractors across India.

14. December, 2003
Northern Railway floats a Tender for eTendering. C1 India, Wipro/NexTender,
Antares, HCL, Tendercity Participated in the tender. Tender awarded to
HCL/Boradvision Consortium. Rate approved Less than Rs.1500/Tender. GoAP
takes no action and does not revise the service fee it pays to C1 India.

15. Feb 2004
Tendercity writes letter to IT Secretary, GoAP, and Principle Secretary GoAP and bring to their notice that PKI compliance is not there on eprocurement.gov.in and that the eTendering services available at a very competitive rates in open market. No Action taken by the GoAP Officers.

16. Mid 2004
On PWC recommendations, JV option was dropped (JV between eTendering
service provider and Government of AP) and eProcurement services was
continued to be used in ASP model
Why did PWD suggested not to go ahead with JV option? probably because in
case of JV Government of AP would have made a lot of money? Total fee
reimbursed by GoAP & Various Bidder to C1 India in last 3 years is in tune of
Crores of Rupees. If GoAP had procured the software, it would have costed
Rs. 0, because that what C1/PWC quoted to NIC, in December 2004 for
eTendering Software.

17. July 2004
GoAP steering committee meets in October, 2004. Price bid revised to as follows w.e.f. 1 st April 2004 as follows
– GoAP pays nothing � i.e. Rs. 4,500/Tender waived off
– For Tender<50 Cr � each participating bidder pays 0.04% of Tender value or
Rs.10,000/Tender as processing fee, which ever is higher.
– For Tender>50 Cr � each participating bidder pays 0.04% of Tender value or
Rs.25,000/Tender as processing fee, which ever is higher.
– Still the same is very very high compared to open market rates. GoAP Continues with C1 India, when the contract though an illegal contract.
– GoAP accepts non compliance of IT ACT 2002 and yet gives C1 India 6 month
period to make their product PKI enabled, by March 2005. Why, was the project
not scrapped in then and then itself till the PKI compliance was not complete.

18. December 2004
PWC Partners with C1 India for NIC tender for eTendering.
Having played a instrumental role in causing great exchequer loss of GoAP, by
recommending ASP Mode, C1 India reward PWC with partnership for NIC
Tender. C1 ditched PWC (presumably) by quoting Rs.0 as software price to
NIC.

19. 1st April 2005
Digital certificates made mandatory from April 2005. Digital certificate are used
only of Authentication purpose at time of Login. Only price bids are digitally
signed and leaving room for service provider to tamper with technical bids,
document uploaded, etc.

20. Mid 2005
Tendercity alleges of eProcurement scam in one of the reply it filed in Delhi
High Court. The same document is shared with various AP departments, but no
action is taken.

21. 24 thNovember 2005,
Tendercity demonstrate to IT Secretary Shri Narsing Roa, the loopholes and
security defects in www.eprocuremnet.gov.in in person in his chamber. IT
Secretary assures that proper action will be taken against the culprits.
Tendercity gets an invitation from HUDA for demonstration of security loopholes
in the system but the same is postponed by CE after a brief 5 minute meeting.
Reason for postponement not specified. Subsequent meeting doe not take place.

22. 3rdDecember, 2005
Tendercity demonstrates to Principle Secretary & MD APTS the security
loopholes in www.eprocuremnet.gov.in and ideal security features that should be
enabled. Principle Secretary IT&C promise to take the appropriate action.

23. 5th December, 2005
GoAP accepts vide their email dated 5 th December, 2005 that
1.) www.eprocurement.gov.in is property of GoAP
2.) GoAP sees no harm if a 128 Bit SSL Certificate has be procured from USA
instead from a licensed CA as per CCA norms and that too by C1 India. In
layman terms it means a private company owns www.eprocurement.gov.in
3.) GoAP accepts that till December 2005, price bid submitted by 10,000 of
contractors 9800 eTender enabled so far reached the server in readable fashion
without any encryption, but that OK. It’s public money and it can go down the
drain.
4.) GoAP accepts that only C1 India can access the Price bid of contractors, as
they are the system administrator and super Admin of the website. Since no
government office has access to database, and generally they are corrupt the
system is secure. As per GoAP, private company which has been given the
custody of Rs.32,000 Cr. worth of eTender price bid security are trustworthy and
walking gods.
5.) GoAP states that C1 India does not access the readable price bid of all
contractors that is there in Database, and which can be accessed by C1 India
anytime from anywhere. GoAP goes on record that since not a single case of
tampering has been raised, there is nothing wrong with present system and they
have full faith on C1 India. They have full faith on PWC, so what if they partner
with C1 India for other government departments.
6.) GoAP does not care about Antares software being illegally used, since the
matter is sub-judice.
7.) GoAP has accepted that the system was so insecure, that had they told the
contactors and public at large about the security loopholes, no contractor would
have submitted the bid and hence all contractors, public, government officers
were kept in dark about the security loophole.
8.) GoAP has accepted that Detached Signature and Server Side encryption are
international practice as per their MNC consultant PWC, so what if C1 India get
the privilege to access the price bid of each and every contractors.

