PDA faces questions over alleged relaxation of mandatory security requirement

The Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) is facing questions over an alleged relaxation of a mandatory security requirement in the award

PESHAWAR : The Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) is facing questions over an alleged relaxation of a mandatory security requirement in the award of a contract by its Building Directorate, with sources claiming that the successful contractor was allowed to proceed despite depositing less security than required under the original bidding documents.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the Building Directorate awarded the contract after the contractor deposited only 2 percent security, despite the bidding document reportedly requiring bidders to provide 10 percent security as a mandatory condition.

The alleged deviation from the bidding terms has raised questions about whether the procurement process was conducted in accordance with the conditions originally communicated to all participating contractors.

Sources said the bidding document clearly required a 10 percent security deposit from bidders seeking to qualify for the contract. However, the contractor was allegedly permitted to proceed after depositing only 2 percent.

The issue became more significant when, according to sources, the contractor was subsequently directed to deposit an additional 3 percent security. If deposited, the additional amount would raise the contractor’s total security to 5 percent.

Sources pointed out that even after the proposed additional deposit, the security would remain below the 10 percent requirement stated in the original bidding document.

They questioned why the condition allegedly applied differently to the successful contractor and whether any formal approval or amendment had been issued to alter the original requirement.

The matter has also raised concerns among other contractors who participated in the bidding process. According to sources, bidders who failed to meet the stipulated security requirement could potentially have faced disqualification, while the successful contractor was allegedly allowed to proceed despite initially depositing only 2 percent.

Sources described the situation as a possible unequal application of procurement conditions and said it could undermine confidence in the transparency of the contracting process.

They further alleged that allowing a contract to proceed without fulfilling the original security requirement could expose the public authority to financial and administrative risks, particularly if the prescribed security was intended to protect the authority against contractual defaults or non-performance.

Questions have also been raised about whether the PDA Building Directorate obtained approval from the competent authority before permitting the contractor to deposit a reduced amount and whether the bidding terms were formally amended in accordance with applicable procurement rules.

The issue is particularly significant because bidding documents generally establish the conditions under which all participating contractors are expected to compete. Any subsequent relaxation of a mandatory condition could raise questions regarding equal treatment of bidders and the integrity of the procurement process.

However, the allegations have not been independently established, and the reasons behind the reported security adjustment remain unclear.

Minute Mirror has contacted relevant PDA officials seeking their detailed position on the matter, including whether the 10 percent security condition was formally amended, whether any relaxation was approved by the competent authority, and why the contractor was initially allowed to proceed after depositing 2 percent.

The PDA’s response, if received, will be incorporated to present its position on the allegations.

Further documents and official clarification are expected to determine whether the reported reduction in security was an authorized administrative decision or a deviation from the original bidding conditions.