Kamal Uddin Ahmed is working as a supervising engineer at the Agrabad Electricity Office in Chittagong.

According to the complaint, the Electricity Department invited tenders for the appointment of guards to look after all the installations in the southern region. Due to various clerical errors, the same tender was invited as a re-tender more than twice and a circular was published in the newspaper.

The complaint arose and the engineer got the job done to his preferred contractor by ignoring the conditions of the re-tender, PSN 2019 and PPR 2008 rules 61(4) and 64(5) by the ministry.

Janani security , Country security , JS security & Munshi security were filled written complained to higher Authority including ACC.

A complainant company told The Daily Morning Glory reporter —

“My company has been working/supplying security guards to the Power Development Board for the past 15 years with good reputation.
My company is also working at present. On 13-3-25, the 3rd re-tender was opened for the supply of manpower from the office of Pa: & Sa: Circle Chatto: Metro: East BPDB Chittagong.

The 1st and 2nd times, the ministry on page no. 60 of PSN 2019 made a mistake in the original quotation by adding Pa: and Sa: Circle Chatto: Metro: East PDB Chittagong.

Now, despite the same mistake in the 3rd re-tender, the work has been awarded to the preferred contractor.

The contract with my company is till 17-3-2025. The contract period of my company How is Ocean Security given the responsibility even after 17-3-25…?

Although the 3rd re-tender condition-6 required the guards to submit their CVs and experience certificates along with the quotation, it was alleged that the company called Ocean Security was using people from my company to do the work.

The 3rd re-tender time limit was 8 days, which is against the rules as per rules 61(4) and 64(5) of PPR 2008.

Although column 6 of the original quotation of PSN 2019 was mentioned to be filled by the PE, it was not filled as per the rules and the note column of the original copy of the ministry was not filled completely by the PE. They wrote the original quotation in external words and attached a note, which is inconsistent with the original quotation.

ITT Section 102 (3-4) and 102 and Schedule 3 Rule 8 (14) have been given in an external manner (copy attached). Although the time limit for acceptance of work order and NOHA is mentioned in the PPR as minimum 7 working days and the time limit for acceptance of work order is 14 working days, work has been given on the same day to achieve personal interests. Work is being given to the contractor of their choice without following the PPR.

On the spot, it is seen that many of these newly appointed guards are currently above 50 years of age.

A glaring example of the violation of the rules is the currently working guards, because how can a guard working in one organization change clothes overnight and become a guard in another organization? Where as per the rules, the resume is supposed to be verified and submitted to the engineer.

However, Engineer Kamal Uddin Ahmed dismissed these allegations as baseless.

Several contracting companies have written to the Chief Engineer in this regard.

Despite repeated messages to the Chief Engineer on his mobile phone, he has not been contacted to know what action will be taken against Engineer Kamal Uddin for approving the illegal tender.