arp2041
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 10,406
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
we will have our own satellite
but again fed up with the naming
YES....
I Agree.....
It should be named DALALSAT - 1
Bangabandhu satellite soon
- Thread starter BDforever
- Start date
- Status
YES....
I Agree.....
It should be named DALALSAT - 1
BTRC manipulates evaluation to advantage small US company
David Bergman
The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission manipulated the results of the technical evaluation of tender proposals from five international companies, each of whom were bidding to assist the government in the launch of the country’s first space satellite, to ensure that a small US company won the contract.
A New Age investigation has found that Space Partnership International, which in March 2012 signed a $10 million consultancy contract with the government, only won the tender after another applicant, which had received a much higher score in the technical evaluation, was disqualified in highly contentious circumstances.
Inquiries also show that the BTRC was aided in this manipulation by Space Partnership International which provided the regulator with misleading information.
This disclosure comes a day after New Age reported that the winning company had not even met the minimum tender requirements and should not have been shortlisted for the technical evaluation. In May 2011, a seven-member evaluation committee led by one of the BTRC’s commissioners, Mallick Sudhir Chandra, and also comprising of three further BTRC staff members and three other non-BTRC government employees, started the process of technically evaluating the proposals of the five shortlisted applicants.
According to the BTRC version, Space Partnership International, a small US company with barely a dozen employees, was the only applicant to obtain an average of more than 80 marks, requiring only its financial bid to be opened.
New Age can, however, reveal that one of the five applicants, the large US public company Globecomm Systems Inc, received a far higher score.‘When the scores of all the evaluators were averaged out, two of the companies
received over 80 marks,’ one of the evaluators told New Age. ‘Space Partnership International received about 81 marks but Globecomm received around 92 marks.’
At a meeting of the evaluation committee in early June, a piece of paper was distributed summarising all the marks given.
‘I could see that not only had Globecomm received an average of over 90 marks but that each of the seven members of the committee had given Globecomm over 90 marks,’ the person added.
Another evaluator confirmed this scoring.
It is at this stage, New Age has learnt that the evaluation committee came under pressure from within the BTRC to disqualify Globecomm on the basis that it broke a condition in the tender which prohibited applicants from having ties to satellite manufacturers.
The claim that Globecomm was involved with manufacturing was first made in a letter, dated June 8, 2011 and titled ‘confidential,’ which Space Partnership International’s managing director Bruce Krapelsy sent to the BTRC’s evaluation committee chairman.
The letter stated that Globecomm was ‘a manufacturer and supplier of ground-based systems directly related to the satellite industry.’Krapelsky supported this contention by pointing to wording on Globecomm’s web site which refers to the company’s ‘engineering expertise’ producing ‘a wide range of satellite and wireless terminal products.’
On the basis of this letter, the evaluation committee disqualified Globecomm. ‘t was found from the contents of [Globecomm’s] web site that it was offering satellite earth stations and related equipments as its products,’ it stated. Space satellite experts have, however, told New Age that it is not correct to claim that Globecomm was involved in manufacturing.
Robert Bell, executive director of both the Society of Satellite Professionals International and the World Teleport Association, a US-based satellite industry trade association whose members include Globecomm, told New Age, ‘The company is not a manufacturer. It is a system integrator.’
‘In the space satellite sector, there is a clear distinction between manufacturers who make the components and integrators who buy the already manufactured components and create a system from them,’ he added. ‘I have never heard of Globecomm being talked about as being involved in manufacturing.’
Andrew Smith, president of a European ground systems company and who once worked at Globecomm, confirmed this. ‘The company has nothing whatsoever to do with the manufacturing of ground stations. They are not manufacturers, but integrators.’
New Age has also confirmed that members on the BTRC evaluation committee, none of whom have any expertise in the satellite sector, did not seek an expert opinion on the accuracy of Space Partnership International’s claims.
