Compliance with tender requirements is essential for bid validity; failure to provide adequate documentation results in disqualification.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an A-class contractor engaged in road and irrigation projects for both the State and the Central Government. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 decision of the special committee for pre-qualification for an approval of tenders and Ext.P5 decision taken by the special committee.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

2.1. As per Ext.P1 notification, the 1st respondent invited tenders for the work named, “Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM)-WSS Chungathara to Pothukallu, Edakkara, and Vazhikadavu Grama Panchayaths in Malappuram District—Construction of I8 LL OHSR at Edakkara for Edakkara GP and Gravity main from WTP to this OHSR General Civil Work". The petitioner submitted a tender in response to the same, and the 5^th respondent herein was also a party that submitted a tender in response to the same. The last date for submission of the tender was 16.04.2025 as per Ext.P1, which was later extended upto 21.04.2025. As part of the tender process, the technical bids of the tenderers were opened on 24.02.2025, and during the evaluation of the same by the special committee constituted for the said purpose, it was found that the tender submitted by the petitioner was not in tune with the requirements contemplated under Ext.P1 notification. Therefore, the petitioner was disqualified as per Ext P3. As against the said decision, Ext.P4 objection was submitted by the petitioner, which was considered by the special committee, and as per Ext.P5, the same, was rejected, confirming the original decision taken as per Ext.P3. Ext P6 is consequential order. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances challenging Exts.P3, P5 and P6. 2.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the sole reason for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is that, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the tender conditions stipulated as per Clause 7.4.1 thereof. The said clause provides for the existence of a joint venture, and an original or notary-attested copy of such agreement confirming the intent of all parties to form a joint venture shall be attached with the tender. The conditions regarding the ingredients of such agreements are also specified in 7.4.1 (iii). The special committee found that, what was produced by the petitioner was only a memorandum of understanding between the partners, and it does not conform to the requirements contemplated under 7.4.1 (iii) of the Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, such reasoning is not sustainable in view of the fact that, while disqualifying the petitioner vide Exts.P3 and P5, the respondent had acted upon the nomenclature of the document without examining the contents of the memorandum of understanding, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. Thus, it is a specific case that it is not the title of the documents that has to be looked into, but the contents of the said documents ought to have been referred to, to consider the question whether it conforms the requirements as per Ext.P1 notification.

2.3. Apart from the above, the petitioner also has a case that the 5^th respondent, who happened to be the L1 in the tender process, is disqualified from participating in the tender for two reasons. Firstly, the 5th respondent failed to furnish a certificate of non-relationship as contemplated under 7.12 of Ext.P1 and secondly, the petitioner failed to furnish a letter of authorization in favour of the lead member, and without furnishing such certificates, while answering the questions in the format shown in the Ext.P1 document relating to the authorization, it was mentioned that the said documents are produced. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the same amounts to furnishing an incorrect answer, and hence the tender is liable to be rejected in the light of Clause 7.18.1.

3. The Kerala Water Authority filed a counter affidavit in response to the averments contained in the writ petition, denying the averments in the writ petit