UL’s X-ray machine procurement flawed: Official

• First tender cancelled after five months
• Seven months taken to evaluate bids of second tender 
• Technical committee did onsite inspections for only one bid    

By Maleesha Sulthanagoda 

The steps followed by SriLankan Airlines when procuring X-ray machines were flawed, a top official of the national carrier said yesterday, testifying before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) on irregularities at SriLankan Airlines, SriLankan Catering, and Mihin Lanka. 

SriLankan Airlines Commercial Procurement Manager (Financial Analysis and Projects) Vageesha Fernando, testifying before the PCoI, provided documents on the tender proceedings in procuring X-ray machines for the use of the airline since 2011.

The national carrier initially called for bids from X-ray machine suppliers in 2013, and later in 2014. The initial bids were called by the airline for three X-ray machines on 22 December 2013, with a closing date in January of 2014. After five months of proceedings, the call for tenders was cancelled, due to various security reasons. 

SriLankan Airlines called for cancellation of the tender, due to safety issues brought to light by the Security department of the carrier. The disappearance of Malaysian Airline Flight 17 and 370, and possible threats from a resurgence of LTTE factions, were listed as the reasons for the cancellation.  SriLankan Airlines later called for bids from suppliers for three X-ray machines and two Explosive Trace Detectors (ETDs) in November 2014, with a closing date on 18 December 2014. It had taken the evaluation committees over seven months to evaluate the received bids. The documents provided by Fernando mentioned that the evaluations were done by a financial committee and a technical committee appointed by the Board of Directors of the airline at the time. 

It was also revealed that the technical committee had visited Thailand to inspect the machines that were being provided by the selected evaluation committee, namely, Exel Trading International Ltd. It was also mentioned that the technical committee only went to Exel Trading for onsite inspections. 

When the PCoI inquired whether it was normal practice for the airline to only inspect equipment provided by a single supplier, while other companies were also shortlisted, Fernando, replying to these concerns of the PCoI said, “We carry out a lot of equipment procurement. We don’t go to inspect equipment supplied by each and every one of the bidders, as it will be a waste of resources and man hours.” 

She noted that the procurement manual of the airline also did not have any guidelines on inspecting equipment before procurement. 

“The procurement manual of SriLankan Airlines does not indicate that equipment from all bidders should be inspected. It is solely up to the evaluation committee to decide on the supplier that will be inspected,” she elaborated.