The court affirmed that a bidding process remains valid if extensions are properly granted and entities without requisite qualifications cannot challenge the process.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, ACJ. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that the bid document bearing No. GEM/2021/B/1253716 dated 25.06.2021 be declared as null and void as having expired by efflux of time, on the ground that the maximum prescribed period of the bid document, including the period by which it could be extended, has expired on 22.12.2021. The petitioner further challenges the declaration of Competent Services; MS Support Services Pvt. Ltd.; and JMD Services Pvt. Ltd. as having qualified in the tender, on the ground that they were declared qualified only after the expiry of the validity period of the bid document and were selectively chosen to rectify the deficiencies in their bid.

2. The respondent no. 1 had floated the above-mentioned tender dated 25.06.2021 for hiring of sanitation services. The bid document provided the "Bid End Date/Time" as "12.07.2021 20:00:00". It further provided the "Bid Life Cycle (From Publish Date)" as "90 days", and "Bid Offer Validity (From End Date)" as "30 days". The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on "Manual for Procurement of Works 2019" published by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, contends that in terms of the said Manual, the Bid Life Cycle is the period within which a buyer has to complete the entire life cycle, that is, technical evaluation, financial evaluation and order creation under the Bid process. He submits that in the present case, the Bid Life Cycle, as noted hereinabove, was 90 days. He further submits that in terms of the Manual referred hereinabove, the maximum period for the Bid Life Cycle is 180 days and, that too, only in exceptional cases. He submits that in the present case, the 180 days period from the date of the bid document had already expired and therefore, the tender should have been considered as closed, and no longer valid.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 1 selectively invited only five bidders, whose bid had not been found responsive, to submit further documents and clarification, and thereafter, declared three of them as technically responsive to participate further in the bid. He submits that such selective method is totally arbitrary, thereby rendering the entire bid process illegal. He submits that the petitioner had, on coming to know of the above illegality, made a detailed representation dated 11.01.2022 claiming that similar benefit be granted to the petitioner, however, there was no response from the respondent no. 1.

4. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that in terms of the bid document, the life cycle extension could be upto 730 days after obtaining approval from the Competent Authority. He submits the validity of the Bid was, therefore, validly extended after obtaining approval of the Competent Authority.

5. He further submits that the result of the technical evaluation was declared by the respondent no. 1 on 24.12.2021. In terms of the bid document itself, 7 days' time was granted to each bidder for submitting representation/clarification, if any. While representation/clarification was received from five bidders, out of which, for three the same were accepted and they were later declared eligible; the representation from the petitioner was received only after the expiry of 7 days. He further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the process inasmuch, as, on the face of the record, the petitioner was not even eligible to participate in the bid. He submits that the bid document required three years past experience. As noted, the bid was floa