Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1040
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ.
M/S ROOTS INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. - Petitioner
Vs.
M/S AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents
WP(C) 5371/2015
Decided On : 25-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. C. Harishankar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Subhash Chandra, Mr. Jagdish N. and Mr. P.K. Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG with Mr. Ashwarya Sinha for R-1.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kundan K. Mishra, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Das and Mr. Vipin Tyagi for R-2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of technical compliance in bid evaluation processes, as per the provisions of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.
Headnote:
TENDER - BID EVALUATION - [Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Section 12(1)(a), Section 12(1)(b)] - The court discussed the bid evaluation process under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, specifically focusing on the technical specifications and compliance of the submitted samples. The key legal provisions of Section 12(1)(a) and Section 12(1)(b) were interpreted in the context of evaluating technical compliance and non-compliance of the submitted bids. The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the sample submitted by the petitioner was not technically compliant, while the samples submitted by the respondents were found to be technically compliant, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the acceptance of the respondent's bid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the decisions rejecting its bid for supply and maintenance of trolleys and mandamus to award the tender to the petitioner. The technical evaluation committee found the petitioner's sample trolleys to be non-compliant with technical specifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sample submitted by the petitioner was not technically compliant, while the samples submitted by the respondents were found to be technically compliant, justifying the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the acceptance of the respondent's bid.
Issues: The main issue was the technical compliance of the submitted samples and the subsequent bid evaluation process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the petitioner's sample did not conform to technical specifications, as admitted by the petitioner, and the acceptance of the respondent's bid as technically compliant.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the acceptance of the respondent's bid.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the decisions dated 10.04.2015 of the Respondent No. 1 Airports Authority of India rejecting the petitioners bid submitted in response to NIT No. 01/2015 for supply and maintenance of 7700 trolleys and the award thereof to Respondent No. 2 Gilco Exports Limited and further for a mandamus to award the tender to the petitioner.
2. On 14.01.2015, Respondent No. 1 issued e-Tender NIT No. 01/2015, inviting bids for contract of manufacturing, supply and comprehensive maintenance of 7700 passenger baggage trolleys (stainless steel -type) for various airports.
3. The Petitioner (Roots Industries Ltd) along with Respondent 2 (M/s Gilco Exports Limited) and Respondent No. 3 (M/s Malke Radiators Private Limited) submitted their bids. All the three bidders were found to be qualified at the Pre-Qualification stage. The technical bids were opened on 05.03.2015. The technical bids were evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC for short), comprising of DGM (Tech) and AGM (Tech).
4. On 12.03.2015, after evaluation of the technical bids and the sample trolleys, the TEC submitted its report observing as under:
“1. M/s Gilco Exports Ltd., Chandigarh: The party is meeting all the requirement of technical specifications and has submitted the entire required document in support of technical bid documents, except the following points:
(a) Thread guards have not been provided on wheels.
(b) Fasteners are not tamper proof.
2. M/s Malke Radiators Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh: The party is meeting all the requirement of technical specifications and has submitted the entire required document in support of technical bid documents except the following points:
(a) Thread guards have not been provided on wheels.
(b) Fasteners are not tamper proof.
3. M/ s Roots Industries India Ltd., Coimbatore: The party is meeting all the requirement of technical specifications and has submitted the-enure required document in support of technical bid documents, except the following points:
(a) Trolley wheel guard requires improvement for protection from load touching the rear wheel.
(b) Sharp edges are found on advertisement panel plates, identification plate and number plate. Quality of weld joint needs improvement. Pipe bending is not proper, kinks have been observed on pipe bending points.”
5. The GM (Tech) found the report to be unsatisfactory and on 17.03.2015, he sought clarifications on the report. He noted that that the observation of the TEC that the samples provided by Gilco Exports Ltd. and Malke Radiators Pvt. Ltd. did not have thread guard, was not correct, as upon inspection it was found that the samples were fitted with thread guards. He opined that the two bidders fulfilled the technical criterion. He further stated in his note that the deficiencies in the sample submitted by the Petitioner could only be cured upon restructuring of the whole sample and therefore the same could not be considered fit for consideration. The GM(Tech) in his report observed as under:
“Since all the parties who have participated in this tender have been qualified for opening of the technical bids after evaluation of the sample trolleys submitted, the following queries which has been raised by the undersigned in the preceding notes are required to be clarified :-
1. As per the technical evaluation report of sample trolleys, the 'non complying' element indicated at sl. no. 13 & 23 are common for M/s. Malke Radiators Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Gilco Exports ltd. Both the firms are meeting entire technical requirement sought in above referred sl. nos. except the remarks made by TEC at sl. no. 13, indicating that the wheels are found without thread guards, which is new element indicated in this tender. The undersigned, while inspecting the sample trolleys, found that the sample trolleys submitted by these two bidders are having fitted with wheels with suitable 2 Z' type bearings(dust protected) with threa
