Kochi: In a bid to shift focus back to the controversy sorrounding the installation of AI-enabled traffic surveillance cameras in Kerala, opposition leader V D Satheesan on Sunday alleged the tender for the project was allotted flouting guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

Challenging Industries and Law Minister P Rajeeve's explanation that the Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (Keltron) followed all CVC guidelines while issuing the tender, Satheesan said the very formation of a cartel for bidding was against the central agency's norms. The Congress leader said the formation of the cartel was done with the knowledge of Keltron.

Ever since it first raised the allegation, the Congress-led opposition has been maintaining that SRIT India Private Ltd won the bid for the multi-crore project by forming a cartel with two other companies it was associated with earlier. It means the companies allegedly fixed the bidding amount in advance instead of competing with each other.

"The two companies -- Ashoka Buildcon and Akshara Enterprises -- that participated in the tender procedures along with SRIT have a history of working with it. Ashoka Buildcon which turned out to be the L2 bidder (the company that quoted the second lowest cost) had won a sub-contract from SRIT for the state government's K-FON project. SRIT, in a document submitted to Keltron, has stated that it has associated with Akshara for some projects in Andhra Pradesh. The documents state that SRIT formed a consortium with Akshara for the emergency response centre project in Andhra Pradesh. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the two companies have been working with SRIT. What remains to be known is why did Keltron turn a blind eye to the rule violation. Does the law minister mean to say the act of winning the bid by forming a cartel complied with CVC rules?" wondered Satheesan.

Satheesan said Akshara was allowed to participate in the tender procedures illegally.

"How could a company that was started in 2017 be allowed to participate in the tender process when it was required that the participants should have a minimum of 10 years of experience? The law minister has given a strange answer to this question. The minister says the company has been functioning since 2010. Doesn't the minister know that a company could be registered only based on the Companies Act of 1956 or 2013? As per the data on the Union Corporate Ministry's website, the firm was registered in 2017. The minister is spreading false information based on some random letter submitted by the company," the opposition leader said.

Satheesan reiterated the allegation that the tender was allotted in violation of tender guidelines. "According to the tender document, the tender should be given to an 'original equipment manufacturer' (OEM) or an authorised vendor of the OEM who is financially and technologically competent. SRIT is neither of them," he said.

Citing a clause in the tender document issued by Keltron, Satheesan challenged Minister Rajeeve's argument that there was nothing wrong in subcontracting the works. "According to Keltron’s tender document, important works including 'data security, data integrity, the configuration of the equipment and facility management' should not be subcontracted. When these conditions are specified in the tender document, it means that the above works are included in the contract awarded to SRIT, and they are not to be subcontracted. But SRIT has subcontracted all the works awarded to it by Keltron. Is it legal?" Satheesan asked.

He went on further to question the minister's claim that Keltron need not be aware of subcontracting by the company which wins the bid. "According to the tender document, 'the bidder in its technical document shall provide the list of services planned to be subcontracted. The subcontractor shall not be entertained for core activities like data security, data integrity, configuration of the equipment and facility management. The bidder should give the list of subcontracting companies' names and other details if any. Keltron reserves the right to approve or disapprove.' Had the minister gone through the document, he would not have made such a claim," Satheesan said.

"If Keltron was not supposed to know about the subcontracting, why did the names of firms such as Al-Hind and Presadio appear in the contract with SRIT? Through this sub-contract, Keltron has helped Presadio, which has not made any investment, avail bank loans," he said.

He repeated his challenge to the chief minister to state in public that he did not have any connection with Presadio. It is alleged that CM Pinarayi Vijayan's son's father-in-law is behind the company.

Satheesan said the Industries department principal secretary Mohammed Haneesh was coerced to write a report which gives a clean chit to the government in the deals. "When the report was not given, he was transferred to the revenue department and then to the health department. Once the report was submitted, he was reinstated to the Industries department. This is unheard of. No matter how long the chief minister remains silent, he will have to answer all these," Satheesan said.

Citing the bureaucrat's inquiry report, Rajeeve had said that the controversy over the AI cameras was a closed chapter for the government.