13 August 2024 Statutory Compliance >> COMPLIANCES  

In a recent judicial review of Adarsh Bharat Enviro Pvt. Ltd. Pune v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Urban Development & Others, a court examined the validity of a tender decision involving a municipal project for Scientific Dumpsite Land Reclamation through Bio-mining and Resource Recovery. The case underscored the importance of adhering to tender conditions and the implications of non-compliance.

Background:

On February 16, 2024, the Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 2) invited bids for a project involving the reclamation of a municipal solid waste dumping ground. Four bidders, including the petitioner and Respondent No. 3, participated. The Request for Proposal (RFP) outlined a two-stage evaluation process: the first stage assessed the responsiveness of the proposals, and only those deemed responsive proceeded to the second stage, which involved a technical evaluation.

Issue at Hand:

The technical bids were reviewed on July 11, 2024. The tender committee examined the submissions and noted an objection raised by the petitioner regarding the eligibility of Respondent No. 3, who had been debarred by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation. Despite this, the committee decided to qualify Respondent No. 3 and recommended opening their financial bid. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that Respondent No. 3 did not meet the pre-qualification criteria outlined in the RFP. Specifically, the petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 failed to provide adequate proof of RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) supply and was disqualified due to debarment.

Arguments and Court Findings:

The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 3’s failure to provide proof of RDF supply from certified sources and their debarment at the time of proposal submission made them ineligible. The relevant RFP conditions required bidders to provide proof of RDF supply amounting to at least 20% of the RDF quantity claimed as technical experience and to be free from any debarment on the date of the proposal submission, January 9, 2023.

In response, Respondent No. 3 contended that the tender committee’s decision was based on expert evaluation and that subsequent revocations of the debarment order and certifications validated their eligibility. They cited judicial precedents emphasizing limited judicial intervention in expert decisions. However, the court found that on the date of the proposal submission, January 9, 2023, Respondent No. 3 was indeed debarred, making them ineligible per Condition No. 2.3.4 of the tender requirements. Additionally, the court noted that Respondent No. 3 did not meet the RDF proof requirement as per Condition No. 2.3.1.

Conclusion:

The court determined that the decision of the tender committee to declare Respondent No. 3 eligible was flawed. The committee’s action was deemed arbitrary and contrary to the tender conditions. Consequently, the court quashed the committee’s decision to open the financial bids of Respondent No. 3. The Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation was directed to potentially re-invite bids if deemed appropriate. The petition was thus ruled in favor of the petitioner, with the decision reflecting the importance of adhering strictly to tender conditions and ensuring fairness in the bidding process. The case highlights the critical role of compliance with specified criteria in tender processes and the judicial scrutiny that can follow if these conditions are not met.