KARACHI, April 25: The board of Port Qasim Authority (PQA) in its meeting on Saturday will take up the issue of hiring of one tug and a pilot boat, official sources said on Friday.

The authority is expected to put the issue of hiring of crafts before the board to get ex-post-facto approval of the agreement signed on April 2, 2008 with a Dutch company.

According to the port and shipping experts two companies, Mew and Smit, which offered bids, had expressed their inability to meet the conditions laid down in the tender issued in November last year.

However, the evaluation committee of the PQA later recommended that in view of the emergent requirement of the port due to fast approaching monsoons, negotiations with the two firms be carried out in accordance with PPRA rules, 2004 to meet he operational needs at the lowered cost by relaxing some technical conditions.

According to a PQA document the evaluation committee after scrapping the original tender re-entered into negotiations with both the companies. M/s Mew expressed it inability to offer any craft whereas M/s Smit offered their craft for hiring on new terms and conditions, the PQA document revealed.

Nevertheless, the real issue before the board will be the legal aspect of the agreement, which was signed with the firm after the original tender was scrapped.

Secondly, some of the board members, who have already registered their strong reservations with the chairman and director (vigilance) PQA, are expected to take a stand against violation of laws and procurement rules.

A board member in a written complaint with the PQA chairman has raised a number of objections over the method adopted by the evaluation committee for re-entering into negotiations with these two companies.

He categorically said that since the scrapped tender no longer had any relevance, the board should had been approached for proper guidance or the very least, the six companies, which had purchased the original tender, should have been invited for negotiations.

The member also challenged the authority of the committee for unilaterally taking such decision where huge financial matter was involved.

On the contrary, five board meetings were held during this period but the matter was never put up before the board for consultation or approval, the member asserted.