Tender evaluation rules cannot be expanded by undisclosed guidelines; hearing only the highest bidders was sufficient.

The governing bidding regulations could not be expanded by reading 2011 Census figures into the evaluation criteria, because those figures were linked only to eligibility requirements and not to any ceiling on PNG connections quoted in financial bids. An internal note issued after bid closure, and never communicated to bidders, operated only as a scrutiny guideline and did not create a binding upper or lower threshold for rejection. Calling only the highest bidders for explanation did not breach natural justice, since the reasonableness review concerned those quotes alone and lower-ranked bidders had no separate right to be heard. The accepted bids were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the 2011 Census figures could be read into the bidding criteria for determining the reasonableness of the highest PNG connection quote; (ii) whether the Board's internal note of 23 July 2018 created an inflexible upper and lower threshold for rejection of bids; and (iii) whether calling only the highest bidders for explanation violated natural justice.

Issue (i): whether the 2011 Census figures could be read into the bidding criteria for determining the reasonableness of the highest PNG connection quote.

Analysis: The bidding regulations expressly linked the 2011 Census figures only to minimum net worth and performance bond requirements. The criteria for evaluating financial bids under Regulation 7 were framed independently of Census-based household figures and contained no ceiling on the number of PNG connections that could be quoted. The bid document and map did not override the statutory bidding criteria or supply an unstated condition that the quoted PNG connections had to be capped by the 2011 household figures.

Conclusion: The 2011 Census figures could not be imported as a mandatory ceiling for the bidding criteria, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the Board's internal note of 23 July 2018 created an inflexible upper and lower threshold for rejection of bids.

Analysis: The internal note was prepared after bids had closed and was never notified to bidders. Its language used permissive expressions and operated only as a guide for scrutiny under the Board's reserved power to reject bids considered unreasonably high or low. Reading it as an automatic disqualification rule would have introduced an undisclosed condition and offended fairness in the tender process.

Conclusion: The note did not create a binding or mechanical disqualification norm, and the Board was entitled to treat it as a guideline only.

Issue (iii): whether calling only the highest bidders for explanation violated natural justice.

Analysis: The power under the bid document was to examine the reasonableness of the highest bidder's quote before declaring the successful bidder. That exercise affected the highest bidder alone, and the other bidders had no independent right to participate merely because they were lower in rank. The Board afforded a hearing to the highest bidders whose quotes were under scrutiny, which was sufficient for the decision-making process.

Conclusion: There was no violation of natural justice in hearing only the highest bidders whose quotes were being examined for reasonableness.

Final Conclusion: The bids in question were validly assessed on the basis of the governing regulations and bid conditions, and the Board's decision to accept the impugned successful bids was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing regulations prescribe specific eligibility and evaluation criteria, an undisclosed or internal guideline cannot be converted into a binding disqualification norm, and the authority may examine the reasonableness of the highest bid alone before declaring the successful bidder.

---