Allied Digital Services Ltd. vs State of Punjab and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 6.7.2009, Annexure P-7, awarding contract to respondent No. 3 instead of the petitioner.

Facts pleaded are that the petitioner gave bid in pursuance of Tender Notice dated 3.6.2009 for providing laying, operating and maintenance of Annalog Addressable Fire Detection System, Public Address and Evacuation System, CCTV Surveillance System and Networking System for the Forest Office Complex being constructed in Sector 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab for five years. Pre Bid Conference was held on 10.6.2009 and minutes were circulated on 11.6.2009. Last date for receipt of bids was 19.6.2009, on which date only technical bids were opened. On 20.6.2009, respondent No. 2, Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation, Government of Punjab decided that instead of requirement of three years experience of performance, as provided in the lender conditions, five years experience of performance will be considered. Financial bid was opened on 26.6.2009. The contract was awarded to respondent No. 3 on 6.7.2009 at a total cost of Rs. 1,76,50,332/-, even though bid offered by the petitioner was lower, by about seven lacs of rupees.

Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are:

i) As per tender conditions (Para 26), contract had to be given to a person who submitted lowest evaluated financial bid, which was of the petitioner;

ii) Once the technical qualifications are fulfilled, person having the lowest financial bid, was entitled to award of contract as per CVC Guidelines, Annexure 10.

iii) As per minutes of Pre Bid Conference, 70% weightage was to be given for technical bid, but the said condition was not included in the amendment clause and thus, could not be relied on.

iv) As against the requirement of three years experience mentioned in the tender documents, five years experience was introduced for the first time on 20.6.2009, which was illegal.

The petitioner was informed about the evaluation made by the Tender Committee comprising of Managing Director, Forest Development Corporation, Chief Engineer, Small Industries and Export Corporation, Conservator of Forests and the Architect vide letter dated 10.7.2009, Annexure P-9. The evaluation was as under:

--------------------------------------------------------------------- S. Criteria Max HCL Allied No. Marks Info- Digital Systems --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Average Turnover 10 10 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Total manpower 10 10 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Manpower to be deployed on Project 10 10 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Projects executed in last 5 years 25 21 16.30 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Performance certificates 25 15.75 11.50 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Capacity to implement Project 20 16 16 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Total: 100 82.75 73.80 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

The overall consideration was as under:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. Firm Technical Technical Financial Financial Total No. Bid Bid Bid in Rs. Bid with marks (marks with 70% 30% out of weightage weightage 100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HCL 82.75 57.93 19611480 25.18 83.11 Infosyste ms Ltd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Allied 73.80 51.66 16896794 30 81.66 Digital Services Ltd. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no allegation of bias or malafides. Even though the petitioner gave slightly lower financial bid and there was slight change in the requirement of experience, which change helped respondent No. 3, it is not possible to hold that the award of contract to respondent No. 3 was arbitrary or on any extraneous consideration. Slight variation in tender conditions will not by itself be a ground to quash the award of contract to respondent No. 3, if there is bonafide objective and transparent decision. Some free play in joints is permissible.

We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere.

The petition is dismissed.