24. 10 th December, 2005
To cover things up, IT Secretary gives a clean chit to Service provider � C1 India
by means of issuing unsigned certificate making a claim that there is nothing
wrong with the system.
__________________________________

 

Please read this article.

The E-governance Muddle

http://www.dqindia.com/content/search/showarticle.asp?artid=74532

What was expected to bring transparency in government transactions has got mired in a slew of allegations. Dataquest probes the charges made by an IAS officer against his own clan…

Shubhendu Parth
Friday, September 02, 2005

If any of you need any more information, please write to me.

Thanks

Sincereley

V. M. Kumaraswamy, MBA

Posted in eProcurement issues | 1 Comment »

eProcurement Case Background // Govt. of Chattisgarah and Govt. of Karnataka need to watch // FRAUD is going on eProcurement RFP’s of Govt. of Karnataka and Govt. of Chattisgarah // eGovernance Secretary of GOK is MISLEADING Ministers

Posted by egovindia on May 29, 2006

 Re: [eGovINDIA] eProcurement Case Background // Govt. of Chattisgarah and Govt. of Karnataka need to watch // FRAUD is going on eProcurement RFP's of Govt. of Karnataka and Govt. of Chattisgarah // eGovernance Secretary of GOK is MISLEADING Ministers

WHAT WE ALL NEED TO KNOW about the eProcurement RFP's and TENDER Documents.NISG is CORRUPTING eGovernance in INDIA.

NISG has been reported to UNDP for not following TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY and Right to Information Act 2005 and now UNDP has initiated INVESTIGATIONS on NISG.

NISG and eGovernance Secretaries of each State are hand in hand to select the eProcurement Companies by RFP and TENDER documents to suit particular bidders.

They are trying to eliminate companies which are all ready doing business of eProcurement in diferent states in INDIA by setting HIGH TURN OVER AMOUNTS for the last THREE YEARS in the RFP and TENDER documents.

eProcurement VENDORS should not be setting up DATA CENTERS of GOK and GOC. This should be stopped. It is the STATE's responsibility.

FRAUD, DECEPTION, CHEATING going on in eProcurement RFP's of Govt. of Karnatka "GOK" and Govt. of Chattisgarah "GOC".

EVEN the NEW RFP's and TENDER DOCUMENTS of GOK and GOC are DOCTORED to suit particular companies. RFP's promoting SINGLE VENDOR. The company which is being promoted does not have good presence and name in the open market.

eProcurement Case Background

1. October 2000
Information Technology Act 2000 was passed. Use of 128 Bit SSL & Digital
Certificate made mandatory for ecommerce activities. As per IT ACT 2000 for
any electronic document to be legally valid, it should be digitally signed by
Digital Certificate issued by any Liscensed Certifyign Agency (CA) approve by
Controller of Certifying Agency (CCA).

2. September 2001
Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) Core implementation committee was
formed to implement eProcurement and PWC (Price water house coopers was
appointed as consultant). They were paid Rs. 1.75 Cr for 5 projects, approx Rs. 35Lakh/Project as consultancy fee. Ref. pwc hired as consultant.pdf.

3. Feb 2002
CCA granted license to Safescrypt on 5th February, 2002, India's first CA.
SAFESCRYPT Ltd, a Satyam Infoway company affiliated with VeriSign Inc,
issued the country's first digital signature certificate to the Minister for
Communications and IT & Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Pramod Mahajan, at an
official ceremony here on Wednesday.
SafeScrypt is the first Indian company to get a certifying authority licence for
digital signature from the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA). The
company received this licence earlier this week.

4. In Feb 2002,
Department of Public Relation, Madhya Pradesh floated a tender for eTendering,
eProcurement which categorically specified that IT ACT 2000 needs to be
complied and Digital Certificate/SSL/PKI should be used to ensure secrecy of
price bid. No MNC consultant appointed to draft tender document. 5 Companies
participate in the same including Applitech Tenercity.com I Pvt. Ltd (Tendercity),
NexTenders, ITI/Antares, CNet, etc.

5. May 2002
Sometime in May 2002, GoAP floated a Tender for eProcurement software more
specifically eTendering and Reverse Auction engine by Govt. of AP. No mention
of PKI/SSL/Digital Certificate � what was Rs. 35 Lakh paid to then to PWC?

