MONTECARLO LTD. Vs. NTPC LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2016-10-29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 18,2016

Montecarlo Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
NTPC LTD. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

LAXMI DATT BINWAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR OFFSET PRINTERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-2-282] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHAL SINGH ADHIKARI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-5-106] [REFERRED TO]
PUNYA COAL ROAD LINES VS. M.P. POWER GENERATING CO. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-179] [REFERRED TO]
R.K.INDUSTRIES VS. H.R.COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA ADLER S.P.A. VS. NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
A. G. CONSTRUCTION CO VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
KULBIR SINGH VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM MUSTAFA BATT VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOQ HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH COTTON INDUSTRIES VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
SABRE GLBL INC VS. AIR INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-231] [REFERRED TO]
CGMP PROJECTS PVT LTD VS. FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-6-93] [REFERRED TO]
GMR HYDERABAD VIJAYAWADA EXPRESSWAYS PVT LTD VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-185] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ARDESHIR B. CURSETJEE AND SONS LTD. VS. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-650] [REFERRED TO]
ARDESHIR B. CURSETJEE AND SONS LTD. VS. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-841] [REFERRED TO]
T.P.CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CHIEF ENGINEER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
FLEMINGO TRAVEL RETAIL LIMITED VS. KANNUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-2020-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
T. S. NARAYANA VS. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2019-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
TRIGYN TECHNOLOGIED LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT LTD VS. SJVN LTD THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (ECD) & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2018-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RUBBER MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2020-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
DATTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIT CHANDRA DAS VS. ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2023-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
VEDANG RADIO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
ARAV INFRATECH VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-302] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DISTRICT CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2024-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
ELEKTA MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-259] [REFERRED TO]
FLEMINGO TRAVEL RETAIL LIMITED VS. KANNUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-2019-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHKARRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD VS. SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS AND CONTRACTORS [LAWS(KER)-2019-6-99] [REFERRED TO]
AGMATEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RESOURSYS TELECOM [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-140] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI VENTURES PVT. LTD. VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-171] [REFERRED TO]
DARA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2020-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
KALINGA WARRIORS SECURITY SERVICE VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
S. MUND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-8-104] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CRRC CORPORATION LTD. VS. METRO LINK EXPRESS FOR GANDHINAGAR & AHMEDABAD (MEGA) COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
TATA MOBILE 207 DI AND MAHINDRA MAX MOBILE PICKUP COOPERATIVE LTD VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2023-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT LTD VS. M P POWER GENERATING CO LTD AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-174] [REFERRED TO]
N. T. AGENCY VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2019-6-118] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CCC-HIM, CONTINENTAL HOUSE VS. SJVNL (A JOINT VENTURE OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH) [LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
TIRATH SINGH BHATIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-214] [REFERRED TO]
CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-5-116] [REFERRED TO]
FRIGORIFICO ALLANA PVT LTD VS. EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-149] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI DAS DHAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD VS. CHIEF ENGINEER (AF) WAC, PALAM [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-304] [REFERRED TO]
MS. S.H.KHAN AND CO. VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
ASIAN ENERGY SERVICES VS. OIL INDIA LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2022-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
JLD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2023-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TRADERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-7-222] [REFERRED TO]
K ASHOK KUMAR VS. ANDHRA BANK, REP BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, HYDERABAD [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAV KUMAR VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDI VINAYAKA INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
PMR CONSORTIUM VS. BHUBANESWAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(ORI)-2022-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM SUPPLY AGENCY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE TELECOM LTD. & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
TAFE MOTORS AND TRACTORS LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
BAMANG PACHO, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PACHO ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF A. P. [LAWS(GAU)-2024-5-111] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMSINGH DEVISINGH THAKUR VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-121] [REFERRED TO]
M E INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
KRUSHNA KUMAR GOKULCHAND VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-224] [REFERRED TO]
TDI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-160] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR OFFSET PRINTERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
FALCON TRADING COMPANY VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
SHRISHTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-219] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SHANKAR DUBEY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA AGENCIES VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY INTELLIGENCE SECURITY (INDIA) LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-8-117] [REFERRED TO]
CONSORTIUM OF THERMOPADS PVT. LTD. VS. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(ORI)-2022-8-121] [REFERRED TO]
