ZPLUS SURAKHYA SEVA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-10-10
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on October 19,2020

Zplus Surakhya Seva Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.R.SARANGI,J. - (1.) M/S Zplus Surakhya Seva, a partnership firm indulged in business of providing manpower services, has filed this writ petition to quash financial bid evaluation dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure-3) declaring opposite party no.5-M/s AP Manpower Consultancy and Security Pvt. Ltd. as L-1 bidder, and consequential work order dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure-4), and issue direction to opposite parties no.2 to 4 to award the tender in its favour.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that Managing Director, Odisha State Warehousing Corporation (OSWC)-opposite party no.3, vide tender call notice no. ADMN/MISC/414/2020/268 dated 18.01.2020, invited sealed tenders from the reputed registered manpower service providers for providing 46 number of watchman (non-armed) on contract basis for watch and ward of materials stored at different warehouses in the State. It was stipulated in the said tender call notice that the interested manpower service providers may submit their tender documents complete in all respect along with EMD and other requisite documents on or before 12.02.2020 up to 5.00 PM addressed to the Managing Director, OSWC by registered post/speed post/courier only. The tender was invited under two bids system, i.e., technical bid and financial bid. The interested agencies were advised to submit two separate sealed envelopes superscribing "Technical Bid for providing watchman (Nonarmed)" to OSWC and "Financial Bid for providing watchman (Non-armed) to OSWC. Both sealed envelopes should be kept in another sealed envelope superscribing "Tender for providing watchman (Non-armed) to Odisha State Warehousing Corporation". The tender should be addressed to the "Managing Director, OSWC, Plot No.2, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar-751006. The date of opening of technical bid was fixed to 14.02.2020 at 4.00 P.M. in the conference hall of OSWC, Bhubaneswar. It was stipulated in the tender call notice that the date, time and place of opening of financial bid in respect of technically qualified bidders would be communicated after evaluation of technical bid. 2.1 Pursuant to the above tender call notice, the petitioner, along with 15 other registered manpower service providers, submitted its bid on 10.02.2020 before the cut-off date. The technical bids of all the bidders were opened on 18.03.2020. During scrutiny, the tender committee found that 6 bidders, out of 16, had not submitted required documents. Therefore, the tender committee took a decision to provide an opportunity to those six bidders who had not submitted the required documents. Consequentially, they were intimated to submit such documents for consideration of their bids. After receipt of the documents from those bidders, technical evaluation was conducted on 20.04.2020. Out of 16 manpower service providers, two registered manpower service providers, namely, M/s Samari Empowerment Associates Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Seven Stars Intelligent Security Pvt. Ltd could not submit the required documents. Therefore, they did not qualify during the technical evaluation and rest 14 bidders were qualified in technical bid evaluation. As per clause-12 of the "scope of work and general instructions to bidders", the financial bid of only those tenderers would be opened whose technical bids are found in order. As such, the date, time and place of opening of financial bid would be communicated after evaluation of technical bids. Adhering to the aforesaid clause, the financial bids were evaluated by the tender committee on 02.06.2020 and, as such, during the financial bid evaluation, the tender committee rejected the bid of M/s Bisweswar Rout Security Agency on the ground that service charge quoted by it was less than 2% of the gross amount. Consequentially, the tender committee prepared a comparative statement of rest 14 technically qualified bidders, excluding M/s Bisweswar Rout Security Agency. From the comparative statement, it would be evident that opposite party no.5 quoted gross amount of Rs.10420.33 paisa per person and, as such, 2% of aforesaid gross amount comes to Rs.208.40 paisa. But opposite party no.5 quoted service charge of Rs.204.33 paise, which is less than 2% of the gross amount. Despite that, the tender committee declared opposite party no.5 as L-1 bidder. Aggrieved by such selection of opposite party no.5 as L-1 bidder, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to the financial bid of opposite party no.5 at Annexure-5 series, contended that opposite party no.5 having quoted gross amount of Rs.12295.98 paisa per person, 2% of such amount comes to 245.97 paise, but instead of that opposite party no.5 has quoted Rs.204.33 paise towards service charges, which is less than 2% of the gross amount, and thereby opposite party no.5 has failed to satisfy note no.3 of the financial bid. Consequentially, the selection of opposite party no.5 is contrary to note no.-3 of the financial bid. It is further contended that opposite parties no.2 to 4 have illegally selected opposite party no.5 as L1 bidder and issued work order on 30.06.2020, therefore the same should be quashed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.