ISLAMABAD  - Capital Development Authority (CDA) is faced with catch-22 situation after the National Accountability Bureau raised 22 objections on the transparency of Rs 6.5 billion LED streetlights project.“We raised 22 objections on the tendering process as well as CDA’s objectives behind launching this multibillion rupees project,” said NAB Spokesman Zafar Iqbal. The corruption watchdog has raised serious questions on the tendering process being carried out by the CDA at a time when the civic body was just awaiting funding to launch the project to replace all 65,000 conventional streetlight of Islamabad with LED lights.He said the CDA bosses gave a detailed presentation on the project but the NAB authorities had found various anomalies in the process. He, however rejected the reports that the Bureau had given any clean chit to the CDA to execute the project.“We have told them that their tendering process was shaky and it cannot move ahead until all these observations are addressed,” he added. He said that following the meeting, the NAB forwarded all these objections to the CDA adding the compliance was yet awaited. After Asian Development Bank had refused to provide soft loan for the project, the CDA decided to execute it on its own resources. As per decision, the hired company would spend 75 per cent of the project cost and rest 25 would be borne by the CDA. For its share, the CDA requested the federal government to arrange funding adding it was also objectionable.“The federal government itself is short of funds and the CDA’s own financial condition is also unstable, so it is questionable as how the CDA would pay back such huge amount,” the spokesman commented.The NAB had sought explanation from the CDA on LED project on a compliant registered by Transparency International alleging of collusive practice in tendering process to award a blue-eyed firm. Earlier, the CDA had formed a high-level committee to examine the bids received from three companies. The committee had rejected all three bids and had unanimously termed the project as financially unquantifiable because all three firms had provided bogus cost estimates for the project those were against terms and conditions set by the CDA.The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority had also sought a detailed report on the project expressing doubts in the process of tendering.