Judicial deference in technical tenders limits review of bidder non-responsiveness unless the process is arbitrary or irrational.

In a technically specialised tender, the owner's interpretation of the qualifying requirement for drilling and related operational experience was given deference because the owner was best placed to assess the bid conditions and supporting material. Judicial review was confined to whether the evaluation process was mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to public interest; on the facts stated, the owner's view was found consistent with the tender framework and technical evaluation process. The bidder's challenge to the finding of technical non-responsiveness was therefore not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the owner's decision treating the bidder as technically non-responsive for not satisfying the qualifying requirement relating to drilling and related operational experience in the tender documents could be interfered with in judicial review.

Analysis: The tender conditions required the bidder to show relevant experience of developing and operating coal or lignite mines and the evaluation was to be made on the basis of the bid documents and supporting material. The owner, being the author of the tender, was held to be best placed to understand the technical requirements and interpret the qualifying criteria. In matters involving complex technical bids, the Court reiterated that judicial review is limited and interference is warranted only if the decision-making process is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to public interest. The Court found that the owner's interpretation of the drilling-related requirement was consistent with the tender framework and the technical evaluation process.

Conclusion: The bidder's challenge to the determination of technical non-responsiveness was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a technically specialised tender, the employer's reasonable interpretation of the bid conditions is entitled to deference, and courts will not substitute their own assessment unless the decision is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, or against public interest.

---