According to one evaluator, the BTRC chairman, in fact, specifically rejected this suggestion at a meeting he arranged with the evaluation committee after it had completed its scoring.
‘It was suggested that it would be a good idea to get an expert to assess whether Globecomm should be disqualified. But the chairman said that there was no time for that,’ a person who was present at the meeting told New Age.
In addition, if reference to ‘producing products’ and ‘engineering’ on a company’s web site was the basis for disqualification, the application of Space Partnership International, the company that won, would also have to be under question.
This is because the web site of RKF Engineering Solutions Ltd, the company with which Space Partnership International had applied for the tender, has a whole section titled ‘Products and services’ which stated that ‘RKF offers a host of products’ and is ‘working with… manufacturers.’
Globecomm appealed against its disqualification to a procurement review panel in September 2011.
At the hearing, the BTRC supported its view that Globecomm had ties with manufacturers by claiming that the company had acquired a ground station division of the satellite manufacturer, Matra Marconi.
In response, Globecomm told the panel that the division purchased in England was not involved in the manufacture of satellites or earth station equipment and that the subsidiary company that Globecomm had created to run the division was in any case closed down in 2006.
The review panel, however, did not believe the company and ruled that that ‘because Globecomm could not prove one of the vital conditions of the RFP documentarily… it is conclusive proof that Globecomm Systems Inc has a ties/interest with Matra Marconi who is a satellite manufacturer.’
The satellite expert Andrew Smith, who used to work for the Matra Marconi division before it was purchased by Globecom, however, told New Age that the division ‘had nothing to do with manufacturing of satellite or ground system. It was just involved in earth station system integration.’ In addition, records filed with the UK’s ‘Companies House’ corroborate what Globecomm said about the establishment and sale of the company.
Before Space Partnership International could sign the contract, one further obstacle was placed in the BTRC’s way and New Age has discovered that this forced the government regulator to change the actual scoring given by the technical evaluation committee.
‘In the middle of February 2010, six months after all the evaluations were done, I was asked to sign a sheet which had new scoring for Globecomm. In the new sheet, the total scoring for the company was now below 80,’ one of the evaluators told New Age.
This was confirmed by another committee member.
The BTRC changed the scoring as the cabinet’s purchase committee had asked to see the score sheet relating to the disqualified bidders.
‘There was no meeting of the evaluation committee to consider this. I was told that since Globecomm had a conflict of interest which disqualified it, its technical scoring should be lowered,’ the person added.
In response to a detailed set of questions about the evaluation process both Bruce Krapelsy, Space Partnership International’s managing director, and Zia Ahmed, the BTRC’s chairman, told New Age that the selection process was conducted ‘properly’ and that the company was selected because it was the best qualified.
Krapelsy said, ‘Our focus is now on helping BTRC to achieve its objectives with respect to the construction, launch and implementation of the Bangabandhu satellite system.’
At an earlier meeting, when asked how such a small company managed to beat much bigger companies, Krapelsy told New Age, ‘We found our way through as we were clearly the best. We brought a very unique combination of expertise to this project that none of the other players had from a complete perspective.’
The BTRC chairman, a retired major general, however, denied any intervention in the process.
‘The entire responsibility for the evaluation was with the evaluation committee. Whatever they recommended I sent to the government. I was not aware of what was going on with the evaluation.’
About whether he placed any pressure on the evaluation committee, he said, ‘The evaluation committee was absolutely free to decide on everything and my point was only that they should consider all the [tender] requirements.’
He said that he did not know what happened at the purchase committee. ‘I was not present. It was the chairman of the assessment panel who attended.’
The chairman of the assessment panel declined to comment. His term as commissioner ended on April 26, 2012. He is waiting to hear whether he will be reappointed commissioner for another term.
Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of the Transparency International Bangladesh, told New Age, ‘Before proceeding any further on the project, the government should constitute a fully-fledged independent investigation in order to establish, without any bias or influence, if any violations took place, in which case the bidding process should be re-opened and the wrongdoers should be handed exemplary punishment.’
