SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
V Tech Sunsystems Pvt. Ltd. - Australian Premium Solar (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Consortium) - Appellant
Versus
Energy Efficiency Services - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5723 of 2021 & CM Appl. 17918 of 2021
Decided On : 31-08-2021




Tender evaluation criteria must be clear, and ambiguities are construed against the drafter. Valid experience certificates from relevant entities must be considered in determining bid responsiveness.

Headnote:(A) Framework Agreement and Tendering Processes - Tender Documents - Interpretation and Compliance - An invitation to tender was issued for the supply of Off Grid Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping Systems. The petitioner's bid was rejected on grounds of technical non-responsiveness relating to cumulative work experience and multiple bids. The court found that the rejection due to alleged non-compliance with experience requirements was unfounded as the petitioner had sufficient experience certificates. The requirements are to be clearly defined, and ambiguity is construed against the drafter. (Paras 11, 16, 25-27)

(B) Judicial Review - The court assessed the legality of the technical evaluation process and upheld that the petitioner did not breach any tender conditions, ensuring fairness in competitive bidding processes. (Paras 24-28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a joint venture engaged in solar energy projects, contested the rejection of its technical bid submitted for a tender issued by the respondent, EESL, which was deemed non-responsive based on cumulative work experience and participation in multiple bids.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner was deemed to possess the required work experience as certified by relevant experience certificates, leading to the conclusion that the rejection of the bid was illegal.

Issues: The main issues included the interpretation of the tender document's requirements for cumulative experience and the legitimacy of the technical evaluation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the experience certificates issued by a Distribution Company are valid and should not be disregarded; ambiguity in tender terms is interpreted against the entity that drafted them.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, disqualification quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to quash communications from eesl. (Para 1)
2. facts about petitioner's identity and business operations. (Para 2 , 3)
3. eesl issued an invitation for tenders. (Para 4 , 5)
4. petitioner submitted a bid that was ultimately rejected. (Para 6 , 7)
5. petitioner sought clarification on bid rejection. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. arguments presented regarding technical qualifications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
7. court's observations on disqualification grounds. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. discussion on experience certificates and evaluation criteria. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
9. interpretation of tender conditions and respondent's obligations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
10. conclusion on the validity of experience requirements. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking substantially the following reliefs.

    "

    a. Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 20.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2 insofar it fails to include the Petitioner in the "Envelope Name: Price Bid";

    b. Quash and set aside the impugned e-mail communication dated and 21.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner;

    c......

    d. Stay further process with respect to Open Tender NIT/Bid Doc. No.:- EESL/06/2020-21/KUSUM/WPS/1- 10 HP/Off Grid/202101032 dated 14.01.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2;

    e......

    f. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to provide reason(s) for rejection of Technical Qualification bid of the Petitioner and seek clarifications from the Petitioner; if any;

    g......"

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Joint Venture (JV) engaged in the business as an EPC agency for executing sub-Station, EHV Line Projects, Civil / Mechanical Works of Generation Projects upto 765 kV class and Mega Watt, Rooftop Scale and On Grid / Off-Grid Projects in India. The Petitioner is also stated to be one of premium solar panel manufacturers in India.

3. The respondent is Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) and is a Super Energy Service Company (ESCO), which helps consumers, industries and governments to effectively manage their energy needs through energy efficient technologies. EESL was founded in 2009, promoted by Ministry of Power, Government of India as a Joint Venture of four reputed public-sector undertakings, namely, a) NTPC Limited, b) Power Finance Corporation Limited, c) REC Limited, and d) POWERGRID Corporation of India Limited.

4. On 14.01.2021, the respondent issued Detailed Invitation for Bids (IFB) for design, manufacture, supply transport, installation, testing and commissioning of Off Grid Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping Systems of 1-10 HP in Selected States on PAN India basis, including complete system warranty and its repair and maintenance for 5 Years under MNRE KUSUM scheme Component-B.

5. Respondent invited e-bids from eligible bidders for the aforesaid work under Single-stage Three-envelope bidding process through E-tendering.

6. Pursuant to the IFB dated 14.01.2021, petitioner submitted its bid vide the E-tendering process, as per the format prescribed by the respondent. As per the requirement, the petitioner submitted on 18.02.2021, its electronic bid.

7. Vide an amendment No. 3 dated 17.02.202; the date of online bid submission was extended till 19.02.2021. On 03.03.2021, the Technical Qualification bids were opened by Respondent No.2 and the petitioner's bid was rejected. Consequently, the petitioner was not included in the "Envelope Name: Price Bid". Vide communication dated 20.05.2021, the petitioner learnt that his technical bid had been rejected. 35 bidders were qualified in the technical bid, out of a total of 65 bidders.

8. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner on the same date i.e. 20.05.2021 addressed a communication to the respondent EESL to seek clarification of the status of petitioner's bid. Subsequent to the said communication, respondent EESL on 21.05.2021 vide an auto- generated response, informed the p

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top