Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL, JJ.
GMW Private Limited & another – Appellants
Versus
Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 573 of 2023
Decided on : 25-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Pushpila Bisht, Ms. Mamta Bisht and Mr. Tanay Tewari
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Vijay Mishra and Mr. Naman Kamboj, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Ms. Puja Banga
Non-compliance with tender evaluation criteria, such as disclosure of litigation history, can justify the rejection of a bid.
Headnote:
TECHNICAL BID - EVALUATION CRITERIA - Clause 2.4 - Litigation History
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their technical bid for a tender due to non-compliance with Clause 2.4 regarding litigation history disclosure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had submitted a tampered document in a previous tender, leading to their disqualification, and upheld the rejection of their bid.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the petitioners' bid based on non-compliance with Clause 2.4 was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' submission of a tampered document in a previous tender justified their disqualification, and therefore upheld the rejection of their bid.
Final Decision: The petitioners' challenge was dismissed, and the rejection of their bid was upheld.
JUDGMENT:
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the decision dated 22.02.2023, communicated to the petitioners by respondent No. 1, whereby, the petitioners’ technical bid submitted in respect of Tender Id No. 2022_UJWB2_52260_1, Tender Reference No. NCB/17/EE(EM)/MB-II/B/2022-23, has been rejected for the reason “As Per Tech Summary”. The Tech Summary, i.e., The Technical Evaluation (Part I) has been filed separately, which shows that the technical bid of the petitioners has been rejected, for the reason that – “Not as per footnote 04 of Section III – Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, Clause 2.4”.
2) To appreciate the reason for rejection of the petitioners’ technical bid, we may refer to Clause 2.4, and footnote 04, contained in Section III – Evaluation and Qualification Criteria. Clause 2.4, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows:
Joint Venture (existing or intended) where permitted
|
|
| Joint Venture (existing or intended) where permitted | |||||
| No | Subject | Requirement | Single Entity | All members Combined | Each Member | Atleast one Member | Submission Requirements |
| 2.4 | Litigation History | No consistent history of court / / Arbitral ward a decisions | Must Meet Requirement | Must Meet Requirement | Must Meet Requirement | N/A | Form Con - 2 |
4. The Bidder shall provide accurate information on the Letter of Bid about any litigation or arbitration resulting from bids submitted or contracts awarded or completed or ongoing under its execution over the last five years. A consistent history of court/arbitral awards against the Bidder or any member of a joint venture may result in disqualifying the Bidder.
3) The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were required to disclose the litigation history under Clause 2.4, in so far as it discloses “consistent history of court / arbitral award decisions against the bidders, since 01.01.2012”.
4) The case of the petitioners is, that they did not have any such litigation history with the respondent, which could be said to have resulted in - consistent court / arbitral award decisions against the petitioners.
5) In response to Clause 2.4, the petitioners, in their bid had stated –
| No Litigation History in accordance with Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, Sub-Factor 2.4 and subsequently Amended by e-Procurement Corrigendum No. – 01 We don’t have any consistent history of court/arbitral award decision against us, since 01st December, 2017. |
6) The petitioners had also disclosed in Table-b, the following information :
| Tender Identification : NCB/10/EE(E&M)/AB/UJVNL/2018-19 dtd. 07.03.2019 & NCB/08/EE(E&M)VIRBHADRA BARRAGE/UUJVNL/2018-19 dtd. 14.03.2019 Name of Employer: UJVNL LTD. Address of Employer : Asan Barrage, UJVNL Ltd., Dhalipur – 248142, District – Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Virbhadra Barrage, UJVNL Ltd., - Pashulok, Rishikesh – 249203, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Matter in dispute : Regarding the total value to work of TRCM and Trash rack of our completed contract of Sainj HEP. For Unfair evaluation process with undue favours extended to other bidder Multitech Engineers with having its operators/CEO with CBI court case for financial scam at Jharkhand State Electricity Board along with then CMB of JSEB and later MD of UJVNL at the time of opening of above tenders. Party who intimated the dispute : Employer (UJVNL Ltd.) Reasons(s) for Litigation and Bid evaluation decision : Reason is not clear to us, as we were a sub-contractor of HCC and the aforesaid value of the job was subsequently certified by HCC. Moreover, in view of the decision taken by UJVNL Ltd. against us, we had to approach Honourable High Court for justice, from where we obtained the stay order, which is still holds good and the |
