Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA, VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Ramji Das Dhal Construction Pvt. Ltd - SKS JV – Appellant
Versus
Chief Engineer (Af) Wac, Palam & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6256 of 2022 & CM APPL. 18811 of 2022, CM APPL. 21495 of 2022, CM APPL. 22951 of 2022, CM APPL. 23077 of 2022
Decided on : 31-05-2022
Joint Venture - Tender Qualification Criteria - NIT - [APPENDIX 'A' TO NOTICE INVITING TENDER (NIT) 8 Eligibility Criteria, APPENDIX 'C' TO NOTICE INVITING e-TENDER 1 Joint Venture in MES Works] - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for a joint venture in a tender, specifically focusing on the requirement for both constituents of the joint venture to separately meet the qualifying criteria for different types of works. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the tender conditions and upheld the decision of the Tender Evaluation Authority and the Appellate Authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash the rejection of their technical bid for a tender related to work services for a project at Airforce Station at Adampur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender conditions mandated both constituents of the joint venture to separately meet the qualifying criteria for different types of works, and upheld the decisions of the Tender Evaluation Authority and the Appellate Authority.
Issues: Interpretation of tender eligibility criteria for joint ventures, application of contra proferentem rule, scope of judicial review in specialized works for armed forces.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the tender conditions and upheld the decisions of the Tender Evaluation Authority and the Appellate Authority, citing the settled legal position that the author of the tender document is best suited to interpret its requirements.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN DATTA, J.
W.P.(C) 6256/2022 & CM APPL. 18811/2022, CM APPL. 21495/2022, 22901/2022 CM APPL. 22951/2022, CM APPL. 23077/2022
1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following prayers.
B. A writ of Certiorari quashing and set aside the decision dated 12.04.2022 of the Respondent no. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the decision of the Respondent No.1: and
C. A writ A Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in the tender process;”
2. The factual context in which the present petition has been filed is that the respondent No.1 issued a tender bearing No. CE/WAC/ADM/T-12/2021- 2022 for Provision of Work Services for Project Ghaggar at Airforce Station at Adampur. The work involved certain “Building works” and “Pavement Work”.
3. On 16.03.2022, the Technical Evaluation Committee of the respondent No.1 rejected the technical bid of the petitioner Joint Venture Firm, on the basis that both the constituents of the Joint Venture did not individually and separately meet the prescribed qualifying criteria. On 12.04.2022, the concerned Appellate Authority affirmed this position.
4. The relevant criteria with which we are concerned in the present case is contained in the following provisions of the NIT:
| 1. | Name of Work |
| PROVISION OF WORK SERVICES FOR PROJECT GHAGGAR AT AF STATION ADAMPUR |
| 2. | Estimated Cost |
| Rs. 115.60Crore (At Per Market) |
| 3. | Period of Completion |
| 18 (Eighteen) Months |
| 4. | Cost of tender documents |
| Rs. 3000/- in the shape of DD/Bankers cheque from any Scheduled bank in favour of GE (AF)ADAMPUR payable at ADAMPUR. (Note: In case of refendereing, the contractor who had quoted in the previous call is not required to submit the cost of tender). |
| 5. | Webstie/Portal Address |
| www.defproc.gov.in |
| 6. | Type of Contract |
| The tender shall be based on drawings and specifications (IAFW-2159) and GCC (IAFW-2249) with schedule “A” (list of item of work) to be priced by the contractor/pre priced by MES. The contractor is required to quote the lumpsum amount for parts of Schedule “A” and quote rate against items of other parts of schedule “A” |
| 7 | Timeline details: |
|
|
|
| (a) Bid Submission start date (b) Last date of bid submission (c) Date of bid opening |
| Refer critical dates shown below |
| 8 | Eligibility Criteria | ||
|
| (a)For MES enlisted contract ors. |
| Contractors shall satisfy the following:- (i) Enlistment in class “SS” Categorya(i) as per MES enlistment rules. (ii) Shall not carry adverse remarks in Work Load Return or any similar report circulated by the competent engineer authority. (iii) Prequalification criteria as in Note no 1 below. |
|
| (b) For contract or not enlisted with MES. |
| (i) Contractor not enlisted with MES should meet enlistment criteria of “SS” class &a(i) category contractor with regard to satisfactorily completion of requisite value works with Central/State Government/Central/State PSUs/AWHO/AFNHB/CGEWHO/DGMAP, annual turnover, bank solvency, working capital and other requirement given in Para 1.4 & 1.5 of Section 1 of MES Manual of Contracts 2020 as available in all MES formations as well as MES website (www.mes.gov.in) (ii)Not carrying adverse remarks in Work Load Report (WLR) or any other similar report circulated by any competent authority, if already working in MES. (iii)Not suspended/debarred/blacklisted (either permanently or temporarily) form participated in any bid or for budiness dealing by any Central/Sta |
The court ruled that tender eligibility criteria must explicitly state disqualifications, allowing joint venture experience to be considered for bidder qualifications, ensuring clarity and fairness i....
Eligibility criteria in public tenders can restrict competition based on objective assessments of capacity, and courts should defer to tendering authorities unless conditions are arbitrary or detrime....
Bidders must comply strictly with tender requirements; misleading information and poor performance can result in disqualification. Judicial review in tender cases should maintain restraint, supportin....
The court upheld the validity of tender disqualification based on non-compliance with specified documentation requirements, affirming the decision-making integrity of the evaluation committee.
Judicial review of tender processes is limited; courts should respect the authority's discretion unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or irrationality.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
The court emphasized strict compliance with tender conditions, ruling that the Local Content Certificate must be submitted in the name of the Joint Venture, and deviations from prescribed formats are....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
Experience of a firm is not in its entirety attributable to each individual partner, but attributable only to the collective effort of all partners concerned.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
