Court upholds contract award decision, finding fair process and public interest served.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's price proposal and the award of the contract to respondent No. 4. The court found that the authorities acted fairly and transparently in allowing corrections to both bids, in accordance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) provisions. The discretion exercised by the authorities was deemed appropriate, and the selection of the lowest bidder was held to be in the public interest. The court concluded that there was no evidence of mala fide or arbitrariness in the authorities' actions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of petitioner’s price proposal.
2. Award of contract to respondent No. 4.
3. Discretion exercised by the authorities under the Request for Proposal (RFP).
4. Allegations of unfair bid evaluation process.
5. Applicability of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of petitioner’s price proposal:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its price proposal by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, communicated via email on 22.12.2018. The petitioner argued that their price proposal was lower than that of respondent No. 4, and thus, the latter’s proposal should have been declared “unresponsive.” The court noted that the petitioner’s total price summary was Rs. 474.0851623.80, whereas respondent No. 4 initially submitted Rs. 483.7172863.52. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 4 was improperly allowed to change its bid, making it lower than the petitioner’s, which was alleged to be against the rules.

2. Award of contract to respondent No. 4:
The petitioner also contested the awarding of the contract to respondent No. 4, asserting that the process was unfair and biased. The court examined the evaluation process, which included assessing bids based on pre-qualification and technical qualification criteria. All five bidders, including the petitioner and respondent No. 4, qualified technically. The court found that the authorities allowed both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to correct discrepancies in their bids, which was within their discretion under Clause 2.21 of the RFP.

3. Discretion exercised by the authorities under the Request for Proposal (RFP):
The court analyzed Clauses 2.21 and 8 of the RFP, which allowed the authorities to correct discrepancies in the bids. The petitioner argued that the authorities had no discretion to allow changes in the total price summary post-submission. However, the court found that Clause 2.21 (d) provided the procedure for dealing with discrepancies, and the authorities acted within their rights to correct the GST rate applied by respondent No. 4 from 18% to the applicable 12%. This correction was deemed necessary to ensure a fair and accurate evaluation of the bids.

4. Allegations of unfair bid evaluation process:
The petitioner alleged that the bid evaluation process was unfair and biased. The court found that the authorities acted transparently by allowing both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to correct their discrepancies. The petitioner was allowed to correct the quantity of mounting structures with junction boxes, while respondent No. 4 corrected the GST rate. The court concluded that the process was fair and in line with the RFP provisions.

5. Applicability of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines:
The petitioner argued that the authorities violated CVC guidelines by allowing post-tender negotiations with respondent No. 4. The court noted that the CVC guidelines apply to central government entities, and the respondent authorities in this case were under the State Government, thus not covered by these guidelines. The court also found that the authorities acted in furtherance of public interest and within their discretion under the RFP.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the authorities acted fairly and transparently in allowing corrections to the bids of both the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The discretion exercised by the authorities was in line with the RFP provisions, and the selection of the lowest bidder was in furtherance of public interest. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide or arbitrariness in the authorities' actions.

---