He also called on the US government to ‘conduct due investigations… in case the US company or any associated quarter has been involved in any malpractice and abuse of power,’ he said pointing out that the US ambassador was present at the contract signing ceremony.
BTRC manipulates evaluation to advantage small US company
David Bergman
The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission manipulated the results of the technical evaluation of tender proposals from five international companies, each of whom were bidding to assist the government in the launch of the country’s first space satellite, to ensure that a small US company won the contract.
A New Age investigation has found that Space Partnership International, which in March 2012 signed a $10 million consultancy contract with the government, only won the tender after another applicant, which had received a much higher score in the technical evaluation, was disqualified in highly contentious circumstances.
Inquiries also show that the BTRC was aided in this manipulation by Space Partnership International which provided the regulator with misleading information.
This disclosure comes a day after New Age reported that the winning company had not even met the minimum tender requirements and should not have been shortlisted for the technical evaluation. In May 2011, a seven-member evaluation committee led by one of the BTRC’s commissioners, Mallick Sudhir Chandra, and also comprising of three further BTRC staff members and three other non-BTRC government employees, started the process of technically evaluating the proposals of the five shortlisted applicants.
According to the BTRC version, Space Partnership International, a small US company with barely a dozen employees, was the only applicant to obtain an average of more than 80 marks, requiring only its financial bid to be opened.
New Age can, however, reveal that one of the five applicants, the large US public company Globecomm Systems Inc, received a far higher score.‘When the scores of all the evaluators were averaged out, two of the companies
received over 80 marks,’ one of the evaluators told New Age. ‘Space Partnership International received about 81 marks but Globecomm received around 92 marks.’
At a meeting of the evaluation committee in early June, a piece of paper was distributed summarising all the marks given.
‘I could see that not only had Globecomm received an average of over 90 marks but that each of the seven members of the committee had given Globecomm over 90 marks,’ the person added.
Another evaluator confirmed this scoring.
It is at this stage, New Age has learnt that the evaluation committee came under pressure from within the BTRC to disqualify Globecomm on the basis that it broke a condition in the tender which prohibited applicants from having ties to satellite manufacturers.
The claim that Globecomm was involved with manufacturing was first made in a letter, dated June 8, 2011 and titled ‘confidential,’ which Space Partnership International’s managing director Bruce Krapelsy sent to the BTRC’s evaluation committee chairman.
The letter stated that Globecomm was ‘a manufacturer and supplier of ground-based systems directly related to the satellite industry.’Krapelsky supported this contention by pointing to wording on Globecomm’s web site which refers to the company’s ‘engineering expertise’ producing ‘a wide range of satellite and wireless terminal products.’
On the basis of this letter, the evaluation committee disqualified Globecomm. ‘t was found from the contents of [Globecomm’s] web site that it was offering satellite earth stations and related equipments as its products,’ it stated. Space satellite experts have, however, told New Age that it is not correct to claim that Globecomm was involved in manufacturing.
Robert Bell, executive director of both the Society of Satellite Professionals International and the World Teleport Association, a US-based satellite industry trade association whose members include Globecomm, told New Age, ‘The company is not a manufacturer. It is a system integrator.’
‘In the space satellite sector, there is a clear distinction between manufacturers who make the components and integrators who buy the already manufactured components and create a system from them,’ he added. ‘I have never heard of Globecomm being talked about as being involved in manufacturing.’
Andrew Smith, president of a European ground systems company and who once worked at Globecomm, confirmed this. ‘The company has nothing whatsoever to do with the manufacturing of ground stations. They are not manufacturers, but integrators.’
New Age has also confirmed that members on the BTRC evaluation committee, none of whom have any expertise in the satellite sector, did not seek an expert opinion on the accuracy of Space Partnership International’s claims.
