Public procurement responsiveness: non-material tender defects may be clarified or waived without invalidating a technical bid.

In public procurement, a technical bid is not non-responsive merely because it contains non-material deviations, omissions, or reservations that can be clarified or waived without altering the substance of the offer or giving an unfair competitive advantage. Applying the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 and Rules, 2013, the High Court treated objections relating to experience certificates, completion certificates, processing fee nomenclature, and a board resolution as non-material. Clarified documents were accepted as satisfying the eligibility criteria, the fee-payment error was regarded as bona fide, and no board resolution was required where a power of attorney had been furnished. The challenge to the successful bidder's technical qualification therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the technical bid of the successful bidder suffered from material deviation, omission, or reservation so as to render it non-responsive, and whether the procuring entity could seek clarifications or waive non-material defects under the tender conditions and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 and Rules, 2013.

Analysis: The bidding framework required responsiveness to be judged by whether the bid met the tender conditions without material deviation, reservation, or omission. The statutory scheme under the Act and Rules recognised the distinction between material and non-material non-conformities, permitted clarifications, and allowed waiver or rectification of defects that did not alter the substance of the bid or unfairly affect competitive position. On the facts, the alleged deficiencies concerning experience, completion certificates, processing fee nomenclature, and board resolution were held not to constitute material deviations. The experience and turnover certificates supplied after clarification were found to satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria. The processing fee paid in the wrong name was treated as a bonafide, non-material error, especially since another bidder had made a similar mistake. The board resolution objection was rejected because the tender documents did not mandate such a resolution where power of attorney had been furnished. The challenge therefore did not disclose any illegality in the evaluation process.

Conclusion: The bid was rightly treated as responsive, and the challenge to the technical qualification of the successful bidder failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In public procurement, a bid may not be invalidated for defects that are non-material and capable of clarification or waiver, so long as the correction does not alter the substance of the bid or confer an unfair competitive advantage.

---