Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, Rakesh Thapliyal, JJ.
Khetwal Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 30 of 2023
Decided On : 17-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by, Mr. Vikas Bahuguna.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Abhijay Negi and Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, Ms. Garima Thapa
Compliance with specific tender requirements is essential for the acceptance of a technical bid.
Headnote:
Technical Bid - Rejection of Bid - The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid on the grounds that the Experience Certificate submitted was of another firm and the work was not of similar nature, as required by Clause 2.4.2 of the Tender Document.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their technical bid based on the Experience Certificate and the nature of the work.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's bid was rightly rejected as it did not meet the specific requirements laid down in Clause 2.4.2 of the Tender Document.
Issues: Assailed rejection of technical bid, grounds for rejection, interpretation of Clause 2.4.2 of the Tender Document.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of the technical bid was upheld based on the specific requirements outlined in Clause 2.4.2 of the Tender Document, which the petitioner failed to meet.
Final Decision: The writ petition and pending application were dismissed, and the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Vipin Sanghi, J.
A Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed by Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the Court. The same is taken on record.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner has assailed the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid on two grounds, namely that the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner is of another Firm, and secondly, that the work is not of similar nature.
4. If either of these two grounds for rejection of the technical bid is made out, in our view, this petition would be liable to be dismissed.
5. Clause 2.4.2 of the Tender Document requires specific construction experience to be shown by the bidders.
| Requirement | Single Entity | Joint Venture | Submission Requirements | ||
| All partners combined | One Partner | Each Partner | |||
| Participation as prime contractor in at least One contract that was started and had been successfully completed in any one year in last Five years, with a value of at least 25% of the estimated cost of the work, and that are similar to the proposed works. It shall consist of Stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage. | Must meet requirement | Must meet requirement | Not applicable | Not applicable | Form given in Section 4 EXP 2 |
6. The bidders had to show their experience in Form EXP 2. As we have already noticed in our order passed yesterday, the Form EXP 2 submitted by the petitioner only related to road work, and did not relate to ‘stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage’.
7. The submission of Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that this Court should look at the BOQ of the work in question, and if the same is examined in the light of the work experience of the petitioner, the petitioner would be found to be having the requisite experience. We refuse to undertake any such exercise.
8. Clause 2.4.2 is very specific. It lays down the requirements, which the bidders have to meet. The last sentence, namely “It shall consist of Stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage” cannot be read as mere surplus. Even without this sentence, the requirement could have been complete. However, the respondents have consciously included the past experience, which the bidders should have in stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have that experience, as the petitioner has provided in Form EXP 2 the work related to road construction.
9. Mr. Kamat has sought to draw our attention to the experience certificate of the petitioner and related documents to show that the petitioner has done the work of constructing Kachcha drain and undertaking the cross- drainage work.
10. Prima facie it appears to us that neither of these two works can be equated with ‘stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage’. Even otherwise, these are technical issues, which we are not in a position to evaluate and assess. Such technical evaluation can only be undertaken by a technically qualified person, which has been done.
11. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
12. Consequently, pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.
13. Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself, on payment of the prescribed charges, as per rules.
