Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(viii) Power of attorney/authority letter in case person Submitted other than the bidder has signed the tender documents

10. The Petitioner came to know from reliable sources that the Respondent No.1 technically rejected the bid of the Petitioner on 25.05.2021 on the ground of "submission of incomplete documents (as required in E-NIT)". The respondent No.2 was selected as the lowest bidder after opening of his financial bid on 27.05.2021.

(i) Dean, Faculty of Engineering & Technology;
(ii) Prof. Shahid Akhtar, Centre for Management Studies;
(iii) Professor Incharge, Building & Construction Department;
(iv) Executive Engineer, Building & Construction Department; and
(v) Internal Audit Officer, JMI.

15. It is submitted that the bid of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to submit document establishing Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems ("OHSAS") registration, because of which the bid of the petitioner failed and has been rejected. It was a requirement under the terms and conditions of the NIT that the said registration certificate be submitted by the bidder; which the Petitioner did not enclose at the time of submission of bid documents; physically, or even uploaded on the web portal of the Respondent No.1. This was an omission, which made the bid of the Petitioner technically non-responsive. The Respondent No. 1 also submits that the reason of rejection i.e. "incomplete documents submitted" was clearly mentioned in the Technical Bid Evaluation Summary uploaded on the CPP Portal, as well as in the notice. Therefore, the rejection was not in violation of the office order no. 15/3/05 of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 24.03.2005. Rather it was in accordance with the same.

We are not in agreement with the said contention of the Respondents.

39. Firstly, the impugned notice dated 25.05.2021 only mentioned that the Petitioner had been disqualified due to "submission of incomplete documents". Since the Petitioner had abided by all the mandatory conditions, this was not sufficient reason for disqualification. It was vague, and the Petitioner could not have responded without knowing the reasons for disqualification. Thereafter, the Petitioner wrote several representations dated 01.06.2021, 04.06.2021 and 15.06.2021. The Respondent no. 1 only replied to the Petitioner on 16.06.2021, wherein, it was finally conveyed to the Petitioner that it was 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 2152.