Fwd: Facade Painting

[Karan Kartikey Singh]

Shocking facts regarding facade painting contract award! Some of you may have seen in other groups, forwarding here for everyone's benefit.

Thanks!

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jai Karan Singh <singh_...@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:50 PM
Subject: Facade Painting
To: vcaoa....@gmail.com <vcaoa....@gmail.com>, Microsoft Account <grp...@yahoo.co.in>, Jasmeet <jasmeetsi...@hdfcbank.com>, jatinder guliani <jatinde...@gmail.com>, satbirvatika <satbir...@hotmail.com>, Indraneel Chatterjee <indra...@gmail.com>, Kumar Sinha <kautily...@rediffmail.com>, Partha N. Mukherji <partha....@gmail.com>, Sanjay Jain <sanjay...@gmail.com>, vinit bhasin <vinit...@hotmail.com>, Vishika Gupta <vish...@gmail.com>, Vatikans United <vatikan...@gmail.com>, enviro inxt head <kamles...@vatikagroup.com>, DGM Residential <skm...@vatikagroup.com>, Vatika City <vatik...@vatikagroup.com>, VATIKA RWA <vcra.g...@yahoo.com>, Aptbuyersvatikacityggn <aptbuyersva...@yahoogroups.com>, Narinder Juneja <narinde...@gmail.com>, Vatika Service Cell <clientse...@vatikagroup.com>, gulshan...@gmail.com <gulshan...@gmail.com>, shekha...@vatikagroup.com <shekha...@vatikagroup.com>, sovereig...@googlegroups.com <sovereig...@googlegroups.com>, Karan Kartikey Singh <kkartik...@gmail.com>, H. S. Bhatia Imilia I/23 <hsing...@yahoo.co.in>, richav...@gmail.com <richav...@gmail.com>, reacht...@yahoo.com <reacht...@yahoo.com>, skga...@gmail.com <skga...@gmail.com>, sarins...@gmail.com <sarins...@gmail.com>, pandeys...@gmail.com <pandeys...@gmail.com>, tnb_...@yahoo.com <tnb_...@yahoo.com>, sharatma...@yahoo.com <sharatma...@yahoo.com>, munish...@ascendas.com <munish...@ascendas.com>, sarvans...@gmail.com <sarvans...@gmail.com>, mada...@gmail.com <mada...@gmail.com>, rp.w...@gmail.com <rp.w...@gmail.com>, pushpa...@gmail.com <pushpa...@gmail.com>, vicm...@ntlworld.com <vicm...@ntlworld.com>, tyagi.s...@gmail.com <tyagi.s...@gmail.com>

Dear Fellow Vatikans,                                                                                                                                                  Date: 30.6.2017

I wish to bring certain shocking facts to your notice concerning to award of façade painting contract in the society.

On May 01, 2016 a comparative statement of 03 venders (Attachment - 1) was sent by Mr Vinit Bhasin, Chairman of the committee constituted by the RWA, to Mr Shekhar Bajpai, Vatika Developers Ltd with a note, I reproduce, “Please find attached the final quotes received from Nerolac/Asian/Dulux and their consolidated comparison. Dulux seems to have the best Applicator partner (Nine Projects) and also product quality seems to be the best, but they are presently at L3.”

On May 02, Mr. Shekhar writes to Mr. Vinit asking about the contact person to be contacted, I quote, “Please provide me the contact details of the person with whom you are in touch.”

Fact 1: The above note clearly indicates the predetermined intention to award the contract to DULUX by hook or cook, so what even if its rates are highest (at L3 position) among the bidders. Appears to be a historical decision!

Further we could lay our hands on a very pertinent mail note, written by Mr Shekhar Bajpai to Mr Vinit Bhasin on September 29, 2016, I quote “I had got the final quotes both from Asian Paints and Dulux. Our findings are that Asian Paints is L1 and Dulux is L2. The difference in both the parties is (with 7 years Guarantee) Rs 40,64,050/- which means every resident has to shell Rs 2980/- more if we go with Dulux. Secondly I am attaching the final quotes of Dulux and Asian along with this mail which is for 7, 8 &10 years warranty and all the rates are lesser than what Dulux had quoted for 7 years guarantee. So please see both the quotes and advise how to proceed further.”