MACAWBER BEEKAY PVT LTD. VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-1809] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. PT. BARA DAYA ENERGI INDIA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2024-1-83] [REFERRED TO]
RT ETI ENVIRONTECH PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
UTKAL SUPPLIERS VS. MAA KANAK DURGA ENTERPRISES & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
CEIGALL GAWAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-228] [REFERRED TO]
FTA HSRP SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2024-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
COMMUNITY ACTION THROUGH MOTIVATION PROGRAMME VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL BNILLP VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2023-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
ALL ASSAM POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ZEEL CORPORATION VS. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
LABH DECOR VS. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-134] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2017-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-275] [REFERRED TO]
IDL EXPLOSIVES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
MACAWBER BEEKAY PVT. LTD. VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2022-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
SCIENTIFIC SECURITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-136] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARESH BHATT, LIQUIDATOR OF ABG SHIPYARD VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
RKD-CMRGS JOINT VENTURE VS. INDIAN PORT RAIL AND ROPEWAY CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ORI)-2020-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
AGRAWAL GLOBAL INFRATECH PRIVATE VS. RAMIYA-HS (JV) [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
FUJIFILM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
MANU CREATIONS VS. MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES [LAWS(KAR)-2023-4-386] [REFERRED TO]
KUNWAR CONSTRUCTION VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
MINAKSHI TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-170] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVSAKSHI DEVELOPERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-212] [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR STEEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
AAKASH OIL FIELD SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-230] [REFERRED TO]
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. MASTI HEALTH & BEAUTY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
M/S PRATAP TECHNOCRAFTS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-124] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAAL PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PLANNING [LAWS(DLH)-2023-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
KHANNA PAPER MILLS LTD. VS. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
B.B. ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2019-9-114] [REFERRED TO]
APPU FOOD PRODUCTS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-515] [REFERRED TO]
HEALTHWARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-393] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. AGMATEL INDIA PVT. LTD VS. M/S. RESOURSYS TELECOM [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-99] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS. U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. GALAXY TRANSPORT AGENCIES, CONTRACTORS, TRADERS, TRANSPORTS AND SUPPLIERS VS. M/S. NEW J.K. ROADWAYS, FLEET OWNERS AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH SINGH JAMWAL AND CO. VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
NEZONE PIPES & STRUCTURES VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
RISHABH SWADESHI (JV) VS. JHARIA REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
SHRISTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
BHARDWAJ CONSTRUCTION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR OFFSET PRINTERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2022-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHREEJIKRUPA PROJECT LIMITED VS. TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-236] [REFERRED TO]
P. GOPINATHA REDDY VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
TECHNIP ENERGIES INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-124] [REFERRED TO]
R.D. CONSTRUCTION VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
CUBE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LIMITED VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-711] [REFERRED TO]
ALL ASSAM POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS. OIL INDIA LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2023-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
BVG INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
R.GANDHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-1-357] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA INTERNATIONAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-257] [REFERRED TO]
MEDIUM PACKAGING PVT LTD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2019-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
NISH TECHNO PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2020-2-375] [REFERRED TO]
RUDRAKSH TOURS AND TRAVELS VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR/VICE CHAIRMAN [LAWS(BOM)-2024-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
LEHAR FOOTWEARS LIMITED VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-151] [REFERRED TO]
T.P.CONSTRUCTIONS VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-157] [REFERRED TO]
JSW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANR. VS. KAKINADA SEAPORTS LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
JACKSON LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (H2) DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-437] [REFERRED TO]
EMKAY MEDICARE SERVICES THROUGH VS. THE PRESIDENT, RAJASTHAN MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR MANASH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAA KALI BRICKS KILN INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-9-45] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DIPAK MISRA,J. - (1.)The respondent, NTPC Limited, had issued separate invitation for bids for development and operation of three coal mines, viz., Dulanga Coal Block, Chatti Bariatu and Talaipalli in the State of Odisha. Online bids were invited on Single Stage Two Envelope Bidding basis (Envelope-I: Techno-Commercial Bid and Envelope-II: Price Bid). There was stipulation for Reverse Auction from the eligible bidders. It was also stated in the Invitation For Bids (IFB) issued on 22.01.2016 that the bids shall be received on 17.03.2016 and Envelope-I, that is, Techno-Commercial Bid will be opened on 17.03.2016. The date of opening of Envelope-II, that is, Price Proposal shall be intimated separately. Clause 5 of the IFB stipulated Qualifying Requirements (QR). Clauses 5.1 and 5.1.2 dealt with technical criteria.
(2.)The respondent had also issued "Instructions To Bidders" (ITB) which contain clauses as to how the proposal shall be conducted. Clause 6.3.1 of ITB deals with Preliminary Examination of Techno-Commercial Proposals. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same:-
"6.3.1 Preliminary Examination of Techno-Commercial Proposals:

