Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[c] The Technical Collaborator/Joint Venture Partner at its own shall meet the experience criteria A.1.1.[i] above. The experience of the Technical Collaborator/Joint Venture with other firms will not be qualified. In this regard, the documents establishing experience of the Technical Collaborator/Joint Venture Partner shall be submitted as per clause A.1.1. [ii] above.

1.3 Indian bidders quoting based on Technical Collaboration/Joint Venture, shall submit a Memorandum of Understanding [MoU]/Agreement with their Technical Collaborator/Joint Venture Partner clearly indicating their roles under the scope of work which shall be addressed to OIL and shall remain valid and binding for the contract period under this tender."

6. In response to the E-Tender dated 14.09.2017, 9 [nine] nos. of bidders participated in the bidding process by offering their bids. The techno-commercial bids were opened on 21.11.2017. Upon evaluation of the techno-commercial bids, the techno-commercial bids of 7 [seven] nos. of bidders were found qualified. The petitioner and the respondent no. 3 were amongst those 7 [seven] bidders whose techno-commercial bids were accepted. The price bids of all those 7 [seven] bidders were opened on 11.01.2018. After evaluation of the price bids, the respondent no. 3 viz. M/s B Vishal Oil & Energy Limited [earlier known as M/s Vishal Enterprise] emerged as the L-1 bidder. Accordingly, the respondent OIL issued a Letter of Award [LoA] for the Contract-Work on 27.01.2018 in favour of the respondent no. 3 at a total estimated contract cost of US $ 64,90,251.40 including all applicable levies, duties but exclusive of GST and Customs Duty which shall be payable extra by the OIL, if applicable as per the cost details mentioned therein. As per the LoA dated 27.01.2018, the duration of the Contract-Work was 3 [three] years from the date of commencement of operation with a provision for extension of the contract duration by another 1 [one] year at the same terms and conditions, scope of work and mutually agreed rates limited to the contract rates, at the discretion of the OIL. The LoA had further prescribed that the mobilization against the Contract-Work shall have to be completed within 90 [ninety] days from the issuance of the LoA.

11.2. He has contended that the body of IEMs is an authority constituted under the Integrity Pact of the Central Vigilance Commission [CVC] and it had considered the complaint lodged by the petitioner as per procedure. Vehemently refuting all the allegations made by the petitioner, Mr. Sarma has submitted that after receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the respondent OIL authorities sought clarifications from Mr. Robert Perkins of M/s Pintail OIL & Gas LLC, USA and he responded by e- mail dated 17.03.2018 clarifying that the Completion Certificate and the Work Order signified the same entity i.e. M/s 3 & 1 Enterprises T&R Inc and the same was placed in the hearing held before the IEMs on 12.04.2018. After the hearing before the IEMs on 12.04.2018, documents were asked from the respondent no. 3 regarding its technical collaborator and the respondent no. 3 submitted the documents related to its technical collaborator on 02.05.2018. Those documents submitted by the respondent no. 3 were immediately forwarded from the respondent OIL to the IEMs by e-mail on 07.05.2018 for their consideration. A hearing was conducted by the IEMs on 31.05.2018 and after hearing the parties, the IEMs advised the respondent OIL to seek confirmation on the authenticity of the claims made by the respondent no. 3 on the basis of the documents placed before it in an independent manner. Then the respondent OIL through its office in the USA sought clarifications through its engaged representative, one Mr. Austin W. Brister who after contacting the lawyer from M/s Pintail responded by an e-mail dated 05.09.2018 providing certain information in relation to the Completion Certificate in question and Mr. Robert Perkins. Finding the information at some variance with the information provided by the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3 was asked again on 06.11.2018 to provide explanation/clarification with documentary evidence. The respondent no. 3 had thereafter, provided a further set of documents to clarify and substantiate its claim regarding genuinity of the Completion Certificate and the Work order. The issue was deliberated thereafter in the Local Management Committee [LMC] meeting of the OIL on 27.12.2018 and the LMC after detailed deliberation, noted the response/documents submitted by the respondent no. 3 and a decision was taken to forward them to the IEMs for their opinion. While forwarding them on 08.02.2019, the LMC had also opined that the response/documents met the requirements of the tender. The final opinion of the IEMs dated 06.03.2019 was communicated to the respondent OIL by an e-mail dated 08.03.2019 wherein it was stated that no further meeting on the matter would be conducted since the OIL had acted based on the advice on the IEMs during the hearing.

25.1. Raising doubt on the afore-mentioned two documents, the petitioner company had filed the complaint before the Chairman and Managing Director, OIL on 08.03.2018. The said complaint was, in turn, forwarded to the IEMs for consideration. The first meeting of the IEMs was held on 12.04.2018 wherein the representatives of both the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 along with the officials of the respondent OIL were present. From the Minutes of the IEMs meeting held on 12.04.2018, it transpires that the respondent OIL sought confirmation/clarification from M/s Pintail Oil & Gas LLC by a number of e-mails and in response, Mr. Robert Perkins of M/s Pintail Oil & Gas LLC responded vide an e-mail dated 17.03.2018 stating that the Completion Certificate related to the Work Order and both the names signified the same party - M/s 3 & 1 Enterprises T&R Inc. In the said meeting, the representative of the petitioner reiterated the allegations mentioned in this writ petition, which are already narrated above. The representative of the respondent no. 3 then sought time to clarify about the genuineness of the documents. The IEMs observed that the respondent OIL appeared to have relied on the claims and documents submitted by the respondent no. 3 in respect of the technical collaborator of the respondent no. 3 without any independent due diligence from its end resulting in the complaint. The respondent OIL was asked to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the documents submitted by the respondent no. 3 and as to whether the technical collaborator of the respondent no. 3 was technically competent as per the bid evaluation criteria. As the respondent no. 3 had assured the IEMs during the hearing that it would submit all the supporting documents and evidence to prove the authenticity of their technical collaborator, the respondent OIL was asked to scrutinize the evidence to be so submitted and to share the same with the IEMs so that they could decide if they needed to meet again to evaluate the response of the respondent no. 3.