2011 (4) TMI 1214 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether, on account of the corrigendum whereby the provisions of Section 3 of the Tender documents and Section 7 of the Bidder s Check List were amended, the appellant was, disqualified from consideration, in view of the fact that along with the Tender documents it had filed, through inadvertence or otherwise, a copy of the ISO 9001 2000 certificate of the previous year, instead of the current year, although, it did have the said valid ISO 9001 2000 certificate at the time of making of the bid? Held that - Appeal dismissed. We need not refer to the decisions cited by the learned Attorney General or the Appellant in this regard, as the principles enunciated therein are well-established.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Relevance of Section 7 of the Request For Proposal (RFP)
2. Mistake in submission of bid documents and its impact
3. Significance of the attempt to obtain clarification about the Appellant's ISO 9001 Certification
4. Production of a valid ISO 9001 Certification before the Respondents

Detailed Analysis:

1. Relevance of Section 7 of the Request For Proposal (RFP):
The core dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 7 of the RFP, particularly the Bidder's Check List. The original Section 7.1.1 required a valid ISO 9001:2000 certification to be submitted with the bid documents, with a provision for submission of a renewed certificate at the time of signing the contract if the original was due for renewal. The corrigendum issued on 18th January 2010 altered this requirement, mandating that the bidder/lead partners of the consortium should have an active ISO 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. The Appellant argued that despite having a valid ISO 9001:2000 certification at the time of bid submission, an expired certificate was inadvertently submitted. The Respondents contended that the corrigendum replaced the original provisions, making the submission of a valid certificate at the time of bid submission mandatory.

2. Mistake in submission of bid documents and its impact:
The Appellant admitted to submitting an expired ISO 9001:2000 certificate due to inadvertence, despite possessing a valid certificate at the time of bid submission. The Appellant argued that this mistake should not be fatal to their bid, citing Clause 9 of Section 7.1.1, which allowed for the submission of a renewed certificate at the time of signing the contract. However, the Respondents maintained that the corrigendum altered this provision, requiring the valid certificate to be submitted with the bid documents, and the failure to do so justified the rejection of the Appellant's bid. The Court held that the Appellant's failure to submit the required valid certificate with the bid documents, even if due to inadvertence, was within the discretionary powers of the authority inviting the bids and was not perverse or arbitrary.

3. Significance of the attempt to obtain clarification about the Appellant's ISO 9001 Certification:
The Appellant highlighted that Shri Naveen Prakash from Wipro Consulting Services, who was involved in the tender process, had confirmed the validity of their ISO 9001:2000 certification through an email from Shri Sandeep R. Chalke of QAL International Certification (India). This information was available before the rejection of the Appellant's bid. However, the Respondents argued that this information was obtained on a private initiative and was not officially presented to the Tender Advisory Committee. The Court concluded that this information did not influence the decision-making process since it was not formally considered by the Committee.

4. Production of a valid ISO 9001 Certification before the Respondents:
The Appellant contended that the valid ISO 9001:2000 certification was inadvertently not submitted with the bid documents but could have been produced at the time of signing the contract. The Respondents argued that the corrigendum required the submission of the valid certificate with the bid documents, and the failure to comply with this mandatory requirement justified the rejection of the bid. The Court agreed with the Respondents, stating that the obligation to submit the valid certificate with the bid documents was clear and the Appellant's failure to do so, even if due to inadvertence, did not warrant interference with the decision to reject the bid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the rejection of the Appellant's bid was justified due to the failure to submit a valid ISO 9001:2000 certification with the bid documents, as required by the corrigendum to the RFP. The Court emphasized that the discretion exercised by the authority inviting the bids was not perverse or arbitrary, and the Appellant's reliance on the unamended provisions of the RFP was misplaced. The decision of the High Court was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.