Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Coastal Marine Construction & Engineering Limited and its director Manoj Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) to reject their bid in response to an invitation to bid for appointment of a Geotechnical Subcontractor for provision of geotechnical personnel/services/equipment maintenance on board ONGC's Geotechnical Vessel SAMUDRA SARVEKSHAK for two years. The invitation to bid was floated in February 2017. The petitioners and two other bidders (Respondent No. 3 Fugro Survey (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 4 Helms Geomarine Sdn Bhd) submitted their bids. The eligibility criteria, as per clause 6 of the invitation, required that the bidder independently have a minimum of 4 years experience in carrying out offshore geotechnical soil investigation works in the last 10 years from similar Geotech Drilling DP Vessels, of which at least one contract should be in Indian waters. The petitioners relied on the experience of their parent company, Coastal Marine Construction & Engineering Ltd., to meet this criterion. SCI rejected the petitioners' bid on the ground that the petitioners did not independently have the required experience, as the experience claimed was that of their parent company. The petitioners argued that the word 'independently' should be interpreted to mean that the bidder should have the experience, not necessarily that the bidder itself must have performed the work, and that the parent company's experience should be considered. The court examined the tender documents and found that the requirement was clear: the bidder must independently have the experience, meaning the bidder itself must have performed the work. The court held that SCI's interpretation was reasonable and not arbitrary. The court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the eligibility criteria at the time of bidding and that relaxing the criteria would be unfair to other bidders. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding SCI's decision to reject the petitioners' bid.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Eligibility Criteria - Interpretation of Tender Documents - The court considered whether the requirement that the bidder 'independently' have experience meant that the bidder must have performed the work itself, without relying on its parent company's experience. The court held that the word 'independently' in the tender clause clearly required the bidder to have its own experience, and the petitioner's reliance on its parent company's experience did not satisfy this condition. (Paras 2-10) B) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that in matters of tender, the court's role is limited to examining whether the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The court held that the Shipping Corporation of India's interpretation of the eligibility criteria was reasonable and not arbitrary, and thus the court would not interfere. (Paras 11-15) C) Tender Law - Level Playing Field - The court emphasized that all bidders must be treated equally and that relaxing eligibility criteria for one bidder would be unfair to others. The court held that the petitioner's bid was rightly rejected to maintain a level playing field. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Shipping Corporation of India was justified in rejecting the petitioner's bid for non-compliance with the eligibility criteria requiring the bidder to independently have minimum experience in offshore geotechnical investigations.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Shipping Corporation of India to reject the petitioners' bid.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Eligibility criteria
- Interpretation of tender documents
- Judicial review of administrative decisions
- Level playing field
