M/S.Y.B.Constructions PVT.LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Y.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) challenged the rejection of its technical bid by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) for a tourism facilitation centre project. The ITDC sought clarification on the Petitioner's submitted documents, specifically regarding the value of a completed work. The Petitioner submitted a completion certificate dated September 27, 2019, for Rs. 25,96,99,318.00 and a Letter of Acceptance dated October 21, 2016, for Rs. 27,00,01,000.00. The ITDC noted discrepancies between the contract value in the Letter of Acceptance and the completion certificate, and also that the Petitioner submitted an incomplete set of Schedule of Quantities & Rates with a Detailed Letter of Acceptance. The Petitioner's bid was rejected for being technically disqualified due to submission of deficient documents.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid was not just and proper. The Court found that while the ITDC attempted to identify discrepancies in the value of the executed work, this became irrelevant as the executed value of the contract (Rs. 25,96,99,318.00 excluding GST) was not disputed and demonstrably exceeded 80% of the estimated tender cost. The Court reasoned that the submitted documents clearly indicated the Petitioner had executed a work of similar nature valued significantly above the threshold required by Clause 19(c) of the NIT. Therefore, the Tender Evaluating Committee (TEC) should have accepted these documents and considered the Petitioner's technical bid favorably. The Court set aside the rejection order and directed the TEC to reconsider the Petitioner's financial bid along with other technically qualified bidders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid by the ITDC was justified on the grounds of discrepancies in the submitted documents regarding the value of a completed work, specifically concerning the contract value and completion certificate amounts, and the submission of an incomplete Schedule of Quantities & Rates? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the discrepancy in the value of the completed work was due to the pre-GST period of execution, and when GST was included, the values matched the Detailed Letter of Acceptance. They contended that the authenticity of the executed work value was not disputed and it exceeded 80% of the estimated cost as required by Clause 19(c) of the NIT. Revenue/State's Argument: The ITDC (Opposite Parties 1-6) argued that the Petitioner failed to submit documents as per the NIT and the clarification sought. They emphasized that the Petitioner did not submit the document disclosing the original contract value of Rs. 27,00,01,000.00 (pre-GST) along with the tender documents. The successful bidder (Opposite Party No.7) supported the ITDC's contention, arguing that the TEC's decision should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.