Technical Evaluation Committee's decision quashed for accepting non-compliant bid lacking mandatory annual turnover certificates with UDIN

HC quashed the decision of Technical Evaluation Committee that accepted a bid despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements. The bidder failed to submit annual turnover certificates with UDIN for five financial years as required by ITB clauses, yet the committee selectively relied on parts of an inadmissible certificate. The court found this decision illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14. The impugned decision was set aside, and authorities were directed to issue fresh e-NIT inviting new bids with strict adherence to contract terms and conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the decision to declare respondent No. 5 as 'responsive' in the revised summary of technical evaluation report.
2. Compliance with the mandatory requirement of submitting annual turnover certificates bearing UDIN.
3. Judicial review of the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the Decision to Declare Respondent No. 5 as 'Responsive'
The petitioner-firm challenged the decision of the respondents to declare respondent No. 5 as 'responsive' in the revised summary of technical evaluation report dated 24.12.2022, arguing that it was arbitrary, unfair, and violated the mandatory terms and conditions of the e-NIT. Initially, the Technical Evaluation Committee had declared respondent No. 5 as 'non-responsive' due to the absence of UDIN on the annual turnover certificate, a mandatory requirement as per clause 4.4 B(a) III(a) of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB).

Issue 2: Compliance with the Mandatory Requirement of Submitting Annual Turnover Certificates Bearing UDIN
The petitioner contended that the certificate of five years' turnover submitted by respondent No. 5 did not meet the mandatory requirement of bearing UDIN, as stipulated in clause 4.2 (III)(a) and clause 4.4 B(a) III(a) of the ITB. The court noted that the requirement to submit annual turnover certificates bearing UDIN was reiterated in multiple clauses and was a mandatory condition, breach of which would entail rejection of the bid. The Technical Evaluation Committee's decision to reconsider and declare respondent No. 5 as 'responsive' based on a complaint and a tax audit report bearing UDIN for one year was deemed unfair and arbitrary.

Issue 3: Judicial Review of the Decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee
The court emphasized that essential conditions of a tender must be strictly complied with, and any deviation from mandatory requirements could not be condoned. The court found that the Technical Evaluation Committee's decision to declare respondent No. 5 as 'responsive' was not in compliance with the mandatory terms and conditions of the ITB, and was therefore irrational, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned decision dated 24.12.2022 and directed the respondents to issue a fresh e-NIT inviting new bids from eligible bidders for the subject work, ensuring strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the legal position stated. The court also emphasized the need to safeguard public exchequer and directed the respondents to expedite the bidding process to avoid further delays. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

---