Actually it may not be called 'reverse scam', but let us stick to it for want of better term.
There is a procedure to safeguard against payment of higher than the lowest price for purchase of any equipment by the civic body, whether the money is of the civic body, or generated by the user for the civic body. We had some money generated for purchase of equipment that the civic body could/would not buy. We needed an endoscopy camera urgently, because the existing camera could/would not be repaired in time. As per requirement, we got quotations from three vendors. One of them was for about 48000 INR, the other two were for about 170000 and 360000 INR respectively. We were very happy for having found one which was so economical. It was good. I had been using one of those for 10 years without any malfunction or repair. Unfortunately the proposal was returned by the trustees of the fund where we had put our money.
"One quotation is very low. We want to know how. It looks very suspicious."
"But a high quotation would be suspicious" I said. "What is wrong if we have to pay less money? Is that not the idea behind asking for 3 quotations?"
"You have to explain why it is so low."
"The equipment is perfectly fine. I am satisfied with it as a user. You have to ask the vendor why he is selling it at such a low profit, or why the others are selling at such high prices" I said.
"We do not deal with the vendors. You give the explanation. These are money matters, where we have to be very careful. The auditor will object to this transaction."
So I called the auditor and asked him if he would object.
"Of course not" he said. "Scams are about paying out more than required. There is no problem if you are paying less."
The guardians of our money could not be convinced. Finally I made a comparative chart of features of the three cameras, and showed that this camera did not have a feature for recording, which the others had, but which we did not need. The answer still did not come, because the chief trustee was in a foreign land looking after daughter's childbirth, another was pregnant herself and was away, and half of the other trustees were on a vacation. Three months later the trustees wrote back "you may place the order with the lowest bidder" and no statement on any of the objections I had raised.
The tragedy does not end there. Now two months have passed and the vendor refuses to supply the camera for reasons unstated. In our opinion it has to do with devaluation of the INR in the three months lost, so that he cannot afford to supply it at the rate quoted.
"Sir, do the trustees really know what they are doing?" one frustrated staff member asked me.
"They do" I said.
"I men, do they have any idea of what is right and what is wrong?"
"We have to ask them" I said.
"Do they understand what they are doing to the institute, and if they do, do they care?"
"I don't know" I said, "and even if I do, there is nothing we can do about it."
There is a procedure to safeguard against payment of higher than the lowest price for purchase of any equipment by the civic body, whether the money is of the civic body, or generated by the user for the civic body. We had some money generated for purchase of equipment that the civic body could/would not buy. We needed an endoscopy camera urgently, because the existing camera could/would not be repaired in time. As per requirement, we got quotations from three vendors. One of them was for about 48000 INR, the other two were for about 170000 and 360000 INR respectively. We were very happy for having found one which was so economical. It was good. I had been using one of those for 10 years without any malfunction or repair. Unfortunately the proposal was returned by the trustees of the fund where we had put our money.
"One quotation is very low. We want to know how. It looks very suspicious."
"But a high quotation would be suspicious" I said. "What is wrong if we have to pay less money? Is that not the idea behind asking for 3 quotations?"
"You have to explain why it is so low."
"The equipment is perfectly fine. I am satisfied with it as a user. You have to ask the vendor why he is selling it at such a low profit, or why the others are selling at such high prices" I said.
"We do not deal with the vendors. You give the explanation. These are money matters, where we have to be very careful. The auditor will object to this transaction."
So I called the auditor and asked him if he would object.
"Of course not" he said. "Scams are about paying out more than required. There is no problem if you are paying less."
The guardians of our money could not be convinced. Finally I made a comparative chart of features of the three cameras, and showed that this camera did not have a feature for recording, which the others had, but which we did not need. The answer still did not come, because the chief trustee was in a foreign land looking after daughter's childbirth, another was pregnant herself and was away, and half of the other trustees were on a vacation. Three months later the trustees wrote back "you may place the order with the lowest bidder" and no statement on any of the objections I had raised.
The tragedy does not end there. Now two months have passed and the vendor refuses to supply the camera for reasons unstated. In our opinion it has to do with devaluation of the INR in the three months lost, so that he cannot afford to supply it at the rate quoted.
"Sir, do the trustees really know what they are doing?" one frustrated staff member asked me.
"They do" I said.
"I men, do they have any idea of what is right and what is wrong?"
"We have to ask them" I said.
"Do they understand what they are doing to the institute, and if they do, do they care?"
"I don't know" I said, "and even if I do, there is nothing we can do about it."
