PESHAWAR: A controversy has erupted over Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Peshawar’s decision to cancel its framework agreement for printing answer sheets for examination with a private firm.

Sources told Dawn that BISE had signed a framework agreement with the firm in 2023 for printing of answer sheets for a period of one year. The agreement was extended in 2024 and for second time in 2025 for another year till March 2026; however, without increasing the prices on both occasions.

BISE chairman Khuda Bakhsh defended cancellation of the contract, stating that Rule 32(A)2 of KPPRA Rules, 2014, said that every extension should be approved by a committee, notified by administrative department, to determine competitiveness and assess value for money.

He said that in the instant case, the administrative department, which happened to be elementary and secondary education department, did not notify the committee; therefore, they had to cancel the agreement. He said that the board would select another firm through open bidding.

Agreement with private firm was extended twice without reviewing rates

Earlier on November 17, BISE sought advice of KPPRA about application of Rule 31(A)2 to the second extension of agreement, stating that prescribed procedure was not observed in the process. “Since significant financial implications are involved, this office may be advised whether the contract should be cancelled or not,” said the letter sent by BISE to KPPRA.

KPPRA in its response to the letter, on November 20, stated that rule 31(A) was applicable to both the extensions of framework. It said that for every subsequent year of extension, the procuring authority was required to follow due process under rules, including approval from procurement committee to be notified under the rules.

“Failure to undertake this mandatory process constitutes a procedural violation of the procuring agency and is required to be dealt with according to relevant procedures,” the authority conveyed to the board in its response.

Regarding the cancellation of the already signed contract between the parties, the authority clarified that a contract lawfully signed between parties and supply orders issued thereafter did not invalidate due to procedural lapses on the part of procuring agency.

On November 21, BISE again approached KPPRA pointing out a contradiction in its earlier response. It stated that the authority pointed out that the contract was signed in violation of Rule 31(A)2 while in the next paragraph it declared the contract as lawful. BISE said that KPPRA should provide a categorical and legally sound advice on whether it should stick with the agreement or cancel it.

KPPRA on November 26 wrote to BISE that without dilating upon the second extension, the authority was of the view that the board might examine the case in light of terms and conditions of the contract and procurement rules and proceed accordingly. A day later on November 27, BISE announced to terminate the contract.

However, a source told Dawn that BISE, the oldest educational board in the province, had its procurement cell since 2019, the only among educational boards and also helped other boards with their procurement process. Besides, he said that BISE was an autonomous body with its controlling authority vested in the chief minister while elementary and secondary education department was the only channel of communication, but not administrative department of the board.

“Can education department show if any committee it has notified for educational board procurement so far? There is none,” he said. He added that the board internal procurement committee had cleared both the extensions of the contract and even market studies were conducted to check if the rates offered by the firm were competitive or not.

Sources said that earlier in October, BISE had tried to contract out printing of answer books to Islamabad; however, the plan was scrapped as it was leaked and resulted into social media uproar. Besides, he said, BISE had also held meeting with government printing and stationary department for printing of answer sheets and other related material.

However, printing and stationary department said that to be able to meet all the board’s requirements, it needed to install machinery, software and other equipment at a cost of Rs70 million. Dawn has a copy of this meeting’s minutes.

An official familiar with the matter told Dawn that a contract was not void or voidable due to a mistake of law by one or both parties under Section 21 of Contract Act.

He said that if the stance of BISE regarding violation of Rule 31(A) 2 was taken at face value, there was no justification for cancellation of the contract. “It was responsibility of BISE to form the committee and KPPRA had clearly pointed it out in its letter that the violation was made by the head of procuring agency and he was required to be dealt under relevant laws,” said the official.

He alleged that BISE wanted to make the firm a scapegoat by cancelling the contract for its own mistake.

Published in Dawn, December 1st, 2025