6. Mid 2002
Out of many bidders who had submitted the tender a consortium comprising of
C1 India Pvt. Ltd., Microsoft & Antares System Ltd & Compaq had submitted the
bid. Other bidders included companies like Wipro and consortium of Boradvision
and TCS. Consortium head by C1 India Pvt. Ltd (C1) won the tender. GoAP
approves rate of Rs.4500/Tender (GoAP Pays) & 0.24% of the Tender Value
(winning bidder pays to C1 India Directly)

7. In June 2002,
GoAP enters into a secret agreement with C1 India to do a pilot project and not
the consortium which had won the contract? WHY?

8. On 29 th Jan 2003,
www.eprocurement.gov.in launched without compliance to IT ACT 2000, Digital
Certificate, PKI. GoAP gives lame excuse that since Digital Certificates are not
available, hence the same was not integrated in spite of the fact that first Digital
Certificate was issued to Shri. Promod Mahajan as early as Feb 2002.
What started as a Pilot Project for nine months, gets extended for another 9
month unilaterally in spite of the fact that system did not comply to IT ACT
2000.

9. Jan 2003
C1 India gets a 128 bit SSL Certificate from Verisign for
www.eprocurement.gov.in domain? WHY?
1.) .gov.in domain belongs to only government organizations, how come the same was issued to a private company.
2.) 128 Bit SSL was procured from a US Company, whereas IT Act mandates that it should be procured only from liscensed CA. Why was the same not procured from TCS, Safescrypt.
3.) TCS, Safescrypt would have never issued a 128 Bit SSL certificate to C1 India Pvt. Ltd, as .gov.in domain belongs to only Govt. departments. A US company issued the same without any verification, because they were interested in dollars.

10. March 2003
PWD, Chhattisgarh floats a tender for eTendering with Department of Public
Relations, Madhya Pradesh specifications.
Tendercity, C1 India, Wipro, Antares/ITI, Nex Tener & other 3 companies
participated in the tender. Tender gets awarded to NexTender, a mumbai based
company in spite of Tendercity Being the lowest Bidder.

11. April 2003
C1 quotes to PWD, Chhattisgarh Rs. 1000/Tender as fix service charge
irrespective of Tender Value & No fee to be paid by PWD, Chhattisgarh?
Tendercity shares the same information with GoAP. GoAP calls for a steering
committee and yet no action is taken to revise fee being paid to C1 India i.e.
Rs. 4500/Tender (GoAP pays) & 0.24% of Tender Value (winning bidder pays)

12. July 2003
The first lawsuit under Indian cyber law, Antares Systems Ltd, the Bangalore-
based IT firm, has filed a case against an e-governance project in the Delhi High
Court for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and unfair
competition. The case has been filed against C1 India Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of
Nasdaq-listed CommerceOne. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Principal
Secretary, Department of IT and Communications, AP have been arraigned as
parties.
Antares has urged the Delhi HC that C1 India and the AP Government be
restrained from infringing its copyright in its e-tendering software product
Tenderwizard and from relying upon, in any manner whatsoever, the features of
Tenderwizard, said the company's Senior Vice-President, Mr R. Kamath.

13. July 2003
India's First Digitally Singed eTender was enabled by Tendercity for Madhya
Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd, Madhya Pradesh Electrictiy
Board, MP (MPPKVVCL, MPSEB,MP). 10 Digital Certificates (TCS) were
issued to contractors across India.

14. December, 2003
Northern Railway floats a Tender for eTendering. C1 India, Wipro/NexTender,
Antares, HCL, Tendercity Participated in the tender. Tender awarded to
HCL/Boradvision Consortium. Rate approved Less than Rs.1500/Tender. GoAP
takes no action and does not revise the service fee it pays to C1 India.

15. Feb 2004
Tendercity writes letter to IT Secretary, GoAP, and Principle Secretary GoAP and bring to their notice that PKI compliance is not there on eprocurement.gov.in and that the eTendering services available at a very competitive rates in open market. No Action taken by the GoAP Officers.

16. Mid 2004
On PWC recommendations, JV option was dropped (JV between eTendering
service provider and Government of AP) and eProcurement services was
continued to be used in ASP model
Why did PWD suggested not to go ahead with JV option? probably because in
case of JV Government of AP would have made a lot of money? Total fee
reimbursed by GoAP & Various Bidder to C1 India in last 3 years is in tune of
Crores of Rupees. If GoAP had procured the software, it would have costed
Rs. 0, because that what C1/PWC quoted to NIC, in December 2004 for
eTendering Software.

