Energy Efficiency Measures at MindSpace Building No 11 at Hyderabad
[]
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) AMS-II.E. ver. 10
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 7,926
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Jan 12
Length of first crediting period. 10 years
DOE/AE KBS Certification Services Limited
Period for comments 31 Aug 11 - 29 Sep 11
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation Sundew Properties Pvt Ltd
The operational/applicant entity working on this project has decided to make the Project Design Document (PDD) publicly available directly on the UNFCCC CDM website.
PDD PDD (723 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered for sure. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book. Why DOE has taken up such a bad project? Is there any pressure on DOE or some cake offered to DOE? They DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? For sure yes. This is not acceptable. DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will catch the malpractices happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice. DOE must not support this kind of forgeries and malpractices. DOE cannot afford to close their eyes to this kind of malpractices. 
Submitted by: alexander


The comment period is over.
* Emission reductions in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum that are based on the estimates provided by the project participants in unvalidated PDDs