Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.4 As per the provisions of the DTCN, the technical evaluation committee in its proceeding of the meeting, which was held on 30.09.2022 at 11.00 A.M., evaluated all the technical bids submitted by the respective bidders package-wise, including package no.5, i.e., "Construction of Bar Association Hall with Amenity Centre of District Court Building at Bhadrak for the year, 2022-23". The committee, which evaluated the technical bids, was chaired by the Chief Construction Engineer, Eastern Circle (R&B), Balasore-opposite party no.3 along with four technical members. The technical evaluation committee, while evaluating the bids of three numbers of bidders, declared all the three bidders, including the petitioner, as technically qualified. Thereafter, the price bids of the responsive bidders, who were declared as qualified in the technical bid evaluation, were assessed and two bidders, namely, the present petitioner and Satya Brata Pattnaik were declared as qualified, whereas the // 8 // other bidder, namely, Jaydev Padhi was declared as disqualified by the tender evaluation committee. The tender evaluation committee assessed the financial bids of the petitioner and Satyabrata Pattnaik. The petitioner was found to have offered lowest price @ 10.30% less than the amount put to tender and derived at Rs.1,71,23,450.200. Similarly, Satyabrata Pattnaik had quoted a less offer @ 0.01% less than the tender amount and derived at Rs.3,02,34,936.293. Therefore, in respect of package no.5, the petitioner's offer being the lowest he was declared and notified as successful (L1) bidder. So far as package no.5 is concerned, the result of the financial bid assessed by the tender evaluation committee was floated in the website of the department and the same was also sent to the respective e-mail ID of the bidders. 2.5 At this point of time, opposite party no.3-Chief Construction Engineer, Eastern Circle (R&B), Balasore issued to the petitioner the letter no.4953 dated 30.09.2022, which was sent through his e-mail ID, with a request to attend its office on 01.10.2022 for verification // 9 // of the original documents uploaded during bidding. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Bhadrak with a request to intimate the petitioner accordingly. Subsequently, opposite party no.3 uploaded letter no.4909 dated 29.09.2022 stating in the heading "Proceeding of Tender Revocation" with further stipulation therein that after getting a complaint regarding some discrepancies from one of the bidders in respect of works, a committee comprising the Chief Construction Engineer, Asst. Executive Engineer, Estimator and Junior Engineer, Estimator was constituted which unanimously opined for revocation of the tender to bring it to pre-opening stage for further evaluation of the bid.

2.6 Pursuant to the above notice, the petitioner, on 07.10.2022, appeared before the Estimator. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 13.10.2022, filed a representation before opposite party no.3 requesting him to finalize the bid, as he is the successful (L1) bidder, but no action was taken. Therefore, on 23.10.2022, he filed another // 10 // representation before opposite party no.2. But, opposite party no.3 uploaded the proceeding of tender revocation bearing no.4909 dated 29.09.2022. Consequentially, the petitioner, even though was declared L1 bidder, could not get such benefit. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 28490 of 2022.

// 11 // However, the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the document under Annexure-8 dated 29.09.2022, wherein it has been indicated that after getting a complain regarding some discrepancies from one of the bidders in respect of the work for which the technical bid has already been opened, the Committee unanimously opined for revocation of the tender to bring it to pre-opening stage for further evaluation of the bid.

4. Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no question of re-evaluation of the technical bid once it has been opened and as such, on 29.09.2022, if such a decision has been taken, then on 30.09.2022 vide Annexure-7, the petitioner could not have been called upon to participate for verification of the documents. According to him, the proceeding of the tender revocation dated 29.09.2022 is a back dated document. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed in the case of Bhupendra Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha and others, 2016 (II) ILR-CUT-760, where this Court already held that the District Tender Committee could not have reopened the matter after lapse of more than one month after having given report on 23.04.2015 and having approved by the tender of the petitioner for grant of contract. Such reopening, whether it may be on the basis of complaint or otherwise, cannot be justified in law.

3. Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that clause-126 of the DTCN provides for eligibility criteria of bidder. Procedure to participate in the online bidding e-procurement has been provided under clauses-1.1 and 1.4, which clearly envisages that furnishing scanned copy of such documents is mandatory along with the tender documents, otherwise the bid shall be declared as non- responsive and thus liable for rejection. For submission of bid through e-procurement portal, the bidder shall upload the scanned copy of the documents in prescribed format wherever warranted in support of eligibility criteria and qualification information. The online bidder shall have to // 14 // produce the original documents in the portal before the specified date as per DTCN. Similarly, clause-2 provides for bid security and cost of bid documents, whereas clause-8.4 provides that during bid opening the covers, containing original financial instruments towards cost of bid and bid security in the form specified in the DTCN, received after last date of receipt of bid and before opening of the bids shall be opened and declared. Clause-8.5.3 provides that after receipt of confirmation of the bid security, the bidders may be asked in writing/online (in their registered e-mail ID) to clarify on the uploaded documents provided in the technical bid, if necessary, with respect to any doubt or illegible documents required for technical evaluation. Clause-8.6 provides that the technical evaluation of all the bids shall be carried out as per the information furnished by the bidders. But evaluation of the bid does not exonerate the bidders from checking their original documents and if at a later date the bidder is found to have misled the evaluation through wrong information, action as per relevant clause of DTCN // 15 // shall be taken against the bidder/contractor. As such, there are some other provisions mentioned in the DTCN so that bid can be conducted in a transparent manner. 3.1 In view of the provisions contained in the DTCN, opposite party no.3 is under obligation to finalize the tender in accordance with the provisions mentioned in the tender documents. As per the provisions stipulated and programme provided in the tender documents, the petitioner, having all eligibility criteria, as per the DTCN, and being a registered "A" class contractor, participated in the tender in respect of all the packages, including package no.5. The technical bid was opened on 14.09.2022 and, thereafter, the technical evaluation committee on 27.09.2022 made a further stipulation that the price bid shall be opened on 29.09.2022. But opposite party no.3 issued proceeding of tender revocation, vide letter no.4909 dated 29.09.2022, stating therein that after getting a complaint regarding some discrepancies from one of the bidders, the committee unanimously opined for revocation of the tender to bring it to pre-opening stage // 16 // for further evaluation of the bid. Ultimately, the bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected and the second highest bidder, i.e., opposite party no.7-Satyabrata Pattnaik, who had quoted @ 0.001% less than the estimated cost, was decided to be awarded with the tender. Thereby, the action of the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and the same is liable to be quashed.