A bank guarantee contingent on accompanying SFMS advice is conditional and renders the bid non-responsive.

The petitioner challenged the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee’s decision declaring its bid for Package No. 26B under NIT No. 02/2026–2027 non-responsive.

The Committee relied on the petitioner’s failure to execute agreements for two earlier works and on a bid-security bank guarantee stating that it would operate when accompanied by SFMS advice from the advising bank.

The Letters of Acceptance for the earlier works had been set aside by the High Court, and the petitioner objected to the technical-bid decision; the Complaint/Grievance Committee rejected that objection, after which the financial bids were opened.

The petitioner sought, among other relief, the opening of its financial bid and quashing of the impugned decision.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in treating the petitioner’s technical bid as non-responsive, particularly on account of the conditional bank guarantee.

2. Whether the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee lacked authority to decide technical responsiveness or take the impugned step concerning the opening of financial bids.

The tender documents governed bid responsiveness.

Clause 1.2.1(b) of Section 3 of the Model Bidding Document was invoked in relation to the petitioner’s prior works; Clause 17 of the Instructions to Bidders and Serial No. 18 of the NIT were relied on concerning the bid security.

The Court also considered the prescribed bank-guarantee form in Section 8 of the bidding document, which required an unconditional guarantee.

Under Article 226, the Court considered whether the impugned tender action warranted judicial interference, including whether prejudice or mala fides were shown.

The petitioner’s cited decisions, Maha Mineral Mining and Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. and Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha, were held distinguishable on the facts.

The Court held that the earlier Letters of Acceptance had been set aside because the prescribed bid-opening and evaluation clauses had not been followed; accordingly, the petitioner’s failure to execute agreements pursuant to those letters could not support its disqualification.

However, the bank guarantee made its operation dependent on accompanying SFMS advice, whereas the tender form required an unconditional guarantee.

The bank’s explanation that the wording was standard did not address the Committee’s concern that, without the advice, the guarantee would not be operative; the ground therefore justified treating the bid as non-responsive.

The Committee had evaluated technical responsiveness, while the financial bids were opened by the Departmental Tender Committee.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting also that the petitioner had itself invoked the objection process before the Complaint/Grievance Committee.

It found no basis to interfere under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs; any pending applications were also disposed of.