Adherence to tender eligibility criteria is crucial, and experience from joint ventures does not qualify as single entity experience as per prescribed definitions in the tender documents.

ORDER :

1. The bid submitted by the petitioner is rejected at the technical bid stage as it did not meet the eligibility criteria enshrined under Clause-4.1.13 of the tender document.[Clause 4.1.3 of Request for Proposal No. 192/OMC/P&T/2025 dated 10.09.2025 floated by the Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. stands as follows:
“4.1.3 The Bidder whose contract/agreement with OMC had been terminated within preceding 3 (three) years from the date of this RfP will not be eligible to take part in the Bidding Process. For the avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that the above ineligibility shall not affect and disentitle a Bidder from submitting the Bid if the termination of the contract/agreement with OMC is not attributable to the said Bidder.”]

2. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the tender floated by the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited for “Selection of Mine Operator for Unchabali (Mahaparbhat) Iron Ore Mine through Reverse Auction bidding process” and annexed the experience certificate as envisaged under the clause-4.1 of the tender document, which according to the petitioner, exceeds the pecuniary limits set forth in clause-4.1.1 of the tender document. According to the petitioner, the authorities have mechanically rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner without considering that it had enough experience in executing the “similar nature of work” and in fact had completed the work much above the value as set forth in clause-4.1.1 of the tender document.

3. Clause-4.1.1 is quoted for the purpose of considering the points so raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, which runs thus:

“4.1 Technical Criteria:

4.1.1. A) The Bidder shall have successfully executed similar works for the Considered Mineral, for a minimum amount of INR 11.68 Cr in case of a single work or INR 19.46 Cr in case of 2 (two) works in any one of the immediately preceding 10 (ten) financial years excluding the year of floating of this RfP.

OR

B) The Bidder shall have successfully executed similar works for the Considered Mineral, for a minimum production not less than 3 lakh MT from any of its single opencast mine or a minimum production not less than 5 lakh MT from any of its two opencast mines, in any one of the immediately preceding 10(ten) financial years excluding the year of floating of this RfP.

“SIMILAR WORK” shall mean drilling, excavation, transportation of Ore/Waste done as part of a single contract, for the Considered Mineral by engaging required manpower and machineries.

“CONSIDERED MINERAL” shall mean Iron, Chrome, Manganese, Bauxite, Coal/Lignite or any other minerals (excluding minor minerals as per Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and its subsequent amendments) ”

3.1. It is manifest from bare reading of the aforesaid clause that “bidder” should have executed “similar work” for a minimum amount of Rs.11.68 crores in case of a single work and Rs.19.46 crores in case of two works in any one of the immediately preceding ten financial years. The “similar work” as defined does not invite any ambiguity and/or discrepancy in understanding the same.

4. The point which voiced out in the instant case, whether the experience gained by the petitioner and the work executed as a constituent of the joint venture can be counted and/or taken as the eligibility criteria as enshrined in the said clause.

5. Clause-4.1.13 of the tender document is a repository of the consideration to be undertaken by the authority for the eligibility to participate in the said tender process both on the basis of the experience and the other criteria of a Company (Private or Public) or a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). Clause-4.1.6 expanded the de