- (1.)In spite of voluminous pleading, facts relevant for decision lie in a narrow compass. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad floted global tender for supply of 40 M.T.s of Polyster Base Vaccum Metalised Secutiry Thread with negative demetalised transparent letters, fluoresceing blue on both sides under Ultra Violet light with firm bonding for manufacturing of Bank Note paper from manufacturers having in-house facility for the same or their authorised dealers. The notice further stated that the prescribed tender-form showing detailed specification, terms and conditions can be obtained on payment of U.S. Dollars 25 by Overseas Suppliers or Rs. 1000/- by in-land suppliers in the form of demand draft or Indian Postal Order drawn in favour of the General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad. The completed documents with validity for 240 days were to be submitted upto 10.00 hrs. on 23-6-1999 in the office of the General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad. Tenders were to be opened on the same day at 16.00 hrs. in the presence of tenderers/authorised representatives. Clause 1.3 of the tender document inter alia advised the tenderers to submit the tender based strictly on the terms and conditions and specification contained in the tender documents and not to stipulate any deviations. It further provided that if acceptance of the terms and conditions given in the tender document has any price implications, the same should be considered and included in the price part. However, this clause reserved the right of the Security Paper Mill to reject/accept tenders containing deviation to the terms and conditions and requirements stipulated in the tender documents. Clause 1.13 of the tender document further provided that the tenders shall satisfy the purchasers that he possesses the necessary experience and qualification and that he has at his disposal suitable modern facilities and specialised employees to ensure that his work is of best quality and workmanship, according to the latest technology and engineering practices. Clause 12 of the tender document provides for completion of the contract within a period of 16 months from the date of issue of Letter of Intent.
(2.)Petitioner is a Private Limited Company, registered under the Indian Companies Act. In response to the tender notice, petitioner offered to supply 20 M.T.s of Security Thread within the time limit of 16 months, as mentioned in the tender document. It is the assertion of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 made offer to supply 23 M.T.s of Security Thread in 16 months. This assertion of the petitioner has been denied by the respondents and their stand is that the offer of respondent No. 3 was to supply 40 M.T.s of Security Thread. Original records have been produced and from which it is apparent that respondent No. 3 had offered to supply only 25 M.Ts. of Secutiry Thread within the delivery schedule of 16 months. However, in the commercial bid, respondent No. 3 had actually offered to supply the entire quantity of 40 M.Ts., but with staggered delivery schedule. Thus, respondent No. 3 offered to supply 40 M.Ts. of Security Thread.
(3.)The capacity of respondent No. 3 to supply the Security Thread in terms of the tender notice was considered by the Committee, which in its Capacity Assessment Report opined that the firm as committed in the Techno-Commercial Tender, will be in a position to undertake the job, though the firm has no experience of registered slitting, but they have vast experience of 30 years of slitting polyster reels of various thickness. Further, to consider the offer of tenders, a special Tender Evaluation Committee was constituted consisting of the General Manager, Bank Note Press, as Chairman and one Deputy General Manager as also Financial Adviser-cum-Chief Accounts Officer, as its members. It took into consideration the various pros and cons of the offers of petitioner as also respondent No. 3 and ultimately recommended for splitting of the order on more than one firm at the rate offered by respondent No. 3. The Special Tender Evaluation Committee further found that the offer of respondent No. 3 is the lowest. The recommendation of Special Tender Evaluation Committee was considered by the Ministry of Finance and later decided that the entire tender quantity of 40 M.Ts. of Security Thread may be procured from respondent No. 3, but with a staggered delivery schedule.