Wednesday, March 2, 2016

How the Indian Railway Ministry fabricated false documents and evidence to cover up corruption by General Electric Company



Read the note below on how the Railway Ministry fabricated false documents and evidence to cover up corruption by General Electric Company. This note deals with the issue of PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma. Judges Valmiki Mehta and P S Teji have not even mentioned Vinod Sharma or any of this in their incorrect judgment which wrongly dismissed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012. I was not permitted by them to argue this case. Both the Manmohan Singh and the Narendra Modi Governments have conspired to cover up the corruption by General Electric and have been beneficiaries of this corruption.

General Electric engaged in a proscribed corrupt and undesirable practice by using the advisory and lobbying services of one Vinod Sharma for its bid for the 2010 Marhowra and Madhepura tenders and in doing so violated Clause 2.2.1 (d), Clause 4.1.3 a) and Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and was accordingly liable to be disqualified and blacklisted under Clause 4.1.2. This also amounted to a violation of the conflict of interest clause which was expressly proscribed by the RFQ. 

Amrit Pandurangi, ex-PwC
Vinod Sharma is a retired Indian Railways official who after retirement worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). PwC was appointed as consultant by the Railway Ministry in 2008 to prepare the bid documents for the Marhowra Project and to assist in bid evaluation and Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team.


Four elements are required to establish as to whether General Electric did commit this corrupt practice and whether it was liable to be disqualified and blacklisted.
i.                   Did Vinod Sharma work for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project?
ii.                 Did Vinod Sharma earlier act as an advisor to the Railway Ministry for the same Project?
iii.              Did these facts violate clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ which defined corrupt and undesirable practices and conflict of interest?  
iv.               What were the consequences prescribed by the RFQ for such violation? 

i.        Material and evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma worked for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project.
·        The Appellant in her writ petition described her meetings with Vinod Sharma in the GE office in May, June and July 2010 where Vinod Sharma’s gave his advice on the draft bid documents that the GE team had prepared for the Madhepura and Marhowra tenders and met Railway officials along with the GE team on several occasions.

·        The appellant also produced on record two internal GE emails referring to Vinod Sharma and his visits to the GE office. 

General Electric internal emails dated July 5, 2010 sent in connection with Mr. Vinod Sharma’s visit to the GE office. The first email was sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar at 8:17 am on July 5, 2010 with the subject “RFQ”. The email was sent to Mr. Ashish Malhotra, Mr. Gaurav Negi, Mr. Ashfaq Nainar, Ms. Praveena Yagnambhat, Mr. Ramesh Mathur and to the Appellant. It stated:
“Mr Sharma will be coming to AIFACS around 11 am to go through D-Loco RFQ submittal.”
Mr. Ramesh Mathur replied to this email at 8.20 a.m. and stated:
“We were planning for tomorrow. If he is coming today we will share work-in-progress. Thanks. Ramesh”
Mr. Pratyush Kumar replied to Mr. Ramesh Mathur at 8:22 am and stated:
“Earlier the better – can do another round. I DO NOT want things at the last moment.”
Copies of these three emails are part of the court record in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 in the Delhi High Court as part of Annexure P-7 to the Petition at page 219.


·        Even the unauthorised affidavit filed in the writ petition on behalf of General Electric confirmed that Vinod Sharma was working for GE in 2010 on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura tenders.

A “Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit” dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents (Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states on internal page 62:

“ … the Answering Respondents state that GE India did in fact enter into a written agreement to govern its relationship with Mr Sharma’s company, Essvee Consultants, effective August 11, 2009.”

Pratyush Kumar, ex-GE
Interestingly this affidavit disclosed that GE India had entered into a written contract with Vinod Sharma, through what the affidavit described as his “company” “Essvee Consultants” effective from 11 Aug 2009. However, a search of corporate records at the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has revealed that there exists no company registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with the name “Essvee Consultants”. There is no incorporated company in existence in India whose name begins with “Essvee Consultants”.

ii. Material and Evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008 and 2009 advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender
·        Internal Ministry of railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf and titled “Annexture_1_4.pdf” contains the following statement on the role of PwC as the consultant to the Indian Railways for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory tender:

