Tender bid evaluation by financial experts attracts narrow judicial review unless the assessment is plainly perverse or absurd.

In complex fiscal tender evaluation, financial parameters, contingencies and project feasibility are best assessed by expert consultants rather than the court. Judicial review is limited to cases where the evaluation is ex facie erroneous, perverse or absurd, and the court will not sit in appeal over the consultant's assessment. On the facts, the consultant applied the tender conditions and the material before it, and no legal basis was shown to treat the report as flawed. Interference was therefore not justified because the evaluation was not vitiated by error or perversity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the financial evaluation of the tender bids by the consultant was so prima facie erroneous, arbitrary, or perverse as to warrant interference under judicial review.

Analysis: The Court held that in a complex fiscal tender evaluation, the assessment of financial parameters, contingencies, and project feasibility is best left to financial experts and consultants. The Court emphasized that it cannot sit in appeal over such an evaluation and that interference is warranted only where the assessment is ex facie erroneous, perverse, or absurd. On the facts, the consultant had evaluated the bids on the basis of the tender conditions and the documents placed before it, and the Court found no legal basis to treat the evaluation as flawed in the manner suggested.

Conclusion: The consultant's report was not shown to be vitiated by such error or perversity as would justify interference.

---