Sources said a lobby close to the 'alternative centre of power' of the immediate past government is pushing hard to award this Tk 181 crore contract to the same Chinese company named China Harbour that was almost awarded the contract in the first tender.

But the project cost of Tk 181 crore has not been approved by the Executive Committee of National Economic Council (Ecnec).

China Harbour had sought Tk 252 crore to do this job in May against an approved allocation of only Tk 74 crore. Due to various reasons, the CPA at that time could not award the contract to this company. One of the main reasons was that the company could not ensure any dredger for the job at that time and backed out from the tender, sources mentioned.

This project will be undertaken to facilitate building of the third Karnaphuli Bridge. The bridge will be built by another Chinese company --China Major-- which was awarded the project with a faulty design under pressure from lobbyists of the alternative powerhouse.

China Major's local partner Al-Amin Group, that was blacklisted in the late nineties for sub-standard work, is now busy making commitments for sub-contracts to various groups close to the mayor of Chittagong. Construction work of the bridge will not start before March-April next, the sources pointed out.

Under the lobbyists' pressure, the CPA is now going for a restricted tender for the dredging project.

Amid the prevailing political chaos in the country, the CPA held a pre-bid meeting on November, participated by only two companies. Of the two, only China Harbour sent its representatives in person while the other sent some written note.

The CPA has fixed January 7 as the last date for bid submission.

The six pre-selected bidders are Jan De Nul NV of Belgium, MT Hojgaard of Denmark, Larsen & Toubro Ltd of India, Sinohydro Corporation of China, China Harbour Engineering Company of China and Van Oord of the Netherlands. They were pre-selected in November last year for the first tender.

"Considering the cost of the project and that these six bidders did not come up with a cost-effective proposal in the first bid, there is no good reason why a there should be a restricted tender now," an official pointed out.

Back in June, to accommodate China Harbour's exorbitant price tag of Tk 252 crore for the dredging, the CPA dramatically inflated the project cost by a staggering 345 percent to Tk 255 crore (including an additional Tk 3 crore consultancy cost).

The dredging project was approved with an allocation of Tk 74 crore back in May last year. But within one year, the CPA sought government approval for sharply inflating the cost on the pretext of increased cost of steel price, fuel, devaluation of dollar etc.

In addition to dredging, this project includes river bank protection and construction of a marine drive.

The CPA floated tender for the dredging project in March. By that time, it had already inflated the project cost to Tk 125 crore without prior approval of the Ecnec on ground of additional construction work.

A week before the bid was opened, the CPA abruptly amended technical specification for the project to drive away four of the six pre-selected bidders from the bid. Only two participants --China Harbour and MJ Hojgaard of Denmark -- remained.

China Harbour gave two financial offers, the first one asking for a cost of Tk 252 crore and the alternative one Tk 215 crore. Hojgaard made an offer of Tk 422 crore. Insiders allege that Hojgaard was an arranged partner to make the tender look competitive. The CPA picked China Harbour's Tk 252 crore offer.

China Harbour's performance in Bangladesh itself is in question. It was awarded the Tk 331 crore New Mooring Container Terminal Project two years ago. The project was scheduled to be completed by December last year but till date the company is delaying the job onn various pretexts.

While the CPA was trying to have its inflated project cost approved, the Chinese company was busy trying to find a suitable dredger that it did not have. As it could not arrange a dredger, it chose not to extend its bid validity beyond three months, which expired in July. A day after expiry of its bid validity, the company formally wrote to the CPA that it would not extend the validity.

After this, the Shipping Ministry's Steering Committee recommended that re-tender for the project be restricted to these six companies to save time.

"But ultimately the whole scheme is being delayed by a year. The CPA could easily go for an open re-tender if it wanted to ensure a cost effective offer from a competent company," noted an official.