By the way, why is it relevant to mention someone’s PhD thesis at the end of the comment and what the thesis has got to do with this discussion? Am I missing something?

(Dr. Siddiqui has a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and his PhD thesis involved the subject of enhanced oil recovery in disordered porous media.)

You wrote:

If there was any departure in evaluation or malpractice the disqualified bidders would have complained and you would have seen in Bangladesh media reports.

Absence of complaint does not necessarily mean that the process was smooth. I am sure you are aware of the classic case of BP in Angola. There can be (and there often are) multiple reasons why the bidders may opt against raising any objection. I am aware that there is a tendency among many public servants to put forward over-simplified equations like: no objection = everything fine. That is just the kind of argument our war criminals have been putting forward for the last 39 years: no successful prosecution = no war criminals!!

We must make objective judgement.

I completely agree with you on this point. However, in order to make that ‘objective judgement’ one (i.e., the public) needs to have access to certain vital pieces of information (I mentioned in my previous comment), which are missing here. In the absence of those vital pieces of information, this “presumption of transparent contract” is just untenable. Would you disagree?

I am surprised that you suggested me to look at India, Myanmar etc. Why? Why do I have to go there in order to find out what actually happened in Bangladesh. Why don’t you just provide the information here if you really know them?
And, speaking of other countries (ie, to learn about standard practices), what if I ask you to look at Sao Tome and Principe or Egypt? What if I ask you to look at Nigeria’s latest petroleum framework (ie, PIB), where all such vital information related to PSCs are made public?

Good day.

The draft PSC Document which appears in Petrobangla website can easily be acessedd by anyone.

I just re-checked Petrobangla website and I would advise you to do the same. Perhaps you are referring to the Model PSC 2008. I am sure you are aware that a Model PSC is nowhere close to a ‘Draft PSC’ (at least not in the sense you meant). A “Draft Contract” is a provisional contract drawn up for consideration by both parties and when agreed, the Final contract can be prepared. One would expect a ‘Draft’ (one that is about to be executed) to contain the key data and figures, in addition to the framework of terms. Therefore, describing a “Model Contract” as a “Draft Contract” can be misleading.

You wrote that the “Draft PSC” (as per your term) has all the necessary information. I wonder what you meant by the word “necessary”! Let me tell you what I found out in that Draft:

Art.3.1: Contract area: no information!
Art 4.1: Initial Period of Exploration: blank!
Art 6: Minimum Exploration Obligation: all crucial entries blank!
TABLE 14.6: Share Ratio: all crucial entries relating to the Sliding-Scale are blank. [this was supposed to be the most important entry,,,blank!!]

I guess, you meant something else when you directed me towards this so-called “Draft PSC”. Or perhaps you were referring to some other URL on the website (which I must have missed!). I would be obliged if you could please mention the actual URL of the finally executed PSC here; even the URL of an early “draft” would do.

Without any information on these crucial entries, I wonder how you concluded that the finally executed PSC was indeed a good one?

You also wrote:

It has among others qualification of bidders and evaluation critera

Since when the Model PSCs started including provisions on ‘bidder qualification’ and ‘evaluation criteria’? For your information, the Model PSC (or Draft PSC, in your words) does not have any such provision. The term ‘Evaluation Report’ mentioned in the Model PSC (under Articles 8.5 and 8.6) refers to something else. I leave it for you to find out. Perhaps you are confusing Model PSC with the “Bid Document” which is a totally different animal.

In your reply, you mentioned:

Petrobangla and EMRD organised road show on PSC at a Dhaka 5 star hotel for intending bidders where about 75 representatives of 50+ intending bidders participated. After presentation of various criteria of PSC by relevant officials the querries of biders were responde.

- Relevance to transparency or to the quality of bids?

Defending the evaluation committee’s action, you wrote:

A duely constituted evaluation commitee as per relevant evalutaion criteria evaluated the bids and the well established approval process was followed.

- Please stop using words such as “duly”, “well established” etc. They do not mean anything unless you actually explain what they entail. If I may ask:
Who were on that Committee? We need names, or at least their positions. How do you know that all “considerations” were strictly “relevant”? I am sure you are aware that the term “relevant consideration” has certain specific connotation and is often used in a certain context. If I may also ask: were you privy to those communications? I thought these meetings were supposed to be confidential!

Referring to the ‘quality’ of the selection-process, you wrote:

There were no complaints by any bidder at any stage against evaluation .

To be frank Mr Sufi, I really do not care whether or not the bidders were happy. They do not own our natural resources; they are merely the contractors. It is the people, the real owners of these resources, whose happiness/entitlement should be our concern (see Art 143 of the Bangladesh Constitution). In that respect, please would you inform us about the actual share-ratio on the Sliding-Scale as agreed in the final contract which we need to know in order to make up our mind about this so-called good-contract?

You wrote:

I have written few analytical write ups in Energy & Power and Energy Bangla where I analysed various aspects of draft PSC.

- Relevance?

In your attempt to define ‘transparency’ you wrote:

Transparency here means all intending bidders knew about bidding requirements- qualifiaction and evaluation critera which were approved following standard approval process of relevant authority , evaluation by a properly constituted evaluation commitee and approved by competent authority.

- This is just one definition, I would say a convenient one, commonly propounded by serving bureaucrats. But “Transparency”, in essence, means “availability of information”. Please see the AARHUS criteria. When are you going to impart us the details (yes, the actual figures which are now blank on your “draft PSC”) of the finally executed Contract? I am curious, after pointing out these information-deficiencies (on the key issues), if you would still insist on describing the award as “transparent”?

Mr Sufi, I probably would not have commented on your post at all. I noticed your remarks on OGPC at the beginning of your post which made me interested and prompted me to find out if you know something that the rest of us don’t.

Have a good day.