Tender time extension for performance bank guarantee upheld where conditions allowed discretion and public interest justified continuation.

PNGRB's ability to extend time for furnishing a performance bank guarantee after issuance of the letter of intent was upheld where the tender conditions did not expressly prohibit extension and clause 4.7.3 reserved a right to cancel, which also allowed a considered decision not to cancel. The process up to the letter of intent was completed validly under the tie-break mechanism, and the later dispute concerned only compliance with the performance guarantee stage. The extension was treated as a public-interest decision because the selected bidder was offering a substantially larger guarantee and cancellation would have delayed the project. No mala fides, arbitrariness, discrimination, or breach of tender terms was found.

---

---

Issues: Whether PNGRB could extend the time for furnishing the performance bank guarantee after issuance of the letter of intent and whether the grant of such extension, instead of disqualifying the selected bidder and awarding the authorization to the petitioner, was illegal or arbitrary.

Analysis: The selection process up to issuance of the letter of intent was completed under Regulation 7(3) of the 2008 Regulations and the corresponding tender clauses through the tie-break mechanism based on additional bid bond amounts. The selected entity furnished the additional bid bond within time and was validly issued the letter of intent. The dispute arose only at the stage of furnishing the performance bank guarantee under Regulations 9 and 10 and the tender condition permitting cancellation if the bond was not submitted in time. The tender conditions did not bar extension of time, and clause 4.7.3 reserved to PNGRB the right to cancel the proposed authorization, which implied that it could also choose not to cancel and extend time where justified. The decision to grant extension was taken in public interest, since the selected bidder was furnishing a much larger performance bank guarantee and cancellation would have delayed the project. The court found no mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, discrimination, or violation of tender conditions.

Conclusion: The extension of time was valid, the petitioner was not entitled to disqualification of the selected bidder or to be declared successful, and the challenge failed.

---