The court upheld that the authority's interpretation of RFP criteria for bid evaluation is final, emphasizing that nomenclature of a project does not solely determine eligibility.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the quashing of letter dated 14.09.2022 issued by the Respondent, i.e. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), whereby the bid of the Petitioner was declared as non-responsive as per Clause 2.2.2 (i) of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The petition further prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to declare the Petitioner as technically qualified and for the Respondent to open the financial bid of the Petitioner.

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

a) It is stated on 07.02.2022, the Respondent invited tenders for Rehabilitation and Upgradation to Four-Lane Configuration and Strengthening of Thanpuri to Paror Section from KM 85+135 to 100+840 of NH-20 (New NH-154) (Design Length - 16.275) of Pathankot Mandi under NH (O) in Himachal Pradesh on Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Mode (hereinafter referred to as "the project"). The last date for submission of bids was 11.05.2022.

b) The RFP enumerates the Bidding Process as per which a single stage two-part system has been adopted for the selection of a bidder for award of the project. As per the process, the bid is to be invited under two parts:

i. The Technical Bid whereby the eligibility and qualification of the bidder is to be examined at first based on details submitted, and

ii. If the Technical Bids of a bidder are responsive to the eligibility and qualifications required under the RFP, then the Financial Bid under the second part shall be opened.

c) It is stated that the Petitioner submitted an online bid on 19.07.2022, along with bid security of Rs.3,58,14,000/- vide Bank Guarantee No. 069BG01221970004 issued by YES Bank Ltd. and the required documents. It is stated that in terms of Clause 2.2.2.2, 2.2.2.5 and 2.2.2.7 of the RFP, the Petitioner submitted the requisite documents. It is stated that the financial capacity of the bidder was Rs.18.68 crores at the close of the preceding financial year and the Average Annual Turnover was Rs.56.05 crore for the last five financial years.

d) In order to demonstrate technical qualifications, the Petitioner submitted details of certain projects, for instance, "Major maintenance with overlaying on carriageway of Kota - Baran section on the damage stretches at various location between km. 1080.263 to 1184.322 of NH-27 pavement marking re-painting of kerbs" (hereinafter referred to as "Kota-Baran project"). This project was to start on 08.08.2019 and complete on 27.02.2021, with the project costing Rs.253.99 crores. It is stated that the Petitioner completed the Kota-Baran project to the satisfaction of NHAI vide letter dated 05.03.2021. A certificate was issued by NHAI that the work stood completed on 27.02.2021.

e) It is stated that vide letter dated 26.07.2022, NHAI sought clarifications from the Petitioner with regard to the claim of Kota-Baran project falling under the Category 3 with respect of Clause 2.2.2.2 (ii) of the RFP. The letter sought for suitable proof from the Petitioner after noting that as per Clause 2.2.2.5 (v) of the RFP, the project could not be considered as an eligible project for evaluation in any category. In response, the Petitioner vide letter dated 01.08.2022 stated that the Kota-Baran project did not fall under "Maintenance work" and that the certification from NHAI indicated that out of 104 kms, 48 kms of work had been done with strengthening/re-construction from base levels. The relevant portions of both the letters have been rep