2015 (1) TMI 113 - HC - Companies Law

Validity of rejection of pre-bid submitted by petitioner Company - condition of tender process - Violation of the principles of natural justice or not Held that - The survey experience which was required to be produced was for at least five years with at least one large scale survey - the petitioner company was not included in the list of qualified bidders as the petitioner did not meet with the eligibility criteria for qualifying for technical evaluation as laid down in clause 6 of the bid documents - either through oversight or for reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner did not submit the required documents or proofs for establishing the prequalification criteria more particularly copies of the work order and certificate of completion to establish that petitioner No. 1 had at least 5 years working experience on large scale household surveys as well as field survey experience which was to be provided in the format given in Appendix H - thus, the conditions for providing the eligibility criteria to qualify for the technical evaluation were not satisfied and therefore, the petitioner was not found to be eligible and qualified for technical Evaluation. A perusal of Annexure B5 to the petition which is the minutes of NFHS-4 committee for determining prequalification of field work agencies for technical evaluation makes it clear that it was mentioned therein that the petitioner company had not submitted the survey experience of at least five years with at least one large scale survey and therefore the petitioner company was disqualified - The representative of the petitioner company being was personally present and he appended his signatures on the attendance sheet - the contention of the petitioner that the completion certificate dated 26.03.2014 is required to be considered is misconceived - The requirement as per the tender documents was for last five years which was not received along with the pre-bid documents - therefore it shall not be appropriate to accept the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner Decided against petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Arbitrary rejection of the pre-bid submitted by the petitioner company.
2. Compliance with eligibility criteria for technical evaluation.
3. Blacklisting of the petitioner company.
4. Alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
5. Consideration of documents at the pre-bid and technical bid stages.

Detailed Analysis:

Arbitrary Rejection of Pre-Bid:
The petitioner company argued that the respondent's action in summarily rejecting its pre-bid was arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that it had complied with all the eligibility criteria and had been qualified in every aspect. The petitioner emphasized that it had been incorporated on 17.03.2009 and had successfully conducted surveys without any complaints, making the rejection unjust and irrational.

Compliance with Eligibility Criteria:
The petitioner highlighted the eligibility criteria for technical evaluation as per the Draft RFP, NFHS-4 (2014-15), which required a minimum of five years of working experience on large-scale household surveys. The petitioner claimed to have submitted documents proving its eligibility, including one large-scale survey conducted during the last five years. The petitioner argued that the decision to disqualify it based on the lack of five years of experience was erroneous.

Blacklisting of the Petitioner Company:
The petitioner alleged that the rejection of its bid was influenced by its blacklisting due to the failure to complete the DLHS-4 contract on time. The petitioner claimed that the blacklisting decision was an after-thought and that the respondents had already decided to blacklist the company before rejecting its bid. The petitioner argued that this deprived it of its legitimate right of consideration.

Alleged Suppression of Material Facts:
The respondent countered that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and only mentioned half-truths before the Court. The respondent stated that the documents required to establish the prequalification criteria were not submitted along with the pre-bid documents. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner had not provided the necessary documents to prove at least five years of working experience on large-scale household surveys.

Consideration of Documents at Pre-Bid and Technical Bid Stages:
The Court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for qualifying for technical evaluation as laid down in clause 6 of the bid documents. The required documents or proofs for establishing the prequalification criteria, including copies of the work order and certificate of completion, were not submitted. The Court noted that the minutes of the NFHS-4 committee clearly stated that the petitioner had not submitted the survey experience of at least five years with at least one large-scale survey. The petitioner's representative was present during the scrutiny and had signed the attendance sheet, indicating awareness of the disqualification.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for technical evaluation. The Court emphasized that the required documents were not submitted at the pre-bid stage, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for technical evaluation. The Court also rejected the petitioner's request to extend the interim relief, noting that the interim relief was initially granted due to non-cooperation by the respondent officer, and not on the merits of the case. The Civil Applications were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →