Court upholds tender award for Vehicle Tracking System & Passenger Information System post-GST.

The Court upheld the award of the tender for Vehicle Tracking System and Passenger Information System to respondent no.2, finding that the negotiations and adjustments made post-GST implementation were within permissible limits. It concluded that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation acted in accordance with tender conditions and the corrigendum, rejecting the petitioner's challenge as lacking merit. The petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the award of a tender for Vehicle Tracking System and Passenger Information System based on non-compliance with bid conditions.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the award of a tender by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) to a successful bidder, contending that the bid did not comply with the tender conditions. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the bid exceeded the CAPEX cost limit of 50% of the total cost as stipulated in the tender conditions. The petitioner sought to quash the award and demanded a fresh bidding process.

The MSRTC defended its decision, stating that the bid was made before the introduction of Goods and Service Tax (GST) rates and that negotiations with the successful bidder were conducted post-GST implementation to adjust the tax components in the bid. The MSRTC contended that the negotiated price fell within permissible parameters considering the GST rates.

Respondent no.2, the successful bidder, argued that the levy of GST was unforeseen when the tender was issued, and the negotiated price was within acceptable limits post-GST implementation. They cited a government circular providing guidelines for tenders accepted before GST implementation but with contracts issued after the GST rollout.

The Court noted that the original tender did not account for GST rates, leading to a corrigendum instructing bidders to consider GST in their bids. It found that respondent no.2, as the lowest bidder, was entitled to negotiate post-GST implementation to adjust the bid prices accordingly. The Court concluded that the negotiations and adjustments made by respondent no.2 were within the permissible framework, and the MSRTC acted in accordance with the tender conditions and the corrigendum.

The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the award breached the tender conditions, stating that the MSRTC's decision was not arbitrary and was in line with the tender requirements and the introduction of GST during the bidding process. It upheld the award of the tender to respondent no.2, concluding that the petition lacked merit and was thus rejected without costs.

---