Consortium members must independently demonstrate experience for their respective allocated tender activities.

ONGC issued a tender for hiring a Mobile Offshore Production Unit (MOPU) for the R-Series Offshore Oil and Gas Fields.

The Petitioner-consortium submitted its technical and financial bids.

Its Memorandum of Understanding allocated specific activities among the consortium members: HAL Offshore Limited was assigned ownership/leasing, project management and production O&M; Eagle Holding Pte. Ltd. was assigned marine modifications and marine and production-related O&M; and PT Duta Marine was assigned technical support and production-related O&M.

During bid evaluation, ONGC sought documentary evidence showing that the respective consortium members possessed the technical experience corresponding to the activities allocated to them.

The Petitioner did not furnish the requisite experience documents for HAL Offshore and Eagle Holding, contending that the MoU only recorded financial participation and that the experience of PT Duta Marine could satisfy the consortium’s technical eligibility.

ONGC rejected the Petitioner’s technical bid on 21 August 2026 for failure to demonstrate the required Fleet Experience and Operation and Maintenance experience of the relevant consortium members.

The Petitioner’s representation and subsequent proceedings before the Independent External Monitor were unsuccessful.

The financial bid of Respondent No. 2 was opened, and the Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging its disqualification.

Whether ONGC violated the principles of natural justice by seeking supporting experience documents within a short period and rejecting the Petitioner’s technical bid?

Whether the tender conditions required each consortium member to independently possess and prove the technical experience corresponding to the activities allocated to it under the MoU?

Whether the experience of one consortium member, particularly PT Duta Marine, could be relied upon to satisfy the technical requirements applicable to activities allocated to other consortium members?

Whether the Petitioner could modify or reallocate the roles and responsibilities recorded in the MoU after submission of the bid?

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to have its financial bid considered or placed before the Court in a sealed cover despite rejection of its technical bid?

The Court applied the tender conditions, particularly ITB Clauses 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 7.14(j) and 31.0, together with BEC Clauses B.1.2.1(a)-I-(ii), B.1.2.1(a)-II, 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.

These provisions required each consortium member to possess and document the experience relating to the activities it had undertaken; recognised the MoU as defining the members’ roles and forming part of the contractual framework; prohibited post-bid alteration; and permitted consideration of a financial bid only where the bid was in full conformity with the tender.

The Court further applied the principle of judicial restraint in specialised public tenders: judicial review examines the legality, rationality and fairness of the decision-making process, not whether the Court would adopt another interpretation.

Reliance was placed on N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, (2022) 6 SCC 127; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818; and Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India, (2005) 1 SCC 679.

The Court also relied on Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. Mandeepa Enterprises, (2026) 4 SCC 310, for the rule that a power to seek clarification cannot be used to permit substantive rectification or modification of a bid where the tender prohibits such change.

The Court held that the third clarification was not a new eligibility requirement but an opportunity to furnish documents required under the existing tender conditions; the Petitioner had earlier received extensions and clarification opportunities and was informed of the precise deficiency and the reason for rejection.

On the contractual interpretation, the Court read the relevant clauses harmoniously and found that the tender created an activity-specific and member-specific eligibility scheme.

The MoU did not merely record financial participation: it expressly assigned substantive technical activities to HAL Offshore and Eagle Holding, and those activities corresponded directly with the Fleet and O&M experience requirements.

The leader’s obligation to bear primary responsibility for the entire scope of work did not permit the consortium to transfer one member’s technical experience to another.

The Petitioner’s proposed reallocation of work after submission would have altered the substance of the bid and was barred by ITB Clause 7.14(j).

Since the technical bid was validly rejected, the financial bid was immaterial and could not be considered merely because it might have been commercially competitive.

It held that ONGC had complied with the principles of natural justice, had reasonably interpreted the tender as requiring each consortium member to possess experience corresponding to its allocated activities, and had validly rejected the bid for failure to provide the required supporting documents.

Post-bid reallocation of responsibilities and consideration of the Petitioner’s financial bid were impermissible.

The writ petition was dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and no relief was granted to the Petitioner.