“Ministry of Railways have appointed a Consultant M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers for advisory on setting up of new unit.
Final report for the first part, which is on strategy, has since been received and the consultant has been given a go-ahead for the second part of the report i.e. bid process management.
A final decision on Joint Venture will be taken based on the response in the bidding process.
Status on selection of developer for setting up new Manufacturing Units in Joint Venture:
Draft Agreements (Procurement contract, maintenance contract and shareholders’ agreement) approved by the Board(MM).
Legally vetted copy of final Land Lease agreement incorporating views of AM/Adviser’s Committee has been submitted by the Consultant (PWC) and put up to Board(ME) for approval.
Legally vetted copy of Procurement Contract has been received from the Consultant. Other draft agreements (Shareholders’ agreement and Maintenance Contract) are under legal vetting with the Consultlant.
Procurement Specialist for validating procurement contract hired by the Consultlant, has started work. Work likely to be completed in a week’s time.
After validation of Procurement Contract and legal vetting of draft agreements, final bid document (RFP) will be put up for approval by Board(MM, FC & CRB) and MR. Likely date of submission is 30-04-2008.
A fresh RFQ based on approval by Planning Commission will be issued shortly.
Further bid process will depnd on the reply to the reference made to the Ministry of Finance.
Bid process is likely to be completed by August, 2008.
The project is expected to be completed in about 2 to 2½ years after CCEA’s approval is obtained for going ahead with bidding process for Joint – Venture.”


·        An ADB document from November 2008 numbered T A 4998 (IND): Preparing the Railway Sector Investment Program Final Report – Efficiency Improvement. This document includes Mr. Vinod Sharma’s name as a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. This document appears to be a consultancy report prepared by PwC for the Ministry of Railways under ADB funding and includes advice on the Electric and Diesel Locomotive Tenders.” Copies of relevant extracts from this were annexed as Annexure P-3 to the Appellant’s rejoinder affidavit dated 9/7/2012 filed in WP Civil 1280/ 2012. This document establishes that in 2008, Mr Vinod Sharma was working for PricewaterhouseCoopers which was advising the Ministry of Railways on the bids for the diesel locomotive factory.

·        A news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint which stated “PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive bids.”

“Govt shortlists five MNCs for $8 bn Indian Railways orders
The firms will compete for deals to build and supply 660 electric locomotives and 1,000 diesel engines”
Rahul Chandran and K.P. Narayana Kumar

·        An article titled ‘Indian Railways: Steamrolling towards new horizons’ by Vineet Unnikrishnan published in the India Law Journal in the fourth quarter of 2008 described the engagement of PwC by the Indian Railways in these terms:

“PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a renowned professional consultancy company and Singhania & Partners, a distinguished legal firm are handling the financial and legal nitty-gritty’s respectively. These firms are currently in the course of preparing the details of the structure for some of the projects which includes the procedure of the entire bidding process, ownership shares, management, etc which will lay a foundation for future projects of a similar nature. The primary focus of the two firms is on the work related to the establishment of new mainline factories (NMF) and identifying and acknowledging the legal issues that can impact the said ventures, reviewing and preparing the requisite project and transaction documentation, conducting legal vetting, providing valuable advice legal questions in the management of the bidding process collection of significant legal data needed for the successful development of the factories and creation of inventive strategies to manage the bids and pick competent developers for the new factories.” See http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume1/issue_4/article_by_vineet.html


·        In its counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 the Railway Ministry first attempted to mislead the Court by stating that it “has never engaged Shri Vinod Sharma for any work in connection with the said tenders” referring to the 2010 tenders and thereby incorrectly implying that the prohibition on conflict of interest was in respect of the same tender and not the same Project. This was countered by the appellant in her response where it was pointed out that both Clause 2.2.1 (d) and Clause 4.1.3 (a) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ used the word Project.

·        Attempt by the Railway Ministry to mislead the Court by perjury and fabrication of false evidence in its affidavit dated 14 January 2013 filed in reply to CM 19501/ 2012.

·        In its affidavit dated 14 January 2013, the Ministry of Railways actually produced two patently fabricated letters which were used to make a false statement in the affidavit that Vinod Sharma did not advise the Ministry on the Marhowra Rail Project. Both these letters are reproduced and analysed below. This conduct by the Railway Ministry where it failed to honestly answer the question as to whether or not Vinod Sharma ever advised the Ministry on the Marhowra Project, and where instead the attempt was to lie based upon fabricated documents is by itself evidence and material sufficient to lead to the inference that the Railway Ministry is trying to hide the true facts. These documents establish that the Railway Ministry has tried to protect GE and to cover up its corrupt practice by deliberately misleading the Court on the point of Vinod Sharma. This conduct by the Railway Ministry it is submitted constitutes perjury and contempt of court and involves a criminal conspiracy to deceive the court and to fabricate false evidence.

·        Fabricated letter dated: 27.12.2012 addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Ltd. from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project) Railway Board filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD

No. 2012/M(W)/964/26                 New Delhi, Dated: 27.12.2012

Chairman-cum-Managing Director
RITES Ltd.
Gurgaon
Sub. Setting up of Diesel locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref. Writ Petition No. 1280/2012 in Delhi High Court.

