AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, engaged in providing
security services, has challenged the letter of award issued by respondent
no.2 (DTTDC) in favour of respondent no.3 with respect to a bid in
which the petitioner had also participated, on the ground of the
decision/selection being in breach of an essential condition of the tender
document and also because of unfair conduct of respondent no.2.
On an invitation for e-tender for deployment of security services,
the petitioner, respondent no.3 and five others participated wherein
respondent no.3 was adjudged the lowest bidder (L1). The petitioner was
adjudged L4.
The petitioner submits that the bid of respondent no.3 was not
responsive as all the columns of the financial bid were not filled up. He
further submits that the same was fraudulently and maliciously filled up
by respondent no.2 in order to favour respondent no.3. Under the
instruction to bidders, it is stipulated that the tenderer shall fill each and
every column of the financial bid and no column would be left blank or
filled as nil/zero.
The petitioner could lay his hands upon the price bid of respondent
no.3 wherein under the description of chargeable head regarding cost of
uniform allowance and other equipment, only three columns relating to
security guard, supervisor and gunman were filled whereas the other
columns with respect to CCTV operator, helper, driver, data entry
operator, dispatch clerk and ticket window clerk were left blank.
The main contention of the petitioner is that even though, in overall
analysis, the price bid of respondent no.3 was the lowest but it''s bid was
not compliant with the terms and conditions and was in specific breach of
clause 9 of the instruction which required every column to be filled. It is
further submitted that the total calculation was made by filling up the
other columns at the same rate but at the instance of respondent no.2
which, firstly was not permissible and, secondly, was aimed at favouring
respondent no.3, another participant, thereby vitiating the entire process
of selection.
In response to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the tender document did not
envisage rejection of a bid in case certain columns were left blank. It was
further submitted that the impact of leaving certain columns with respect
to cost of uniform etc. for some of the deployments would, at the worst,
mean that payment under those heads would have to be borne by the
bidder. However, in order to arrive at a consolidated figure for award of
work, the same rate as quoted by respondent no.3 in some of the columns
was filled up in other columns and which exercise was done uniformly
for all the bids wherein columns were left blank.
We have perused the documents. Even if the columns which were
left blank by respondent no.3 were not filled up by the agency inviting the
tender, the price bid of respondent no.3 would have been even lower.
Thus, in any event the respondent no.3 would have remained L1.
Leaving certain columns blank, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, in our opinion is not such a material deviation from the
term of the tender documents so as to render automatic rejection of the
bid of a particular bidder. Assuming for the sake of argument, that such
requirement of the tender was breached by the agency inviting the tender,
it could not be held to vitiate the process of selection as it was filed up for
arriving at a consolidated figure. This was done with other bids also,
thereby putting nobody to any disadvantage.
The contract has already been awarded and we do not consider it
expedient to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed.
In view of the petition having been dismissed, the application has
become infructuous.
The application is disposed of accordingly.