(a) OWNER will examine the Project Proposals to determine whether they are complete, whether required securities have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are generally in order.

(b) Prior to the detailed evaluation, OWNER will initially determine whether each Techno Commercial Proposal is of acceptable quality, is generally complete and is substantially responsive to the bidding documents. For purposes of this determination, a substantially responsive Proposal is one that conforms to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the bidding documents without material deviations, objections, conditionalities or reservations. A material deviation, objection, conditionality or reservation is one (i) that affects in any substantial way the scope, quality or performance of the contract; (ii) that limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the bidding documents, the Owner's rights or the successful Bidder's obligations under the contract; or (iii) whose rectification would unfairly affect the competitive position of other Bidders who are presenting substantially responsive Proposals.

(c) OWNER's determination of a Techno Commercial Proposal's responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the Techno Commercial Proposal itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. If a Techno Commercial Proposal is not substantially responsive, it will be rejected by OWNER, and may not subsequently be made responsive by the Bidder by correction of the nonconformity."

(3.)Clauses 6.3.2 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.4 provide for Evaluation of Responsive Techno-Commercial Proposal, Evaluation of Qualification Proposals, Evaluation of Technical Proposals and Clarification Meeting. Clause 6.3.5 deals with the steps where the responsive Techno-Commercial Proposal which meets the QR specified in Chapter 7 and Technical Requirements specified in Chapter 8 of REF Documents and stipulates that they shall be considered for Price Proposal Phase of the Bidding Process. It has also been provided therein that the bidders who meet QR specified in Chapter 7 and Technical Requirements specified in Chapter 8 of REP documents shall be terms as "shortlisted bidders". Chapter 7 of ITB deals with technical criteria. Clauses 7.1.1 and 7.1.2, being significant, are extracted below:-
"7.1.1 The Bidder should have, in the preceding 7 (seven) years reckoned from the date of opening of the Techno-commercial Bids developed and operated single coal/lignite mine having coal/lignite reserves of at least 150 million tonnes and annual capacity of at least 6 MTPA and produced at least 2 million tonnes of coal/lignite from such mine. OR

7.1.2 The Bidder should have, in the preceding 7 (seven) years reckoned from the date of opening of the Techno-commercial Bids, operated and produced:

a) At least 23 Million SCM of aggregated volume of overburden and/or coal/lignite from a maximum of seven open cast mines of Coal/Lignite, in any year.

b) At least 11.5 Million SCM of composite volume of overburden and coal/lignite from single open cast mine in any year, out of which at least 3 million tonnes shall be coal/lignite.

The qualifying works at clause 7.1.2(a) can be from same mine or different mines including the mine considered to meet qualifying requirement at clause 7.1.2(b)."



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