A Writ Petition No. 1280/2012 has been filed in Delhi High Court against M/s General Electric Company and others in which Ministry of Railways is also one of the Respondents. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has raised certain issues related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers, who had been engaged by M/s RITES as consultant for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra. The contents of Writ Petition are posted on website of Delhi High Court.

You may kindly get the same examined and submit your comments by 31.12.12 positively as the same are to be discussed on 1,1.2013 with Counsel of Central Government for finalizing the Counter Affidavit. Concerned officers may discuss and seek any clarification on the matter with undersigned on 28.12.12.

Yours sincerely,

(G.K. Gupta)
Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project)
          Railway Board


·        Fabricated letter dated Dt. 7.1.2013 addressed to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.) Railway Board from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE at RITES filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013

RITES LTD                                                                   
(A Government of India Enterprise)
RW&IE DIVISION
2ndFloor, Centre Wing, RITES BHAWAN
PLOT No 1, Sector 29
Gurgaon- 122,001, Haryana, (India)
Telefax : +91(0124)2571627
No. 2012/RITES/RW&IE/DLF/Marhowra
Dt. 7.1.2013

Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.)
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi – 110001.

Dear Sir,
Sub:- Setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref:- Rly. Bd.’s letter no. 2012/M(W)/964/26 dt. 27.12.12

In reference to the above letter from Railway Board in regard to the writ petition no. 1280/2012 filed in Delhi High Court, the issues related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers raised by the petitioner have been examined and the comments of RITES are as under:-

i)Railway Board, vide letter no. 2006/Infra./PPP/Consultancy dt. 11.10.2006 (copy placed at Annexure-1) communicated to RITES that Railway Board has approved appointment of RITES for providing consultancy services to the Ministry of Railways to engage Consultancy firm for advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell.

ii) Accordingly, RITES went through with the process of engaging a consultancy form on behalf of the Ministry of Railways and issued Letter of Award dt. 2.3.2007 to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (PwC) – copy placed at Annexure-2 and signed an agreement dated 6.3.2007 as the Employer’s Representative on behalf of the Ministry of Railways (Employer) and M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (Consultant) – copy placed at Annexure-3.

iii)As regards the issue of Mr. Vinod Sharma raised by the petitioner, it is brought out that the relevant records have been checked and as per the Technical Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006, the Team Composition of PwC for the consultancy assignment mentioned in Para I above, was as under:-
S.No.
Name
Position
Technical/ Managerial Staff


1.
Amrit Pandurangi
Project Manager (Senior PPP Specialist)
2.
Latha Ramanathan
Financial Analyst
3.
Vishwas Udgirkar
Procurement Specialist
4.
Dipak Rao
Legal Specialist
5.
Rahul Garg
Tax Specialist
6.
Sarabjit Arjan Singh
Technology Expert (Passenger Coach)
7.
Harry Aghjayan
Technology Expert (Wheel)
8.
Claude Messier
Technology Expert (Diesel Locomotive)
9.
Raymond Booth
Technology Expert (Electric Locomotive)
Support Staff


10.
Nripesh Kumar
PPP Specialist / Project Management
11.
Kushal Singh
Bid Process Management Specialist
12.
Manav Bansal
Financial Analyst
13.
Sarika Jain
Financial Analyst
14.
Subrajit Ghadel
Bid Process Management Specialist
15.
Kishore Desai
Research Expert
16.
Ashutosh Bhandari
Research Expert

Further, at no stage during the currency of the assignment, M/s PwC informed RITES/Ministry of Railways about any change in the team composition.

Thus from the information furnished by PwC, it is seen that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not a part of the PwC team that worked on the consultancy assignment.

The above is for your information please.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,

(Anil Vij)
GGM/RW&IE
Encl. :- As Above.


·        The second letter from RITES to the Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to a consultancy contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and then uses the list of the proposed team composition in the Technical Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006 to state that Vinod Sharma was not a part of the team that worked on that consultancy assignment.

·        As a matter of fact, there were two separate consultancy contracts entered into between the Railway Ministry/RITES and PwC.

·        The first was the contract dated 6.3.2007 which was a consultancy to advise on the process the Railway Ministry should prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.
A news report dated February 18, 2007 available on the internet at http://www.steelguru.com/indian_news/Indian_Railway_selects_PWC_as_advisor_for_rolling_stock_venture/18380.html states: “Business Line reported that Indian Railways has selected Price Waterhouse Coopers to advise it on the process it should prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories. The report cites an Indian railway official as saying that "PWC is required to submit an inception report within a fortnight. And the final advisory report has to be submitted within another two and a half months.” On behalf of the Railway Ministry, RITES had invited competitive bids from consulting firms to provide advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for selection of developers for new factories.”
This contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 was only for 3 months and this assignment was completed by June 2007. This contract was also not specific exclusively to the Marhowra Project but was for provision of advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for selection of developers for the new proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.

