Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fresh RFPs.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations remain maintainable where an earlier challenge was premature and the disclosure creates a fresh cause of action; res judicata and constructive res judicata do not apply to issues that could not then be adjudicated. In public procurement, comparative technical assessment requires disclosed objective standards, recorded reasons for deductions, consistent marking of materially similar proposals, and meaningful communication of reasons. Numerical scores and oral presentations cannot replace contemporaneous reasons or cure undisclosed benchmarks. Failure to meet these requirements makes the evaluation arbitrary, opaque and contrary to equality, natural justice and fair administrative action. The technical evaluations and consequential awards were set aside, with fresh RFPs directed and existing services continued pending completion.
Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations remain maintainable where an earlier challenge was premature and the disclosure creates a fresh cause of action; res judicata and constructive res judicata do not apply to issues that could not then be adjudicated. In public procurement, comparative technical assessment requires disclosed objective standards, recorded reasons for deductions, consistent marking of materially similar proposals, and meaningful communication of reasons. Numerical scores and oral presentations cannot replace contemporaneous reasons or cure undisclosed benchmarks. Failure to meet these requirements makes the evaluation arbitrary, opaque and contrary to equality, natural justice and fair administrative action. The technical evaluations and consequential awards were set aside, with fresh RFPs directed and existing services continued pending completion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
