BMA’s electric garbage trucks plan full of irregularities, says ex-Bangkok MP

Pradermchai Boonchuayrua, a former Pheu Thai MP for Bangkok, said he submitted a complaint with Bangkok governor Chadchart Sittipunt on Monday, raising concerns about suspected irregularities that could cause huge damages to the city’s administration.

The former MP was referring to the BMA’s plan to spend nearly 4 billion baht to rent 842 electric garbage trucks in four projects to replace the current fleet, whose rental contract ends at the end of this year.

The projects come under the jurisdiction of Panuwat Onthet, chief of the garbage disposal division of BMA’s Environment Department.

Pradermchai claims he has acquired information about suspected irregularities from officials at the department, who say they are uncomfortable about the procedure.

He said the four projects entail the renting of:

• 152 2-tonne trucks for 658 million baht

• 464 5-tonne trucks for 2.37 billion baht

• 102 3-cubic-metre mini trucks for 387.77 million baht

• 124 8-cubic-metre mini trucks for 575.56 million baht

According to the former MP, the controversy surrounds the 464 5-tonne garbage trucks, saying such huge vehicles would require massive batteries if they are meant to be electric. Hence, he said, with such a massive battery, there will not be enough space in the vehicle to carry 5 tonnes of garbage as specified in the terms of reference.

Pradermchai said if the BMA goes ahead with this project, the specifications will not be met and that could result in legal issues later. He said he has also learned that the committee in charge of bidding had invited 35 companies to submit their prices for the 5-tonne garbage trucks, but only two firms had responded. Regulations require prices from at least three companies.

The politician said Panuwat had allegedly later informed the committee that a third firm had sent its prices directly to him instead of to the committee.

Another controversy the politician pointed out was a case of conflict of interest, as an adviser to the project was also a shareholder of one of the companies bidding for the project. Another point of contention was that a bidder had submitted the specifications of a truck model that was not listed on the company’s website, raising more doubts.