·        In 2008, the Railway Ministry either directly or through RITES entered into another consultancy contract with PwC which is referred to in the internal Ministry of Railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf and titled “Annexture_1_4.pdf” which has been reproduced above. This is also the contract mentioned in the news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint which stated “PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive bids.” This is also the contract mentioned in the article published in the fourth quarter of 2008 in the India Law Journal, the relevant part reproduced hereinabove. It is under this 2008 contract with the Railway Ministry that PwC provided advisory services on the bid documents and bid evaluation for the 2008-2009 Marhowra Project and tender. Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team advising the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender under this 2008 contract with PwC.

·        So when called upon by the Delhi High Court to answer as to whether Vinod Sharma had advised the Ministry of Railways as part of the PwC team for preparation of  bid documents and for bid evaluation for the Marhowra Project and tender in 2008, officials of the Railway Ministry and RITES were made to write fabricated letters dated 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 which referred not to the relevant 2008 contract with PwC but to an entirely different, earlier and irrelevant contract dated 6.3.2007 and this letter was then used to create false evidence by way of the RITES reply dated 7.1.2013 which was in turn used by the Railway Ministry to lie on affidavit that Vinod Sharma had not advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project.

·        This lie also stands exposed because the PwC contract dated 6.3.2007 mentioned in the RITES letter dated 7.1.2013 involved advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell. The Bid Process that was finally adopted by the Railway Ministry for both the Marhowra and the Madhepura Projects in 2008 involved a two stage bidding process with separate RFQ and RFP stages.

·        That there was a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the Court by the Railway Ministry is also evident from the following:

o   The letter to RITES from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project), Railway Board dated 27.12.2012 did not provide a copy of the writ petition to RITES. Instead the letter resorts to the falsehood that a copy of the writ petition was available on the website of the Delhi High Court. This letter does not state the conflict of interest complaint against GE, Vinod Sharma and PwC. In fact, it does not even mention Vinod Sharma. This letter which asks RITES for comments on a complaint of corruption and conflict of interest in a pending writ petition for the express purpose of drafting a court affidavit does not even disclose to RITES what the complaint was, and what the issue and facts in contention were.
o   The response from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE, RITES to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.), Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to as explained above a contract signed with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and states that copies of the letter of award dated 2.3. 2007 and contract dated 6.3.2007 are attached to the letter, but these attachments were not included in the railway affidavit which produced this letter before the Delhi High Court. This for the obvious reason that the persons who drafted, signed and affirmed the affidavit were aware that this contract dated 6.3.2007 was not the relevant contract and the relevant contract was from 2008. These persons were aware that they were drafting and/or signing a false and misleading statement on oath in an affidavit with intent to mislead the court and to cover up corruption by General Electric Company.
o   While the letter dt 27.12.2012 from the Railway Ministry is addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RITES, the reply dated 7.12013 from RITES has not been issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, but under the name of one Mr Anil Vij with the words GGM/ RW&IE printed underneath. The letter does not bear a full signature and instead has merely been initialled and even these initials are illegible.

·        The affidavit dated January 14, 2013 filed for the Railway Ministry states at page 12 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma that: “A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra”.
·        It is submitted that this statement in the Railway Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is false and that the officers who have signed this affidavit authors of the Railway affidavit have attempted to protect themselves by using the words “evidently discloses”. The phrase “evidently discloses” is commonly used to distance oneself from a statement of fact and to deny any personal responsibility for the fact being asserted.

·        The Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 filed for the Railway Ministry is signed and affirmed by two officers from the Railway Ministry, one of whom is Gopal Krishan Gupta, Executive Director, Mechanical Engineering (Project) Railway Board, the same person who wrote to RITES on 27.12.2012. The other officer is Nihar Ranjan Dash, Executive Director, Electrical Engineering (Development) Railway Board. Both G K Gupta and N R Dash therefore in their affidavit dated January 14, 2013 have denied personal responsibility and ownership of the statement that “A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra”.

