The court upheld the award of the tender to the opposite party no.5, finding that the bid was qualified and awarded based on the evaluation of the bid and compliance with the conditions provided in Clauses 11, 19 & 20 of the Technical Bid (Eligibility Criteria).

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, namely Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd challenges the decision of the tendering authority/the opposite party no.2-All India Institute of Medical Science (Hereinafter, AIIMS for short), Bhubaneswar in qualifying the bid of opposite party no.5 : Quess Corporation Ltd. and awarding the contract to opposite party no.5 for providing manpower on job outsourcing basis at AIIMS Bhubaneswar for a period of two years from the date of award of contract and further extendable.

2. In the writ petition the following prayers have been made :

(a) The acceptance of the tender bid of the opposite party no.5 and award of contract under Annexure-13 should be declared illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and be quashed.

(b) The bid of the petitioner should be accepted since the petitioner has complied all criteria of the tender notice dated 10.02.2021 and quoted equal rate similar to opposite party no.5.

(c) The process adopted by the opposite party nos.3 & 4 in evaluation and finalization of the public tender should be declared illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of the article 14 of the constitution of India.

3. The opposite party no.2-All India Institute of Medical Science Bhubaneswar is a statutory body and it is agreed by the petitioner as well as the opposite parties that the said authority is a 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

4. The facts as they have emerged are that after the E-tender notice dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-2) inviting tender from intending bidders, a corrigendum dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was issued. In the said corrigendum, Clauses-11, 19 & 20 of Technical Bid (Eligibility Criteria) have proved to be the bone of contention between the parties and, therefore, are quoted herein for convenience of reference :

'Clause-11 (i) Valid Labour License copies issued in favour of the Firm by Labour Commission, GOI of respective areas exclusively for manpower deployment (Health care, Technical, Administrative, Engineering and similar Services) where manpower have been provided by the firm during last 05(Five) FYs (2015-16), 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20).

(ii) Undertaking to be submitted by the bidder (who is not operating in Bhubaneswar) that they will obtain and submit valid labour license from the local authority for area of work at Bhubaneswar within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of award of work/contract.'

'Clause-19-Experience in providing Manpower Services {(Health Care, Technical, Administrative, Engineering and Similar Services (Excluding security, Watchman & Housekeeping Services)} as per Annexure-III. This shall cover the details of works of similar nature, approximate magnitude and duration carried out and/or on hand as on 31.03.2020 for last 5 years along with copy of work orders/certificates issued by concerned authority from Central Government/State Govt./PSU/Autonomous bodies/reputed private organization where the job was carried out.

Clause-20- Bidders must have completed a single work order for minimum value of Rs.5.00 crore (Rupees five crore only) towards Manpower service {for Health care, Technical, Administrative, Engineering and similar Services (Excluding security, watchman & Housekeeping service)} in any year during last 5 years. (Please enclose copy of necessary completion certificate.)'.

The notice inviting the tender requires the bidders to enclose the copies of completion certificate towards satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as quoted here above, provided in Clauses-19 and 20. The completion certificate has to be of the work done towards manpower during the last five years excluding Security, Watchman, Housekeeping Service.

Referring to clauses quoted above, it is sought to be submitted that the opposite party no.5's bid should have been disqualified being not in consonance with Clauses-19 & 20 above as the opposite party no.5 in the completion certificate produced fo