- (1.) The petitioner is registered as a Special Class contractor. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been executing works in Andhra Pradesh, Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh. It has also worked for Indian Railways, and Konkan Railway Corporation. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has vast experience in execution of civil works and has a reputation of performing the works without complaints. The third respondent issued a tender notice on 14/08/1998 inviting tenders from eligible contractors for execution of packages of works L3-01 (B1) and L3-01(B2). The estimated value of the work was Rs.143 and 109 millions respectively for each package. The bids were to be submitted upto 14/10/1998 and opening of the bids was fixed on the same day at 15.30 hours. Five contractors filed their tenders for the work package L3-01(B2) and four contractors filed their tenders for L3-01(B2). According to the petitioner, his tender was the lowest for both the works at 14.619% over and above the estimated value of L3-01(B2) and at 11.409% over and above the estimated value for L3-01(BI). The fifth respondent tendered for the work L3-01 (B1) at 15.28% over and above the estimated value. The difference between the offers of petitioner and 5th respondent for L3-01(B1) work in terms of money would be around 59.00 lakhs according to the petitioner. The petitioner's bid was lowest and there was difference of about 59.00 lakhs between the bid of the petitioner and 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 recommended the bid of 5th respondent for work being allotted to him. The petitioner's bid was rejected as non-responsive on the ground that the petitioner lacks experience in mechanical placement/paver in Cement Concrete (C.C) lining works. The rejection of the tender of the petitioner although it was lowest and recommending and acceptance of the tender of the 5th respondent is challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) There is no dispute with regard to contract L3-01(B2), the dispute raised in this writ petition is confined to L3-01(B1) and hereinafter it is referred as the contract.
(3.) Counter has been filed and in the counter it has not been disputed that the petitioner's tender was the lowest, but, it has been pleaded that petitioner was not eligible in terms of Clause (4) of Instructions to Bidders (ITB). It is stated that under the Contract in question bids were invited for the work of improvements and repairs Kakatiya Main Canal from KM 146 to KM 191 and rehabilitation and modernisation of distributaries DBM 1 to 5 and DBM 7 with their minors and sub-minors under the contract. The approximate value of the work was Rs.143 millions and the completion period was 30 months. The case of the respondents is that although the tender of the petitioner was lowest, he was found lacking in the experience of mechanical placement in respect of cement concrete lining as required under Clause 4.5-A(c) of the Instructions to Bidders. Clause 4.5-A of the Instructions is quoted below: "4.5-A. To qualify award of the contract each bidder in its name should have in the last five years i.e., 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1997-98 (a)...... (b)...... (c) Executed in any one year, the following minimum quantities of work: - Cement Concrete (including RCC & PSC) 7000 cum - Earthwork in both excavation and embankment (combined quantities) 2,82,000 cum - Cement concrete lining of canals excluding Field Channels Mechanical placement 82,400 sum or 8,200 cum Manual placement 48,200 sqm or 4,800 cum. According to the respondents the requirement under Clause 4.5-A(c) is that the competitor should have done 82,400 sqm or 8,200 cum of mechanical placement. There is no dispute between the parties on this requirement but the dispute is about correctness or genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner.;