TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 nos. of 'Lower Spring Beam with vertical brackets PL No 31036065' for 453 coach sets ('Impugned Tender'). The Eligibility Criteria ('EC') mentioned therein was as follows: "...For Regular Order: Approved vendors in ICF/RCF/MCF vendor directory for the tendered item. In case of differences in approval status of the firm between the PUs, then higher approval status will be considered. (OR) Bulk procurement will be made from the firms who have supplied the tendered item (or) similar item individually (Similar item means :1) Bogie frame complete for motor coaches of EMU/MEMU (BT electrics) drg. No. 57403001; 2) Bogie frame complete for 1600 hp DEMU. motor coaches of EMU/MEMU (Medha / BHEL electrics) drg. No. 53103001- PL 3103 0373; 3) Bogie frame complete for motor coaches of EMU/MEMU (Medha electrics) - drg. No. 61703001- PL 3103 2611; 4) Bogie frame complete for trailer coaches of EMU/MEMU - drg. No. 37503001 - PL 3103 6119; 5) Bogie frame complete for 1400 hp DEMU/DPC - drg. No.32403013; 6) Bogie bolster complete for EMU coaches - drg. No. 32404001, 37404001 - PL No.3104 0081; 7) Bogie bolster complete for MEMU - drg. No. 32904001 - PL No. 3004 0231; 8) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tendered quantity i.e., 363 or more nos. against single regular/bulk order in past three years; OR c. who have supplied 35% of tendered quantity i.e., 634 or more nos. against multiple orders in past three years. d. In addition to fulfilling the requirement of bulk order as mentioned in b & c above, should have supplied minimum 200 nos. in last three years. 5. The Informant has averred that in the UVAM, under the item lower spring beam PL No. 30054205 and 31036065 bearing identity 2300037, there were only five approved sources as on date of the Impugned Tender opening viz., (a) Pennar Industries Limited; (b) Nanda Engineering Works; (c) EC Blade and Tools Pvt. Ltd; (d) Alvind Industries; and (e) Super Steels. 6. The Informant has alleged that vis-à-vis the Railway Board guidelines of a minimum five active vendors in tenders, only two sources were active here. Performance and participation criteria were not applicable on the three non-active but approved sources, consequently, effective competition was limited to two vendors only. 7. The Informant has further alleged that the EC ignores past bulk suppliers irrespective of their past performance a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elisation amongst OP-2 and OP-3 in the Impugned Tender, the Informant has provided the financial bids received by OP-1 not only in the Impugned Tender, but also in past two tenders viz. Tender No. 03221028 dated 11.05.2022 and Tender No. 03211577 dated 12.10.2021. 13. Apart from the aforesaid, the Informant has also alleged that OP-1 has abused its dominant position by imposing restrictive EC for the Impugned Tender and supporting cartel formation by OP-2 and OP-3, in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 14. The Commission considered the Information filed in its ordinary meeting held on 15.11.2023, and decided to grant confidentiality upon the identity of the Informant in terms of Regulation 35(1) of the GR as requested. Further, directed the Informant to furnish certain additional information, supported with relevant documents, regarding the tenders issued by OP-1, partial information of which was submitted by the Informant vide e-mail dated 05.12.2023 (hard copy received on 08.01.2024). 15. Thereafter, the Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 08.05.2024 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course. 16. The Commission at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antity awarded Award rate (INR) L1 Raizan Steel Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - Pune 13570.00 0 N.A. L2 Laimer Engineering - Thiruvallur 17010.55 0 N.A. L3 Laimer Engineering - Thiruvallur 17166.35 0 N.A. L4 P D Automotives - Mandi 18337.20 0 N.A. L5 P D Autos - Mandi Gobindgarh 18927.20 316 18927.20 L6 Thanuvan Enterprises - Chennai 19951.76 0 N.A. L7 Pranav Engineering - Chennai 20536.84 0 N.A. L8 Kane - Panchkula 20549.70 0 N.A. L9 I R G Fabrication - Chennai 20926.90 0 N.A. L10 GK Sons Engg. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. -Tiruchy 21210.02 0 N.A. L11 P. K. Metal Casting - Bhopal 22066.00 0 N.A. L12 Super Steels - Mohali 22167.48 N.A. N.A. Position Participant Vendor/ Bidder Bid Price (INR) Quantity awarded Award rate (INR) L13 Alvind Industries - Chandigarh 22178.10 N.A. N.A. L14 SKM Industries - Umbergaon, Valsad 22656.00 0 N.A. L15 Vaani Precision Industries - Panchkula 25606.00 0 N.A. L16 Nanda Engineering Works - Bhilai 25842.00 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elism is not sufficient to arrive at a finding of cartelisation without there being evidence of any plus factors in support of parallel pricing. 21. In Ref. Case No. 03 of 2013 (Delhi Jal Board And Grasim Industries Ltd Ors.), Opposite Parties were bidding allegedly collusively by quoting similar prices with a difference of INR 200-400 for certain quantity of Poly Aluminium Chloride (PAC) from the year 2006-07, till the year 2012. The DG concluded that there was an understanding between the bidders for all tenders floated by the Informant and they acted in a collusive manner to artificially jack up the bid prices without offering any real competition. Based on the reports submitted by DG and data available, the Commission held that ABCIL, GIL and GACL were acting in concert in respect of the tenders floated by the Informant during 2009-10 to 2014-15, for procurement of liquid PAC. In its order dated 05.10.2017 under Section 27 of the Act, the Commission stated that "parallel pricing is not per se violative of the Act." There have to be plus factors i.e. some additional evidence tangible enough to come to the conclusion that prices have been quoted as a result of concerted action....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd free exercise of consumer choice would maximize the utility of the product or service for the consumer. For an individual, that consumer's choice is based on personal assessment of competing products or services, their relative prices or personal preferences. For any other type of consumer, this process of decision making in exercise of consumer's choice is more structured and reflected in procurement procedures. Such a consumer may use experts or consultants to advise, do its own technical assessment, take advice of others it may trust or even purchase from known and reliable sources. The process of such decision making may result in purchase by nomination or limited tender or open tender. The consumer is the best judge. In case of public entities, the entity is a representative consumer on behalf of the public. There are administrative mechanisms in place for carrying on the due process of exercising consumer's choice on behalf of the public. Of course, there could be competition concerns in rare cases where a monopoly/ dominant buyer exercises the option in an anti-competitive manner but the present case is not in that category ..." Case No. 69 of 2016 (Suntec Energy....