M/S Ram Gopal Somani vs. Bilaspur Smart City Limited

Held

The Court held that the decision-making process by BSCL was fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. Regarding the financial criteria, the Court found that BSCL erred in considering only the turnover of a single financial year (2018-19) instead of the average turnover over the three stipulated years (2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19). The petitioner's assertion that the 3rd respondent's average turnover was less than ₹8.00 crores, thus entitling them to fewer marks, was not directly refuted with contrary evidence by BSCL. This alone would have disqualified the 3rd respondent. Furthermore, concerning the work experience criteria, the Court noted that the clarification obtained by BSCL from Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited indicated that while a significant portion of the work was completed, the measurement for the remaining part was still pending. Crucially, the clarification did not explicitly state 'satisfactory completion' of the entire work, a requirement mandated by the corrigendum. Therefore, the Court concluded that the 3rd respondent was not qualified based on both financial and experience criteria. The impugned order dated 22.01.2021 and the tender proceedings finalized in favour of the 3rd respondent were set aside. BSCL was directed to either negotiate with the petitioner (L-2) for awarding the tender or to conduct a fresh tender process with clear qualification criteria.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ram Gopal Somani, challenged the tender process conducted by Bilaspur Smart City Limited (BSCL) for external electrification. The petitioner alleged that BSCL wrongly declared the 3rd respondent, M/s Future Engineering, as the successful bidder (L-1) despite the latter not meeting the financial and experience criteria stipulated in the tender. The petitioner, placed as L-2, raised objections pointing out discrepancies in the 3rd respondent's disclosed turnover and work experience. BSCL rejected these objections, stating the evaluation was done as per tender terms. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking to quash BSCL's decision and direct them to reject the 3rd respondent's bid and award the contract to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 3rd respondent met the financial criteria as stipulated in the tender, specifically concerning the average annual turnover over three financial years (Section 5.3, Clause 5.3.1(a) of the Tender Document)? - Petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent's disclosed turnover was less than ₹8.00 crores, entitling them to only 20 marks, not the full 30 marks awarded, thus disqualifying them as they did not meet the minimum 70 marks requirement. - Respondents argued that the 3rd respondent's turnover for FY 2018-19 was ₹11.854 crores, exceeding ₹8.00 crores, justifying the full marks. 2. Whether the 3rd respondent met the work experience criteria as stipulated in the tender, specifically the requirement of 'satisfactory completion' of a similar work (Section 5.3, Clause 5.3.1(b) of the Tender Document, as amended by Corrigendum dated 21.11.2020)? - Petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent did not have the requisite experience as the work was not satisfactorily completed. - Respondents argued that the 3rd respondent had satisfactorily completed a work of ₹10,66,95,776/-, and the corrigendum allowed consideration of ongoing works.