Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, The Yashodhara Mahila Sahakari Audyogik Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Nashik, filed five writ petitions challenging the order dated 08/10/2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Thane, regarding e-tenders for providing food services to tribal students in hostels under the Integrated Tribal Development Project Jawahar, District Palghar, for the years 2024-25 and 2025-26. The petitioner had submitted bids and emerged as the L-1 bidder with a quoted rate of Rs.3,780/- per person per month. However, the respondents applied a base-rate method with a permissible range of -20% to +10% and declared other bidders as successful. The petitioner argued that the base-rate method was not mentioned in the tender document and that the respondents changed the rules of the game after the process started. The respondents contended that the tender document, particularly Clause 3.1.2.1, read with Clauses 24, 27, and 28, permitted the use of estimated cost and price reasonability as per the Government Resolution dated 01/12/2016, and that the base-rate method was part of the evaluation process. The court examined the tender clauses and found that the estimated cost was determined prior to receiving bids and kept confidential. The court held that the application of the base-rate method did not change the rules after the process started and was within the tender terms. The court also noted that the petitioner's bid was below the permissible range, and thus the respondents were justified in rejecting it. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, finding no arbitrariness or illegality in the respondents' decision.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Evaluation of Financial Bids - Base-Rate Method - Government Resolution dated 01/12/2016 - The court considered whether the application of the base-rate method with a permissible range of -20% to +10% after opening of financial bids amounted to changing the rules of the game. The court held that the tender document, particularly Clause 3.1.2.1, read with Clauses 24, 27, and 28, permitted the use of estimated cost and price reasonability as per the said GR, and the base-rate method was not a new condition but a part of the evaluation process. The court found that the estimated cost was determined prior to receiving bids and kept confidential, and its application did not change the rules after the process started. (Paras 1-15) B) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that in matters of tender, the court's interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. The court found no such infirmity in the respondents' decision to apply the base-rate method, as it was consistent with the tender terms and the Government Resolution. (Paras 16-20) C) Tender Law - Government Resolution dated 01/12/2016 - Applicability - The court held that the said GR was applicable to the tender process and the respondents were justified in relying on it for evaluating the financial bids. The court noted that the petitioner's bid was below the permissible range, and thus the respondents were entitled to reject it and accept the next lowest bid within the range. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents changed the rules of the game after the tender process started by applying the base-rate method with a permissible range of -20% to +10% which was not mentioned in the tender document, and whether such action is arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision
All writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned order/decision dated 08/10/2024 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender evaluation
- Base-rate method
- Government Resolution
- Change in rules of game
- Judicial review of tender process