Fact 2: This very clearly speaks that the rates of Asian Paints for the same and even better quality paint and more warranty period, the total cost of complete façade painting work was much lower than Dulux’s cost, resulting in a huge difference to the tune of Rs 40,64,050/-. It’s not known as to what transpired in between, after the above mail, but the final contract has been awarded to Dulux / Nine Projects, perhaps based on the comparative statement provided to us (Attachment-2). This amply proves that all sorts of manipulations have been done to ensure award to the undeserving party.

Fortunately, we have also been provided the final quoted rates of Dulux and Asian paints (Attachments - 3&4). We also learnt that Asian Paints submitted its rates on September 27, 2016, but have no information about the rates of Dulux, submitted before Mr Bajpai’s above mail of September 29, 2016 to Mr Bhasin.

However, on scanning the above documents, the findings reveal manipulative, unjustified and untenable activities of very serious nature, and bad in the eyes of law, have gone into awarding the above contract and raises many questions on transparency, equity and accountability in the whole process.

1.      In the final comparative statement, rates of Dulux for 07 years paint life have been compared with rates of Asian paints for 08 year of paint life, which clearly violets the principles of equality.

2.      At sl No. 6 of the statement (Attachment-2), one can see that for this item (2 coats of superior Enamel) of 2,25,000 sq. ft., the amounts/costs mentioned for Dulux and Asian Paints are respectively Rs 0.0 at 0.0 rate and Rs 16,65,000/- at Rs 7.40/- rate; a huge difference, which is unjustifiable from any angle and leaves two basic questions to ponder, that are, either the above work is not required at all or this is a manipulation of a high degree to make total cost by Dulux comparable to that of Asian Paints. Both the situations are baffling and capable of stirring the minds of Vatikans.

3.      We are aware that there are number of metallic gadgets in basements which are needed to be painted and as such, these can not be excluded from façade painting scope. Therefore, it can be easily presumed that all basement metallic gadgets are included or covered under sl.no. 4 (Metallic) of the attachment-2, constituting an area of 2,87,249.93 sq. ft. As such, the description of work and the associated cost therein under sl.no. 6 of the comparative statement (attachment- 2) is totally redundant, and that has to be same for both the parties. If that is the case then the total cost for Asian Paints, leaving aside the Gandola’s hiring charges, comes out to be Rs 4,42,60,487.75/- and Rs 4,48,66,895.59/-  respectively for 7 and 8 years of paint life, far less than the current cost of the contract (Rs 4,86,75757.74/-). Since the award is for 7 years of paint life, the saving is to the tune of Rs 44,15,270/- (without any Tax), if the award was given to the Asian Paints.

4.      However, it is surprising to note that even with so much difference, all unwarranted efforts were made to bring the Dulux at L1 position by including cost of item at sl.no. 6, Rs 16,65,000/- and the hiring charges of Rs. 7,00,000/- for Gandola for Asian Paints, for which they  never quoted at all. Thus, this amounts a very unfair and unethical practice with ulterior motives and bad in the eyes of law.

5.      Surprisingly, nowhere in the final work order or in any of the documents in public domain, the paint life, that is, paint guaranty period has been mentioned. However, it is implied that the paint life is 7 years, because the chosen rates from Dulux’s final quotes (Attachment-3) are for 07 years paint life. It is puzzling, as to what made the contract awarding authority/body/unit of Vatika/Vatika City for choosing 07 years life of Dulux paint, when the 08 years paint life was available at a much lower cost by Asian Paints.

This amounts a clear breach of trust, the vaticans had placed on Vatika/Enviro and their elected representatives, RWA/ VCAOA.

6.      I further, wish to emphasize that Gandolas’ use is limited mainly to major repair works in very high rise buildings and are very rarely used for façade painting because of complexities involved  in their use in vertical surfaces with lots of balconies and other projections. But we fail to understand as to why the Gandola has been hired for a huge sum of Rs 7,00,000/-, while a brand new Gandola is available in the market for Rs. 2,90,000/- only (Please see the Attachment -5; rates negotiable). Here I would like to further emphasize that even if its use was necessary then it could have been hired for a month or so, get all identified major repair works attended and finished and let the façade painting work is completed by other means normally used, that is, JHULA with brushes or sprayers. You will be shocked to learn that monthly hire charges for a Gandola varies from Rs. 32000/- to 38000/-. (Attachment – 6; rates negotiable)

This makes us amply clear that this senseless and wasteful expense has been thrusted on the residents with sheer ulterior intentions of some individuals.

