Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: procured document in D.S. International vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 19 February, 2021Matching Fragments
Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel submits that between the date of floating the tender on 13.1.2021 up to 26.1.2021 only five working dates remained for the bidders to obtain the necessary documents in order to respond to the tender. The timeline initially prescribed by the tendering authorities was 13 days from the date of publication on 13.1.2021 till 26.1.2021 which includes 6 holidays both State and Central Government. Though the NIT was published on 13.1.2021 , it was uploaded on the system on 14th and 15th January, 2021 both dates being holidays due to Magh Bihu. The requirement of Page No.# 5/13 working days for the prospective bidders including the petitioners was very much essential in order to procure documentation from the original manufacturer including the various documents in respect of the specification/quantities prescribed in the bidding documents as well as to obtain BIS documentation etc. Thereafter by way of corrigendum in the tender i.d. No. HORT.FP/560/Tender/2019-20/111 , there were changes introduced which required documentation of having experience of supply the minimum quantity at the very last moment. 24.1.2021 i.e. the date of issuance of corrigendum was Sunday and 26.1.2021 also happened to be a national holiday. The changes carried out to the bidding documents were substantial and material but no reasonable time was given to the bidders to apply for such documentation which clearly shows that the respondent authorities made the changes in order to bring in undeserving bidders .
Mr. Choudhury referred to violation of Section 9 and Section 23 of Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017. The said provisions are extracted hereinbelow:
"Section 9 Time frame for processing:
(1) Subject to the rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf every procuring entity shall pre-determine a reasonable time frame for completion of various stages of the process of procurement and indicate the same in the pre-qualification documents, bidder registration documents or bidding documents, as the case may be.
(2) The procuring entity shall endeavour to adhere to the time frame indicated under sub-section(1) and in case of failure to do so extend such time frame for reasons to be recorded in writing Section 23: Changes to bidding documents:
(1) In case any modification is made to the bidding documents or any clarification is issued which materially affects the terms contained in the bidding documents, the procuring entity shall publish such modification or clarification in the same manner as the publication of the initial bidding documents. (2) In case a clarification or modification is issued to the bidding documents, the procuring entity may , prior to the last date for submission of bids, extend such time limit in order to allow the bidders sufficient time to take into account the clarification or modification, as the case may be, while submitting their bids.
NIT stipulates that the procuring authority may modify the bid documents by issuing online corrigendum specifying the portal before the last date for submission of bids. Further the procurement entity also stipulated that in order to give the prospective bidder a reasonable time after such amendment in preparing the bids, it may extend as necessary, the deadline for submission of bids. Moreover in case bidder had already submitted the bid before the corrigendum , he would be allowed to give uploaded bid without any additional cost and his uploaded bid would be taken up for evaluation. Accordingly as the procuring authority decided to bring an amendment in the bid documents as such it extended the time frame. On the other hand, though Section 23 of the Act requires that in case of modification of the biding documents which materially affects the terms contained in the bidding documents, the procuring entity shall publish such modification in the same manner as the publication of the initial bidding documents but in the present case the corrigendum was not published in the newspaper except online publication .