AI/ML Reservoir Modeling Tender Halted Over GST Rate Inconsistencies, Interim Order Blocks Procurement Process

Oil India Limited NIT for AI/ML reservoir modeling services challenged due to GST rate discrepancies. HC issued interim order halting tender proceedings, prohibiting further actions by respondents. Petitioner argued non-uniform GST rates compromised bid evaluation fairness. Respondent claimed LOI already issued and mobilization commenced. Court directed expedited review of tender documents and evaluation mechanism, scheduling next hearing in four weeks.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to evaluation mechanism in a NIT issued by Oil India Limited regarding hiring of services for Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning based reservoir modeling.
2. Allegation of lack of uniform GST rate specification in the tender notice leading to evaluation discrepancies.
3. Discrepancy in bid values and GST rates quoted by the petitioner and respondent no. 3.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition due to already issued Letter of Intent (LOI) and mobilization by the respondent.
5. Request for an interim order to halt further actions by the respondents pending a detailed review.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the evaluation mechanism in a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by Oil India Limited for hiring services related to Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning based reservoir modeling. The petitioner alleges that the tender notice lacks a uniform GST rate specification for all bidders, leading to discrepancies in bid evaluation based on diverse GST rates quoted by the parties. This discrepancy is argued to compromise the concept of competitive bids.

2. The petitioner's bid value is approximately Rs. 7.51 Crores with GST quoted at 18%, totaling Rs. 8.87 Crores, while the respondent no. 3 bid is around Rs. 8 Crores with GST quoted at 12%, totaling Rs. 8.96 Crores. The petitioner contends that despite the requirement to quote GST, there should be uniformity in the rates for the services offered to maintain fairness in the bidding process.

3. The respondent no. 3 argues that the writ petition is not maintainable as the Letter of Intent (LOI) has already been issued, and mobilization for the work has commenced. The respondent further claims that any ambiguities should have been clarified during the pre-bid meeting, and since the petitioner did not seek clarification then, they are estopped from raising issues post bid evaluation.

4. After considering the submissions from both parties and balancing the equities, the Court decides to issue an interim order. The order prohibits further actions by Oil India Limited and directs the respondent no. 3 to halt progress on the subject work until the next hearing date. The Court emphasizes the importance of serving the interest of justice and public interest in making this decision.

5. Due to the public interest nature of the work involved, the Court aims to expedite the disposal of the writ petition on the returnable date. The counsel representing Oil India Limited is directed to produce the necessary records on that date. The case is listed for the next hearing after four weeks to review the progress and submissions made by both parties.

---