Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions have been filed by M/s. Yadav Associates, a partnership firm which is a registered contractor with the Government of Rajasthan and raises common question of law and facts hence decided by this common order.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2, Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Zone, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur invited online tender vide tender notice published in daily newspaper dated 22.8.2013 for grant of contract for renovation of river training works, strengthening of banks of Roopa Rail River and restoration of Jaisamand feeder. The last date of submission of tender was 30.9.2013 and opening of tender proposal was 30.9.2013. The petitioner submitted online application before 30.9.2013 and also deposited the required technical bid and financial bid. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition No. 3.2(b), by which he was held to be non -responsive on account of breach of tender condition No. 3.2(b) which reads as under: -. "3.2(b) The applicant shall have successful experience as prime contractor in completing at least one contract of a nature and complexity comparable to the proposed contract within last five financial years of value not less than 35% of G -schedule amount i.e. 290.87 x 35/100 = 101.80 Lacs. This completed contract shall include the quantities of following items mentioned below @ 35% of average annual quantities based on G -schedule. The abstract of approximate quantities to be executed of main item: A detailed note giving the details of such contract executed in past alongwith the certificate from employer or Engineer -in -charge not below the rank of Executive Engineer for having completed such work satisfactorily in the time should be appended. Concerned Executive Engineer will verify all the certificates as produced by bidders and shall record a certificate that certificates attached by the bidder have been verified by him." The petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 8611/2013 in which this Court required him to approach Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department to decide his representation. The petitioner has reiterated the same arguments in the present petition that he was awarded four works vide NIT No. 18/2006 -07 dated 1.12.2006. The petitioner successfully executed all those works. The respondents have wrongly invoked Condition No. 3.2. (b). According to the said condition applicant shall have successful experience as prime contractor in completing at least one contract of a nature and complexity comparable to the proposed contract, he would be required to have experience four out of five complexity proposed contracts. In the present case, in respect of Item No. 1, earth work/embarkment 19499.00 cum and in respect of pitching/Riprap/Boulder filling 1628.00 cum. The work experience of the petitioner, of four works awarded to him pursuant to NIT No. 18/2006 -07 dated 1.12.2006 is much more than what is required in the present N.I.T. The petitioner has already executed earth work of 2,82,462,1111 and RR Masonry work 10755.38 cum. The respondents ought to therefore combine all the aforesaid four works to hold the petitioner technically qualified and he being the second lowest, the first lowest tenderer having backed out, should award the contract to him.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the experience of the petitioner in four different works cannot be combined as that would be going against the condition of NIT which requires that the applicant "shall have successful experience as prime contractor in completing at least one contract of a nature and complexity comparable to the proposed contract within last five financial years".;