According to one evaluator, the BTRC chairman, in fact, specifically rejected this suggestion at a meeting he arranged with the evaluation committee after it had completed its scoring.
‘It was suggested that it would be a good idea to get an expert to assess whether Globecomm should be disqualified. But the chairman said that there was no time for that,’ a person who was present at the meeting told New Age.
In addition, if reference to ‘producing products’ and ‘engineering’ on a company’s web site was the basis for disqualification, the application of Space Partnership International, the company that won, would also have to be under question.
This is because the web site of RKF Engineering Solutions Ltd, the company with which Space Partnership International had applied for the tender, has a whole section titled ‘Products and services’ which stated that ‘RKF offers a host of products’ and is ‘working with… manufacturers.’
Globecomm appealed against its disqualification to a procurement review panel in September 2011.
At the hearing, the BTRC supported its view that Globecomm had ties with manufacturers by claiming that the company had acquired a ground station division of the satellite manufacturer, Matra Marconi.
In response, Globecomm told the panel that the division purchased in England was not involved in the manufacture of satellites or earth station equipment and that the subsidiary company that Globecomm had created to run the division was in any case closed down in 2006.
The review panel, however, did not believe the company and ruled that that ‘because Globecomm could not prove one of the vital conditions of the RFP documentarily… it is conclusive proof that Globecomm Systems Inc has a ties/interest with Matra Marconi who is a satellite manufacturer.’
The satellite expert Andrew Smith, who used to work for the Matra Marconi division before it was purchased by Globecom, however, told New Age that the division ‘had nothing to do with manufacturing of satellite or ground system. It was just involved in earth station system integration.’ In addition, records filed with the UK’s ‘Companies House’ corroborate what Globecomm said about the establishment and sale of the company.
Before Space Partnership International could sign the contract, one further obstacle was placed in the BTRC’s way and New Age has discovered that this forced the government regulator to change the actual scoring given by the technical evaluation committee.
‘In the middle of February 2010, six months after all the evaluations were done, I was asked to sign a sheet which had new scoring for Globecomm. In the new sheet, the total scoring for the company was now below 80,’ one of the evaluators told New Age.
This was confirmed by another committee member.
The BTRC changed the scoring as the cabinet’s purchase committee had asked to see the score sheet relating to the disqualified bidders.
‘There was no meeting of the evaluation committee to consider this. I was told that since Globecomm had a conflict of interest which disqualified it, its technical scoring should be lowered,’ the person added.
In response to a detailed set of questions about the evaluation process both Bruce Krapelsy, Space Partnership International’s managing director, and Zia Ahmed, the BTRC’s chairman, told New Age that the selection process was conducted ‘properly’ and that the company was selected because it was the best qualified.
Krapelsy said, ‘Our focus is now on helping BTRC to achieve its objectives with respect to the construction, launch and implementation of the Bangabandhu satellite system.’
At an earlier meeting, when asked how such a small company managed to beat much bigger companies, Krapelsy told New Age, ‘We found our way through as we were clearly the best. We brought a very unique combination of expertise to this project that none of the other players had from a complete perspective.’
The BTRC chairman, a retired major general, however, denied any intervention in the process.
‘The entire responsibility for the evaluation was with the evaluation committee. Whatever they recommended I sent to the government. I was not aware of what was going on with the evaluation.’
About whether he placed any pressure on the evaluation committee, he said, ‘The evaluation committee was absolutely free to decide on everything and my point was only that they should consider all the [tender] requirements.’
He said that he did not know what happened at the purchase committee. ‘I was not present. It was the chairman of the assessment panel who attended.’
The chairman of the assessment panel declined to comment. His term as commissioner ended on April 26, 2012. He is waiting to hear whether he will be reappointed commissioner for another term.
Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of the Transparency International Bangladesh, told New Age, ‘Before proceeding any further on the project, the government should constitute a fully-fledged independent investigation in order to establish, without any bias or influence, if any violations took place, in which case the bidding process should be re-opened and the wrongdoers should be handed exemplary punishment.’
He also called on the US government to ‘conduct due investigations… in case the US company or any associated quarter has been involved in any malpractice and abuse of power,’ he said pointing out that the US ambassador was present at the contract signing ceremony.
BTRC manipulates evaluation to advantage small US company
livingdead
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2011
- Messages
- 22,952
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Good job bd. Can we get to build and launch your next satellite please...
BDforever
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 14,387
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
YES....
I Agree.....
It should be named DALALSAT - 1
no it should be arp2041 obsession-1
arp2041
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 10,406
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
no it should be arp2041 obsession-1
To,
@ExtraOdinary
Under Sectretary,
RAW - Dalal Wing,
Sub - Urgent Matter at Hand.
Dear Extraodinary,
Please release @BDforever 's Cheque ASAP.....
Otherwise he will leave our CAMP.
& don't give me that "BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS" BS.
Thanks
(Signed With Stealth Ink, RAM Coating)
Head,
RAW - Dalal Wing
Dhaka
P.S. Delete this Mail after you receive it, don't reveal your IDENTITY to anyone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Moander
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 579
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
we will have our own satellite
but again fed up with the naming
Our leaders need to grow up, the naming thing is childish.
Banglar Bagh
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2012
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Moander
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 579
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
At least we are getting our first satellite. Corruption is a common thing in Bangladesh, i am happy as long as the job is done successfully.
Banglar Bagh
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2012
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I think we should thank the PM as she didn't say another Bangabandhu's dream is coming true. Bangabandhu dreamt this orbit would be filled with satelites from BD.
Today people of BD should be thankful to Bangabandhu since he dreamt so many things. Anything which Bangabandhu didn't dream of doesn't have the right to be fulfuilled. But good news is according to Hasina He probably had dreamt of every possible things.
HIMEL@BD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Though i am not a awami supporter but i dont see any problem in naming the satellite as ''Bangabandhu'' satellite.Quarreling over a name is just childish.If it was named ''Sheikh Mujib'' satellite what would you say then???
Yes, you are right. But, BKZ and her two spoiled sons did more looting from Hawa Bhaban than AL will ever do. How about naming the satellite in the name of young leader Tareque!! There must be same standard to measure the looting. But, guys like you are so fond of asking us to forget what your Tareque did. We will not forget that.
ExtraOdinary
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 3,354
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Dear @arp2041,
The asset you were mentioning was asking for a raise
, you do know about RAW's budget limitations regarding the BD wing. Hence we decided to let him go and plans have already been put into motion to hire a fresh recruit. Advertisements in leading BD dailies have been placed. (PS: Any BD members here are also welcome, send in your CV's to careers@RAWesome.in, your names shall not be disclosed).Thanks,
ExtraOdinary.
(PS: Bro, it is not wise to disclose our agency ranks and hierarchy on a public forum, lets just pretend to be civilians shall we
)
Last edited by a moderator:
Flynn Swagmire
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 3,068
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Good news!
We will have our own Satellite in orbit.
And again BAL named it Bangabandhu.
"Bangabandhu" is the registered lootmark of BAL.
We will have our own Satellite in orbit.And again BAL named it Bangabandhu.
"Bangabandhu" is the registered lootmark of BAL.
Zabaniyah
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 14,925
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
The satellite is being built by a US based firm.
Satellite by 2015
Enterprise Risk Management for Space and Telecom
Yes.
Space Research and Remote Sensing Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Untitled Document
Dear @arp2041,
The asset you were mentioning was asking for a raise
Thanks,
ExtraOdinary.
(PS: Bro, it is not wise to disclose our agency ranks and hierarchy on a public forum, lets just pretend to be civilians shall we
Sorry, I already work for the CIA.
By the way, here's conceptual picture of the thing:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