17. July 2004
GoAP steering committee meets in October, 2004. Price bid revised to as follows w.e.f. 1 st April 2004 as follows
– GoAP pays nothing � i.e. Rs. 4,500/Tender waived off
– For Tender<50 Cr � each participating bidder pays 0.04% of Tender value or
Rs.10,000/Tender as processing fee, which ever is higher.
– For Tender>50 Cr � each participating bidder pays 0.04% of Tender value or
Rs.25,000/Tender as processing fee, which ever is higher.
– Still the same is very very high compared to open market rates. GoAP Continues with C1 India, when the contract though an illegal contract.
– GoAP accepts non compliance of IT ACT 2002 and yet gives C1 India 6 month
period to make their product PKI enabled, by March 2005. Why, was the project
not scrapped in then and then itself till the PKI compliance was not complete.

18. December 2004
PWC Partners with C1 India for NIC tender for eTendering.
Having played a instrumental role in causing great exchequer loss of GoAP, by
recommending ASP Mode, C1 India reward PWC with partnership for NIC
Tender. C1 ditched PWC (presumably) by quoting Rs.0 as software price to
NIC.

19. 1st April 2005
Digital certificates made mandatory from April 2005. Digital certificate are used
only of Authentication purpose at time of Login. Only price bids are digitally
signed and leaving room for service provider to tamper with technical bids,
document uploaded, etc.

20. Mid 2005
Tendercity alleges of eProcurement scam in one of the reply it filed in Delhi
High Court. The same document is shared with various AP departments, but no
action is taken.

21. 24 thNovember 2005,
Tendercity demonstrate to IT Secretary Shri Narsing Roa, the loopholes and
security defects in www.eprocuremnet.gov.in in person in his chamber. IT
Secretary assures that proper action will be taken against the culprits.
Tendercity gets an invitation from HUDA for demonstration of security loopholes
in the system but the same is postponed by CE after a brief 5 minute meeting.
Reason for postponement not specified. Subsequent meeting doe not take place.

22. 3rdDecember, 2005
Tendercity demonstrates to Principle Secretary & MD APTS the security
loopholes in www.eprocuremnet.gov.in and ideal security features that should be
enabled. Principle Secretary IT&C promise to take the appropriate action.

23. 5th December, 2005
GoAP accepts vide their email dated 5 th December, 2005 that
1.) www.eprocurement.gov.in is property of GoAP
2.) GoAP sees no harm if a 128 Bit SSL Certificate has be procured from USA
instead from a licensed CA as per CCA norms and that too by C1 India. In
layman terms it means a private company owns www.eprocurement.gov.in
3.) GoAP accepts that till December 2005, price bid submitted by 10,000 of
contractors 9800 eTender enabled so far reached the server in readable fashion
without any encryption, but that OK. It's public money and it can go down the
drain.
4.) GoAP accepts that only C1 India can access the Price bid of contractors, as
they are the system administrator and super Admin of the website. Since no
government office has access to database, and generally they are corrupt the
system is secure. As per GoAP, private company which has been given the
custody of Rs.32,000 Cr. worth of eTender price bid security are trustworthy and
walking gods.
5.) GoAP states that C1 India does not access the readable price bid of all
contractors that is there in Database, and which can be accessed by C1 India
anytime from anywhere. GoAP goes on record that since not a single case of
tampering has been raised, there is nothing wrong with present system and they
have full faith on C1 India. They have full faith on PWC, so what if they partner
with C1 India for other government departments.
6.) GoAP does not care about Antares software being illegally used, since the
matter is sub-judice.
7.) GoAP has accepted that the system was so insecure, that had they told the
contactors and public at large about the security loopholes, no contractor would
have submitted the bid and hence all contractors, public, government officers
were kept in dark about the security loophole.
8.) GoAP has accepted that Detached Signature and Server Side encryption are
international practice as per their MNC consultant PWC, so what if C1 India get
the privilege to access the price bid of each and every contractors.

24. 10 th December, 2005
To cover things up, IT Secretary gives a clean chit to Service provider � C1 India
by means of issuing unsigned certificate making a claim that there is nothing
wrong with the system.
__________________________________

Please read this article.

The E-governance Muddlehttp://www.dqindia.com/content/search/showarticle.asp?artid=74532
What was expected to bring transparency in government transactions has got mired in a slew of allegations. Dataquest probes the charges made by an IAS officer against his own clan…Shubhendu Parth
Friday, September 02, 2005

If any of you need any more information, please write to me.

Thanks

Sincereley

V. M. Kumaraswamy, MBA

Posted in eProcurement issues | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.