M/S Rama K Gupta And Company vs. The Panchayat And Rural Development Deptt And 2 Ors

Facts

The Assam State Rural Livelihoods Mission Society (ASRLMS) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for statutory audit services for FY 2023-2024, with an estimated bid value of Rs. 16,00,000/- excluding taxes. M/s Rama K Gupta and Company (the appellant) submitted a bid. Upon technical evaluation, the appellant and M/s H.K. Agarwala and Associates (respondent No. 3) were found responsive. The appellant emerged as the Lowest Bidder (L1). However, ASRLMS queried the appellant's bid price, which was below the minimum consultancy fee stipulated in the RFP. The appellant explained that due to the Government e-Market (GeM) portal's requirement for separate quotes for consultancy and post-audit support, they bifurcated their total bid, quoting Rs. 16,00,000/- plus 18% GST for consultancy and a nominal amount for post-audit support. The Technical and Evaluation Committee rejected the appellant's financial bid as being below the floor price. Consequently, the contract was offered to respondent No. 3. The appellant filed a writ petition, and the Single Judge directed the respondents to comply with Clauses 30, 31, and 33 of the RFP before finalizing the award, keeping the contract with respondent No. 3 in abeyance.

Held

The Court held that the decision of the Technical and Evaluation Committee to declare the appellant's financial proposal non-responsive was not subject to interference. The Court found that the respondent authorities had complied with the directions of the learned Single Judge by issuing a notification of intent to award and offering a de-briefing as per Clause 33 of the RFP. Although the appellant submitted a representation requesting a de-briefing report, they failed to attend the scheduled de-briefing meeting. The Court noted that the appellant had exercised its option under Clause 33 but did not follow up. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondent authorities had complied with Clauses 30, 31, and 33 of the RFP and that the appellant's non-participation in the subsequent proceedings meant no error could be attributed to the respondents in closing the matter. Consequently, there was no hindrance to respondent No. 3 continuing with the assignment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification of the appellant's financial bid by the Technical and Evaluation Committee was justified, considering the appellant's explanation regarding the bifurcation of its bid price due to the GeM portal's requirements and the interpretation of the floor price in the RFP. 2. Whether the respondent authorities complied with Clauses 30, 31, and 33 of the RFP in processing the appellant's representation and conducting the de-briefing process after the Single Judge's order. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the RFP did not require separate quotes for consultancy and post-audit support, and the bifurcation was necessitated by the GeM portal. They sought a de-briefing report and consideration of their representation. They argued that the respondent authorities did not adequately comply with the RFP's procedural requirements following the Single Judge's order. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the appellant's bid was indeed below the floor price. They contended that they issued a notification of intent to award, scheduled a de-briefing meeting as per Clause 33, and the appellant failed to attend it, thereby closing the matter. They asserted compliance with the RFP's provisions.