·        For the reasons set out hereinabove, the statements made on behalf of the Railway Ministry in its affidavit dated January 14, 2013 in paragraphs 17, 18, 20, and 32 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma are false and incorrect. These statements and the misleading record produced and sought to be created by the Railway Ministry are clearly the result of a planned conspiracy under advice of lawyers, by Railway Ministry officials to deceive and mislead the court with intent to cover up the corrupt nature of the dealings between Vinod Sharma and General Electric in 2009 and 2010. These statements amount to perjury and the fabrication of documents and evidence attracts the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

·       GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt
Even the affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents contains the following statement:
“The Answering Respondents are unaware of the percentage of text from the 2010 diesel tender documents that is similar to the earlier project documents. Further, the Answering Respondents are unaware of what role, if any, Mr. Sharma or PwC served in reviewing documents associated with the 2008 diesel locomotive tender”.
The fact that PwC was advising the Railway Ministry on the 2008 Marhowra tender was public knowledge and widely published. GE executives would have attended formal pre-bid meetings with Railway officials and PwC representatives in 2008. So this statement in this affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents is also false.

·        As stated above, a “Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit” dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents (Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states that GE India entered into a written agreement with Vinod Sharma’s company, Essvee Consultants, effective August 11, 2009.
There are no records for such company with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.  
A search on the internet for Essvee Consultants shows that there is a website with the domain name http://www.essveeconsultants.com/. The “company profile” on this website reads:
“Established in 2009, *Essvee Consultants* is a trusted placement agency providing total recuritment solutions for diverse industries having its offices in Ajmer (Rajasthan) and Faridabad (Haryana). We are engaged in providing manpower solutions in India as well as abroad. The company has been established with the sole objective of dedicatedly serving the Human Resource Sector with quality service. The company is providing consultation and value added HR services to Corporate and other small Business Houses. Our prime focus is on offering HR Services that exactly match the requirements of our esteemed clients”.

The “management team” and “contact” pages on this website list the following three names: Sandeep Dutt Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Rahul Sharma. All three names share the surname “Sharma” with Mr Vinod Sharma. It is pointed out that this Essvee Consultants claims to have been established in 2009.

·        General Electric therefore engaged Vinod Sharma in 2009 and 2010 for advice on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects. Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008-2009 been part of the PwC team that advised and consulted with the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender. This PwC team advised on bid strategy, it drafted bid documents, and it evaluated the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender bids including the bid of General Electric.

iii. & iv
The above facts and evidence establish that General Electric violated Clause 2.2.1 (d) [conflict of interest],  Clause 4.1.3 (a) [corrupt practice] and Clause 4.1.3 d) [undesirable practice] of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ.  
As a result General Electric was liable to be not only disqualified under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ but also liable to be blacklisted from all Railway Ministry Projects for a period of two years under Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ respectively.
·        The relevant clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ

Clause 2.2.1 (d)
"An Applicant shall be liable for disqualification if any legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to the Project is engaged by the Applicant during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, in any manner for matters related to or incidental to the Project.”


Clause 4.1.3 (a) 
""corrupt practice" means (i) the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly, of anything of value to influence the actions of any person connected with the Bidding Process (for avoidance of doubt, offering of employment to or employing or engaging in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any official of the Authority who is or has been associated in any manner, directly or indirectly with the Bidding Process or the LoA or has dealt with matters concerning the Agreement or arising therefrom, before or after the execution thereof, at any time prior to the expiry of one year from the date such official resigns or retires from or otherwise ceases to be in the service of the Authority, shall be deemed to constitute influencing the actions of a person connected with the Bidding Process) or (ii) engaging in any manner whatsoever, whether during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, any person in respect of any matter relating to the Project or the LOA or the Agreement, who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project".

Clause 4.1.1
“The Applicants and their respective officers, employees, agents and advisers shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the Bidding Process. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Authority shall reject an Application without being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Applicant if it determines that the Applicant has, directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged in corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice in the Bidding Process.”

Clause 4.1.2
“Without prejudice to the rights of the Authority under Clause 4.1.1 hereinabove, if an Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice during the Bidding Process, such Applicant shall not be eligible to participate in any tender or RFQ issued by the Authority during a period of 2 (two) years from the date such Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice, as the case may be.”

Clause 4.1.3 d) 
“undesirable practice” means (i) establishing contact with any person connected with or employed or engaged by the Authority with the objective of canvassing, lobbying or in any manner influencing or attempting to influence the Bidding Process; or (ii) having a Conflict of Interest”.

Clause 1.2.1”. “The term “Project” is defined by this RFQ in Clause 1.2.1 as follows:
“The Project for which the Applications are being invited pursuant to this RFQ Document shall comprise of the following:
i. setting up a new Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives factory at Marhowra, Bihar (hereafter referred as the “Site”); and
ii. supplying Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives to the Authority; and
iii. providing maintenance support for the Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives procured by the Authority from the new factory.”