CCI says no anti-competitive practices in PM SHRI Scheme procurement process

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint filed by an anonymous informant against Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) and RailTel Corporation of India in a matter concerning the implementation of the Prime Minister Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI) scheme in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) schools across India..The order was passed on March 3 by CCI Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag, who found that no concrete evidence was presented by the informant to support the allegations of anti-competitive practices. "The Commission is of the view that no prima facie case of contravention of either Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act is made out in the present matter against OP-1 (NVS) and OP-2 (RailTel). Accordingly, the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the same is also rejected," the CCI said..The informant had alleged that NVS, an autonomous body under the Union Ministry of Education, had arbitrarily awarded a work order worth ₹162.73 crore to RailTel for the "Supply & Implementation of Integrated Infrastructure & IT Solutions" under the PM SHRI scheme.RailTel was also accused of issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) that was allegedly was designed to exclude a majority of bidders through stringent and arbitrary technical specifications..It was argued that the RFP favoured RailTel, a Mini-Ratna Category-I Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) primarily engaged in telecom infrastructure, despite its lack of prior experience in the education sector. The RFP was alleged to have included vague specifications, restrictive bid qualifications and lacked transparency, which effectively narrowed the pool of eligible bidders and violated public procurement policies, including the policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs)..By structuring the RFP in a way that limited fair competition, the informant claimed that NVS and RailTel had tampered with the level playing field.Additionally, the informant accused NVS of abusing its dominant position by appointing RailTel as the project management consultant (PMC) without proper justification. RailTel was also alleged to have misused its position by issuing an RFP with restrictive and defective terms, thereby violating Section 4 of the Competition Act. These actions, according to the informant, unfairly excluded potential competitors and ensured RailTel’s control over the procurement process, limiting the scope for other bidders..CCI found that the informant failed to provide concrete evidence of bid-rigging or any tacit agreement between NVS and RailTel. "The Commission notes that the Informant has alleged tacit agreement between OP-1 and OP-2 in awarding tender, however, it has not provided any evidence or material which could indicate bid rigging in violation of Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission deems it appropriate not to proceed further on the basis of such unsubstantiated allegations," it said. .It observed that the selection of RailTel as PMC and the issuance of the RFP did not inherently constitute an abuse of dominant position under Section 4.The Commission emphasised that procurers have the freedom to set terms and conditions for procurement based on their requirements, and such decisions cannot be deemed anti-competitive without supporting evidence."Simply selection or non-selection of an agency as PMC or issuance or non-issuance of RFP or issuance of defective RFP by an entity cannot be said to be abusive in terms of Section 4 of the Act unless and until there are availability of ingredients of the same as required under the Act. As stated, these issues lie within the precinct of the freedom of the procurer," it said..[Read Order]