The court's decision emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in bid evaluation processes and the importance of assessing reasonableness and bona fides.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

The petitioner by way of this petition challenges the Bid of the second respondent GA Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘GA Digital’). Both the petitioner and the said contesting respondent-GA Digital competed in response to a tender published by the respondent no.1/National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) inviting tenders from qualified bidders for providing facility services for its corporate office at New Delhi.

2. It is contended that the relevant tender condition i.e. Clause 4.1(e)(v) was completely ignored by the respondent no.1/NHAI while considering the bid of GA Digital. It is further contended that in holding that the GA Digital’s bid was responsive to NHAI, the NHAI has acted arbitrarily. In this regard it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tender requirement, which has to be strictly construed, states that the concerned bidder should “submit the CV of at least one senior person well experienced in similar type of job for the site in-charge post”. It is stated that in the present case GA Digital has furnished the CV of its Director which nowhere ex facie discloses on-site experience and on the contrary it appears that he holds a managerial position. It is submitted that the condition of such bid and declaration of its responsiveness (which led to declaration of GA Digital as L1 bidder) is arbitrary.

3. The NHAI, which is represented before the Court and appears on advance notice, draws the attention of this Court to Clause 4.1(d) which stipulates the eligibility condition in terms of experience. It is submitted that GA Digital has more than adequate experience; in this context the Court’s attention is invited to the bid analysis – which is part of the record. Learned counsel for NHAI emphasises that the CV of the Director of the GA Digital was acceptable as compliant with the Clause 4.1(e) for the simple reason that the Director of a closely held company, with a track record of fulfilling the eligibility conditions of performing similar work for five years, implies that he is virtually the owner and has successfully managed the company and has on-site experience, which includes facility services.

4. Clause 4.1(d) & (e) are relevant and are reproduced as follows:-

“4.1(d) The bidder should have minimum of 5 years experience in providing facility services in Government Organization, Public Sectors Undertaking, Autonomous Body, Private Sector of repute only.

4.1(e) The bidder shall submit the following information/documents on eligibility and qualification:-

(i) General information

(ii) Annual audited turnover for last 3 years duly verified by a Chartered Accountant (Registered).

(iii) A certificate from Chartered Accountant as a proof of turnover for the last 3 years.

(iv) Additional information regarding litigation, debarment, arbitration or blacklisting etc.

(v) The firm/organization should submit the CV of at least one senior Person, well experienced in similar type of job for site in-charge post, whose particulars such as Name, Age and Experience should be furnished, failing which the bid shall be treated as non-responsive.

(vi) The bidder should submit Affidavits & Power of Attorney duly notarized by notary on Stamp Papers of requisite value, in original, as per enclosed formats, without which the bid shall be rejected.

(vii) Bidder should submit the self attested photocopies of registration certificates of ESI, PF, PAN No., PPF, Labour license and GST Regn. No. duly certified by the authorized signatory. An indemnify bond for any failure on this account may be given by the bidder.

(viii) Year of Constitution of company/firm etc.

(ix) Legal status of Bidder (Proprietorship/Partnership or Pvt. Ltd. firm) [Upload scanned copy of original]

(x) Place of registration:

(xi) Principal place of business;

Note : (i) Power of Attorney of signatory of Bid [Upload scanned copy & also supply Original copy (in envelop of physical form]

(ii) Total value of work