As the government moves to import and stockpile large quantities of fertilizer ahead of the Rabi season, serious questions have emerged over a transport contract awarded by a government agency.
The controversy centres on the status of vessels assigned to transport government-imported TSP and DAP fertilizer from Morocco and Saudi Arabia under government-to-government (G2G) arrangements. Although the laycan deadlines for several consignments have already passed, there is reportedly no clear information on whether the vessels reached the loading ports on time.
According to sources at the Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC), a company named Daily Trading was awarded transport contracts for 10 lots involving around 380,000 metric tonnes of TSP and DAP fertilizer.
The laycan deadlines for the first eight lots were reportedly scheduled to expire by September 27. However, no clear information was available regarding whether the designated vessels had reached the loading ports within the stipulated period.
This has raised questions over where the vessels are, when loading will take place and when the fertilizer is expected to arrive in Bangladesh.
Questions over consecutive awards
The issue has also raised questions over how subsequent transport orders were processed when the implementation status of earlier lots remained unclear.
Industry sources said that, if Daily Trading was awarded 10 separate lots involving around 380,000 tonnes of fertilizer, the authorities should be able to demonstrate whether the company’s capacity, previous performance, vessel arrangements, charterer’s credentials and ability to complete transportation within the stipulated timeframe were assessed for each lot.
A key question is whether the implementation status of the earlier lots was reviewed before subsequent work orders were issued, or whether the orders were approved consecutively without waiting for the performance of earlier contracts to become clear.
If the laycan deadlines for the earlier lots have expired, another question is what action BADC has taken under the relevant contractual provisions.
The ninth and tenth lots reportedly have laycan windows from October 7 to October 9. Questions have therefore arisen over how plans for these two lots proceeded before the vessel, loading and delivery status of the first eight lots became clear.
Whether a delay or failure in one lot affects subsequent work orders can only be determined by reviewing the contractual terms and relevant documents.
A contractor familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the first questions after a laycan deadline is missed should concern the location of the vessel, the reason for the delay and how subsequent work orders were issued without a clear assessment of previous performance.
The contractor said that verifying the vessel names, IMO numbers, charter-party agreements, loading ports, latest vessel positions and laycan details could provide answers to many of the questions.
Were contractual penalties imposed?
Another key issue is whether any contractual action was taken after the laycan deadlines expired.
BADC Manager (Procurement) Ahmed Hasan Al Mahmud was asked about the matter, including:
-
What action was taken under the contracts if vessels failed to arrive within the laycan period?
-
What are the names and current locations of the vessels concerned?
-
Were the vessels and charterers properly verified?
-
Was the implementation of previous lots assessed before subsequent orders were issued?
-
Were any penalties or compensation sought for delays?
-
Why were further work orders issued to the same company before the implementation status of previous orders became clear?
-
Which officials of BADC and the Bangladesh Shipping Corporation (BSC) were involved in the decision-making process?
-
Has any investigation been conducted into allegations of financial benefits or commissions?
In response, Ahmed Hasan Al Mahmud said, “I will call you back shortly.”
He then ended the call. Several subsequent attempts to contact him were unsuccessful.
A senior official of the Ministry of Agriculture, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the ministry had discussed the matter with BADC.
The official also said that necessary legal action would be taken against Daily Trading in accordance with the law.
However, details of what specific action is being considered were not available at the time of filing this report.
Allegations of collusion
Sources familiar with the matter have alleged that some BADC and BSC officials may have colluded with Daily Trading and received financial benefits in connection with the consecutive work orders.
The allegation has not been independently established.
Determining whether the allegation is true would require examination of the tender documents, evaluation committee minutes, work orders, approval notes, contracts, vessel records, charterer appointment documents and payment records.
Large-scale fertilizer import programme
The questions surrounding the transport contracts come as the government is undertaking a large-scale fertilizer import programme ahead of the Rabi-Boro seasons.
According to sources, the government approved the import of 365,000 tonnes of fertilizer at a meeting on August 24. The approval included several lots of DAP and TSP to be imported from Morocco under G2G arrangements.
On September 16, the government also approved various proposals for the import of another 1.075 million tonnes of fertilizer, including several lots of DAP from Morocco.
The government’s fertilizer import programme is therefore progressing on a substantial scale. However, delays at the transportation stage—including missed laycan windows, uncertainty over vessel availability or delays in contract implementation—could create pressure on the supply chain even when the imports have been approved on paper.
Three key questions
The Daily Trading contracts involving around 380,000 tonnes of fertilizer now raise at least three key questions:
First, where are the vessels assigned to the first eight lots whose laycan deadlines have expired?
Second, what action has BADC taken under the contracts when vessels failed to arrive within the stipulated timeframe?
Third, on what basis were subsequent work orders issued to the same company before the implementation status of previous orders became clear?
The answers to these questions go beyond the work orders of a single contractor. They concern the use of public funds, transparency in fertilizer supply management and the timely delivery of fertilizer to farmers ahead of the Rabi season.
A document-based review of the entire process—from work orders and vessel appointments to laycan schedules, loading, sea voyages, discharge and delivery to government warehouses—would be necessary to establish the actual status of the consignments and determine whether contractual requirements were followed.
If vessel locations remain unclear even after laycan deadlines have passed, while new work orders continue to be issued before the implementation of earlier contracts is clarified, questions will inevitably remain over how the process was managed and who bears responsibility for the decisions.
