Acceptance of purchase agreement for essential machinery constitutes valid technical qualification in specialized infrastructure tenders.

In January 2026, the Karamsad Anand Municipal Corporation (respondent No.1) invited tenders for "Ganesh Chowkdi to Borsad Chowkdi Bridge End to RTO Office, Existing Underground Sewerage Line Shifting by Micro Tunneling," valued at approximately Rs. 6.4 crores.

The petitioner and respondent No.2 submitted bids, which were to be evaluated in three stages: pre-qualification, technical evaluation, and presentation on understanding and planning.

On 14.03.2026, the technical bids were opened and both bidders were found technically qualified; upon opening of financial bids, respondent No.2 emerged as the lowest bidder (45% below quoted rates, against the petitioner's 26.66%), and the contract was awarded to it.

The petitioner challenged the award by writ petition, contending that respondent No.2 was not technically qualified and that, consequently, the petitioner's bid alone deserved acceptance.

After being granted an opportunity to peruse the Corporation's entire file, the petitioner confined its challenge to five alleged defects: (i) the turnover certificate; (ii) CVs of key personnel; (iii) drawings and charts; (iv) ownership/leasing documents of required machinery; and (v) the form of bid (online submission).

1. Whether the turnover certificate of respondent No.2 was invalid for not mentioning the tender ID and name of works executed.

2. Whether the bid of respondent No.2 was vitiated on the ground that CVs of key personnel were not properly furnished.

3. Whether the furnishing of drawings and charts was a mandatory requirement under clause 1.12 of the tender document.

4. Whether respondent No.2 satisfied the tender requirement of ownership or possession of key plant and equipment, particularly the tunnel boring machine, in the absence of actual ownership on the date of bid submission.

5. Whether the failure to upload all bid documents online mandated rejection of the bid, notwithstanding timely physical submission.

6. Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the technical evaluation conducted by the tender-inviting authority in writ jurisdiction.

Clause 1.12, which required only a "proposed work method and schedule" with descriptions, drawings and charts attached "as necessary".

The Note to the equipment criteria, which expressly permitted machinery to be "either owned by agency or owned by agency supplying–leasing to agency," with documentation thereof.

Clause 4.1 (Eligibility Criteria), under which KAMC reserved the right to verify bidders' claims, made its capability assessment "final," and retained "absolute discretion" to waive any tender condition or requirement.

Settled principle of limited judicial review in tender matters—that a constitutional court will not sit in appeal over, or "microscopically" examine, the technical evaluation of bids by the tendering authority, and will defer to the authority's satisfaction where the evaluation is neither arbitrary nor mala fide.

The existence of a turnover certificate sufficed, and the mere omission of the tender ID or work name was not a major defect vitiating the bid.

The Corporation had verified the CVs, awarded three marks only for the Project Manager actually employed, and granted zero marks to unlisted/unqualified personnel, rendering the objection untenable.

Clause 1.12, read as a whole, merely sought the bidder's proposed work method and schedule, and did not mandate particular drawings or charts—the petitioner could point to no clause requiring any specific drawing.

Since the Note expressly disjunctively permitted ownership or lease, the purchase agreement dated 10.02.2026—whereby respondent No.2 committed to purchasing two micro-tunneling machines deliverable upon award—was valid proof of assured availability, especially as these were specialized equipments, and the authority's satisfaction could not be faulted.

Clause 4.1 additionally clothed KAMC with finality of assessment and waiver powers, and respondent No.2 had in fact produced its list of tools and machinery, with demonstrated experience of similar Vadodara Municipal Corporation contracts.

On the form of bid, because the physical copy had been submitted by Speed Post within the stipulated time and opened before all Engineers—and the physical submission requirement existed precisely to cover technical glitches in online uploading—the online-submission objection was insubstantial.

In each instance, the Court applied the rule of limited review: it declined to re-evaluate the technical scoring microscopically and found no arbitrariness in the Corporation's satisfaction.

Finding "no merit in the writ petition," the Court dismissed the petition and discharged the notice.