A tender corrigendum for ongoing contracts does not alter evaluation of completed contracts.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) invited bids for a three-year canteen-services contract.

Under the Bid Qualification Criteria (BQC), an MSE bidder relying on three works had to establish an annualized basic value of at least ₹11.72 crore for each work.

A corrigendum stated that, for a multi-year contract, purchase orders with corresponding completion certificates for individual years “may be considered,” and gave an example involving a contract whose third year was still running.

Vidya Caterers submitted three completed credentials: two MRPL contracts and one BEML contract. BPCL divided each total contract value by the contract term, resulting in annualized values of ₹10.195 crore, ₹12.66 crore and approximately ₹8.50 crore, respectively; only the second met the threshold. BPCL rejected the technical bid. The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that the corrigendum required consideration of actual annual execution values rather than a simple average of total contract value over the contract period.

1. Whether BPCL’s method of calculating the annualized value of the petitioner’s completed multi-year contracts, by dividing total contract value by tenure, was consistent with the BQC.

2. Whether Corrigendum No. 1 required BPCL to assess individual-year completion certificates for completed multi-year contracts, or applied only to ongoing contracts.

3. Whether the technical rejection warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on the principle that the authority that authors a tender is ordinarily best placed to interpret its requirements, and its interpretation should not be displaced unless it is mala fide, perverse, arbitrary or irrational: Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, and Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India.

Judicial review of tender decisions is limited to examining whether the decision-making process is lawful, non-arbitrary and in the public interest; courts do not sit as appellate bodies over technical evaluation: Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd.

The Court also referred to Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka on the limited grounds for interference with tender conditions.

The Court treated the BQC as requiring three separate completed works, each meeting the MSE annualized-value threshold of ₹11.72 crore.

It accepted BPCL’s calculation that only the second MRPL credential met that threshold; the other two fell below it.

The Court construed the corrigendum as addressing the assessment of ongoing or running multi-year contracts, enabling their consideration through individual-year completion certificates, rather than changing the assessment of the petitioner’s completed contracts.

It also noted that the selected L-1 bidder qualified on completed contracts under the BQC, without reliance on the corrigendum. Finding no mala fides, manifest arbitrariness or illegality, the Court declined to substitute its interpretation for BPCL’s.

The writ petition was dismissed and the Rule discharged.