S. Ravindra Bhat, J.:--

Facts

In the present writ proceedings, the Petitioner, a private limited company engaged in providing security services to various installations, challenges the award of work order dated 24.06.2013 by the first Respondent to the second respondent (hereafter “the private respondent”).

2. The brief facts are that the Government of NCT of Delhi, General Administration Department (Care Taking Branch) (hereafter referred to as “GNCT”) issued a tender notice (Tender ID No. 2012_GAD_24542_1) on 08.11.2012, which was released through an e-procurement solution, inviting applicants to bid for providing security services at Vikas Bhawan-II. According to the tender notice, the estimated cost of the tender was Rs. 1.44 crore for 2 years and the last date/time for receipt of tenders through e-procurement was 29.11.2012 till 01.00 p.m. The scheduled tender opening was on the same day at 03.00 P.M.

3. The Petitioner, along with Respondent Nos. 2 to 9, was found eligible for the technical bid. On 08.02.2013, the financial bid was opened and the name of L-1 bidders pre and post tax was declared by the GNCT. Later, the second respondent was declared as a successful bidder and was awarded the work contract by work order dated 24.06.2013 to take over the security arrangements of Vikas Bhawan- II, w.e.f. 1st July, 2013. The award of contract has been challenged. The respondents were served; the first, second, fourth and sixth respondent, entered appearance. The first two respondents filed their return. The said respondents, who entered appearance, were represented by counsel.

Petitioners’ contentions

4. The Petitioner argues that the award of the tender to the second respondent is illegal and void ab initio because it is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the tender documents, statutory provisions and settled principles of law. It is argued that the Petitioner, as per the requirement of Annexure XI, included the wages for “weekly off day” in the rates quoted. The minimum monthly wage of a security guard who is considered a semi-skilled worker was Rs. 8,008/- on the date of submission of the financial bid. Since minimum wages had to include the weekly off replacement charges, the Petitioner calculated the total amount for consideration of the Price Bid at Rs. 9,342.66/- (per month) without tax (as according to standard industry practice, the minimum wages is increased by a 1/6th share) and Rs. 12,752.44 with tax. Thus, the Petitioner was the only responsive bidder as it alone included the weekly off day replacement charges. Also, it is argued that Annexure-XI does not have a provision to provide for minimum wages and the weekly off replacement charges separately, which forced the Petitioner to club them together.

5. It is submitted that the Petitioner had, on release of the comparative chart on 08.02.2013, by letter dated 11.02.2013, lodged its protest with the Deputy Secretary (II), General Administration Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi in which it objected that a number of security agencies who qualified in the technical bid had underquoted rates in clear violation of Clause 8.3 and Note 1 & 2 of Annexure-XI of the tender document. When the Petitioner did not receive a response, it, by letters dated 13.02.2013 and 10.04.2013, lodged its protest with Mr P.C. Jain, Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Sh. Arvind Ray, Principal Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, respectively.

6. It is contended that in accordance with the requirement of Note 1 & 2 of the Price Bid for Security Services as detailed in Annexure- XI of the tender document, rates quoted include all statutory obligations of the contractor under Minimum Wages Act, Contract Labour (R&A) Act, weekly-off replacement charges, cost of uniform of personnel deployed by the contractor, all kinds of taxes, service charges etc. of the agency. Rates quoted will be as per 8 hours per person per day. And the offers/bids which are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document