Asian Energy Services And Anr. vs. Oil INDIA LTD. And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Technical Screening Committee's decision to reject the petitioners' bid was not arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse. The Court noted that OIL had sought clarifications from ONGCL regarding the execution of the contract by the petitioners' technical collaborator. ONGCL's clarification indicated that the contract was not successfully completed, with 10% of the invoice withheld due to gaps in coverage. Based on this clarification, the Technical Scrutiny Committee's decision that the petitioners' bid was technically not viable was upheld. The Court also found no merit in the allegations regarding the opening of the Financial Bid during IEM proceedings and the amendment of tender conditions, considering OIL's explanations. The Court further stated that an unsuccessful bidder who failed the technical bid has no standing to question the financial bid or the price quoted by the successful bidder. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.

Facts

The petitioners, Asian Energy Services and another, challenged a tender process initiated by Oil India Limited (OIL) for the acquisition of High Density (HD) 3D Seismic Data in Arunachal Pradesh. OIL had floated a tender (No. CDH 6944P22) for hiring services for this seismic data acquisition. The dispute arose from the technical evaluation criteria, specifically clause 3.1.2, which stipulated experience requirements for bidders. The petitioners' bid was rejected on technical grounds, leading to the award of the contract to the respondent, Oil India Ltd. The petitioners alleged arbitrariness and perversity in the evaluation process and the subsequent award of the contract.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Technical Screening Committee's decision to reject the petitioners' bid as technically not viable, based on the alleged non-successful execution of a contract by their technical collaborator, was arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse, violating the terms of the tender document (Clause 3.1.2)? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that their technical collaborator had indeed executed contracts meeting the criteria, and OIL's interpretation and application of the "successfully executed" clause were flawed. They argued that OIL failed to properly seek clarification from ONGCL regarding the execution of the contract dated 8/2/2018. - Revenue/State's argument: OIL argued that the contract relied upon by the petitioners' technical collaborator was not "successfully executed" as per the tender conditions, citing withholding of payment by ONGCL due to gaps in coverage. They maintained that their evaluation was based on objective criteria and clarifications received from ONGCL. 2. Whether the opening of the Financial Bid during the pendency of proceedings before the IEM and the issuance of an email amending tender conditions were arbitrary and violated public policy? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioners alleged procedural irregularities in the tender process, including the opening of financial bids while complaints were pending and the amendment of tender conditions without proper notification. - Revenue/State's argument: OIL clarified that the IEM proceedings were advisory, and no advice was received before the contract award. They explained the email regarding tender conditions as a system-generated notification triggered by the opening of the Price Bid.