Dear Vatikans, I request you to please read the above text, which I have tried to put in right perspective to my ability, try to understand its intentions in depth without any prejudice, and join us, “Vatikans for Justice”, in unearthing all wrong doings and the person(s)/culprit(s) associated with, in awarding this very contract of Façade Painting and jeopardising our trust. In case, anyone of you desires any clarification, you are welcome. Someone of us will always be willingly available with related documents in possession to address to your queries and clarifications in person please.

We also would like to make it clear that façade painting work and unearthing of manipulation, wrong doings and corruption, if any, associated with it, can go hand in hand without affecting either of the two. That is, investigations can be carried out without stopping the ongoing painting work in the society, if you cooperate please.

Further, I would also like to bring the contents of the letter, written a couple of days back, to Enviro for your consumption and I am sure, this will make things clearer in establishing the wrong doings in the whole process. The reply from the Enviro is still awaited. The contents are reproduced below.

Jai Karan Singh <singh_...@yahoo.co.in>

To: Enviro Inxt Head

CC: VCAOA Microsoft Account Shoorvir Tyagi Narinder Juneja A.K Sareen and 4 more...

25 Jun at 11:23 AM

 

Dear Mr Kamlesh,

At the outset, I would like to thank you for organizing a meeting with Mr Shekhar Bajpai, Vatika Developers PVt Ltd and others to address certain concerns of residents pertaining to ongoing façade painting in the society and also making some related papers/documents available to us.

Residents present		Enviro/Vatika
1	Dr. J K Singh	1	Mr. Kamlesh Kumar
2	Dr.  S V S Tyagi	2	Mr. Shekhar Bajpai
3	Mr. A K Sareen	3	Mr. Shailendra Singh
4	Mr. H S Bhatia	4	Mr. Rajvir Bharadwaj
5	Mr. Tanmay Ray Chaudhury	5	Others
6	Mr. Narinder Juneja

 

During the meeting, the following questions/ concerns were raised:

1.    What were the terms and conditions as sent by Vatika / RWA for the initial quotation?

2.    Copies of quotations pertaining to all vendors with the dates were required / requested. 

3.    Why was the L3, highest bidder vendor (Dulux) preferred over the others placed at L1 and L2 positions?

4.    What were the criterion and at what stage the vendors placed at L1 (Nerolac) and L2 (Asian paints) were rejected?

5.    Who has calculated the area of the painting and repair? Has it been done by Enviro/Vatika or by the vendor(s)?

6.    What if the two paint vendors/applicators, assuring of same quality job, were opted to finish the job in a shorter period?

7.    Is it possible to negotiate the rates downwards now?

8.   Why are we paying extra charges for the Gandola? Do we really need it? We didn’t find it in use in any of the      condominiums in surroundings for façade painting works.

9.    Where does the final project responsibility lie? Is it with Enviro or RWA?

10. At what stage of negotiations the additional 11 items were included in the scope?

11. Was the equal opportunity was given to all selected venders to bid their rates after inclusion of these 11 additional  items?

12. Detail of area and cost involved in painting of these 11 items, individually is required.

 [Since, now Vatika/Enviro claim that most of these additional items are exempted, this becomes more essential to ascertain as to how much reduction in cost has gone to the residents’ benefit due to this exemption. Because the concerned vender/applicator is not here for social services and therefore, this has to be certainly for a cost.]

13. Copies of all emails exchanged between Vatika and RWA. This will help us to clearly establish timelines and collate documents accordingly.

14. A copy of the performance bank guarantee and penalty clause.

15. Clarification on the double taxation.

Mr Bajpai tried to address our concerns, as above, to the best of his ability, but sorry to say that most of the queries remained answered unsatisfactory, excepting at sl no.15 by Mr. Sudhir, Enviro. It is therefore, felt that an item wise written reply from the Enviro will be of immense value.

The objective here is to satisfy the various questions being raised by residents at different forums, by bringing the details of façade painting contract in public domain. Once we get written response from Enviro/Vatika, we will create a detailed file, which will have documentary evidence to all our concerns related to façade painting.

We look forward to your continued support on this matter please.

Nowadays, an email from Asian Paints, forwarded to me by a member, is in public domain, which also clearly corroborates our analysis in that respect.

Warm regards,

Dr JK Singh

 

 

Prof. J K Singh

Former Director, DIT School of Engineering, Greater Noida, U.P.
Former Dean, Post Graduate Studies,

G.B.Pant University of Agric.& Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand

 

Mob: +91-9711995408; Tel: +91-124-4385308
Alternative E-mail: jksin...@rediffmail.com

--

Thanks, Karan Kartikey Singh Sent from my iPhone