https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308109 A tender condition requiring performance security by bank guarantee to remain valid for the stipulated period was treated as essential, especially after pre-tender clarification put bidders on notice that the clause would not be modified. A bid supported by a bank guarantee valid for only six months, instead of the required forty months, was inconsistent with the tender document and amounted to a material deviation. Because Clause 2.35 treated materially non-responsive bids as not substantially responsive and barred later correction, the defect could not be condoned after submission. The bid was therefore liable to be rejected as non-responsive. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308109 A tender condition requiring performance security by bank guarantee to remain valid for the stipulated period was treated as essential, especially after pre-tender clarification put bidders on notice that the clause would not be modified. A bid supported by a bank guarantee valid for only six months, instead of the required forty months, was inconsistent with the tender document and amounted to a material deviation. Because Clause 2.35 treated materially non-responsive bids as not substantially responsive and barred later correction, the defect could not be condoned after submission. The bid was therefore liable to be rejected as non-responsive. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308109