The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and the deference to be given to the interpretation of the tender document by the author. It also clarified that the warranty/guarantee period cannot be considered as part of the work done.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing of the letter dated 07.07.2022 issued by the Respondents whereby the Petitioner was found to be ineligible for opening of the financial bid on account of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of work experience. The Petitioner has further sought for directions for the Petitioner to be allowed to participate in the financial bid in E-TENDER NO. 06/CE(E)/PEWZ/PLEWD/2022-23 dated 02.06.2022.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:

a) It is stated that NIT/RFP in respect of E-Tender No. 06/CE(E)/PEWZ/PLEWD/2022-23 dated 02.06.2022 was floated by Respondent No.1 for “ Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) of telecast/broadcast facilities of Sansad TV at Parliament House Complex, New Delhi”. The type of work is stated to be “Audio-Visual Equipment”, and the Estimated Cost for the same was stated to be Rs. 80,85,64,981/-, with Rs. 90,85,650/- as the Earnest Money.

b) One of the requirements for eligibility for application is that the contracts/firms interested in bidding need to be specialized agencies who have previously executed similar nature of works. Clause 1(a) of the bid document which has been extracted in the later part of the judgment provides that the bidder should have completed the works as mentioned in the document during the last seven years ending last date of month previous to the one in which tenders are invited. It also provides that the bidder who has done one similar work costing not less than 64% of estimated cost is eligible to participate in the tender.

c) The last date of submission of the bid and other documents, as per the NIT, was 17.06.2022 at 15:00 hours. However, the same was extended by way of multiple corrigendum to 23.06.2022 up to 15:00 hours, with 23.06.2022 at 15:30 hours as the time and opening of Eligibility-cum-Technical Bid.

d) The Petitioner submitted the technical bid, along with the requisite documents, and in order to show eligibility as per Clause 1(a) of the bid document, the Petitioner supplied documents with regard to completion of a contract for execution of SITC of Multi-Camera Mobile Van for outdoor production in HDTV format in the year 2016 for Doordarshan. It is stated that the value of the total work was Rs. 40,24,89,000/-, and after factoring in an escalation of 7% per year, the total value of the contract now amounts to Rs. 57,15,34,380/- after 6 years which is more than 64% of the estimated cost.

e) Vide letter dated 24.06.2022, clarifications were sought by the Respondent No.1 from the Petitioner with regard to the previous work experience stating that the actual value of work had not been mentioned, and that though the time period of execution of work was 12 months in the acceptance letter of work, however, the time taken had been approximately three years. The Petitioner was, therefore, requested to furnish the required documents/clarifications within five days of the letter, failing which it would have been assumed that the requisite documents/clarification was not available with the Petitioner. Vide reply dated 29.06.2022, the Petitioner stated that there was no difference between the value of works as per A/T, i.e. Rs. 40,24,89,000/- and the actual value of the work done, i.e. Rs. 40,24,89,000/. It was further stated that as per the governing conditions of the A/T [Clause 5 and Clause 15(h)], the guarantee/warranty period would form a part of the contract, and as this period was for 24 months, it aptly explained the three years period.

f) Vide letter dated 07.07.2022, the Petitioner was informed that they had been found to be ineligible for opening of the financial bid due to its inability of fulfilling the eligibility criteria of work experience of required value as per definition of similar work given in the NIT. For the approved eligible bidders, the financial bid w