A bid's responsiveness is tested as of the last date of submission; failure to provide mandatory pre-qualification documents renders the bid non-compliant, and subsequent submissions cannot cure this deficiency.

ORDER

Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice

1. Petitioner impugns communications dated 07.03.2026 and 16.03.2026, whereby the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the bid is non-compliant.

2. Respondents had invited the bids for construction of road under the PWD Division. As per the petitioner, the respondents had invited the bids twice earlier and on both instances, the tenders were cancelled and now without any reason a third tender has been floated in which, petitioner has been disqualified. He submits that the respondents have disqualified the petitioner on the ground that he has not furnished the experience certificate of the Key Technical Personnel for the key positions employed by the petitioner. He submits that on 22.02.2026, a letter was issued by the respondents, in response to which the experience certificates were furnished, and as such, the bid of the petitioner was compliant.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that in all the three tenders, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected as being non-compliant. He further submits that it was mandated by the tender document that the experience certificate of the Key Technical Personnel for the key positions, should be furnished and the bid was to be evaluated based on the experience of Key Personnel and since petitioner failed to furnish the same, the bid has been rejected. He further submits that the communication dated 22.02.2026, was not a document requiring petitioner to furnish experience certificates but was only to show-cause as to why his bid be not rejected. He submits that merely because petitioner furnished the documents later, would not validate the non- responsive bid, the responsiveness of which has to be tested as on the last date of submission of the bid.

4. We may note that the NIT in Annexure-I (Format-1-3) specifically provides for the minimum qualification and minimum experience required of the Key Technical Personnel for the key positions. The format states that the values are mandatory and part of the technical bid and further would be part of pre- qualification criteria. The document also states that submission of the key documents, which need to be attached, is mandatory with the technical qualification envelope. Documents relating to educational qualification and experience certificates are required. Admittedly, petitioner did not furnish the experience certificates but merely filed a CV of the Key Personnel. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner possessed the documents however, did not file the same and filed them only once he received the communication dated 22.02.2026.

5. Admittedly, the last date for submission of the bid was 18.02.2026. If petitioner had in his possession the said documents, petitioner should have annexed the same with his bid. The stipulation in the tender document is categorical that furnishing of experience certificate is mandatory and part of pre- qualification criteria. Since petitioner has admittedly not furnished the experience certificates of the Key Technical Personnel for the key positions, we are of the view that the bid of the petitioner was clearly non-responsive and accordingly, the action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner as disqualified in technical evaluation, cannot be faulted.

6. The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 who has been declared as the lowest bidder is also disqualified since he has relied on forged and fabricated documen