Consortium members must independently satisfy experience criteria for their allocated tender activities.

ONGC issued a tender for hiring a Mobile Offshore Production Unit for its R-Series Offshore Oil and Gas Field project. The Petitioner, a consortium comprising HAL Offshore Limited, Eagle Holding Pte. Ltd. and PT Duta Marine, submitted its technical and financial bids.

Under the consortium’s MoU, HAL Offshore was allocated ownership/leasing of the MOPU, project management and production O&M; Eagle Holding was allocated marine modifications and marine and production-related O&M; and PT Duta Marine was allocated technical support and production-related O&M.

ONGC sought clarifications regarding the experience of the consortium members. In its third clarification dated 17 August 2026, ONGC required documentary evidence demonstrating the Fleet Experience and O&M Experience of the respective members for the activities allocated to them under the MoU.

ONGC rejected the Petitioner’s technical bid on 21 August 2026 because HAL Offshore and Eagle Holding had not produced the requisite experience documents for the activities allocated to them.

The Petitioner’s representation was unsuccessful, and the Independent External Monitors subsequently declined to intervene.

The Petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought, inter alia, permission to submit its financial bid in a sealed cover.

Whether ONGC correctly interpreted the tender conditions as requiring each consortium member to independently possess and document the technical experience corresponding to the activities allocated to that member under the consortium MoU

Whether the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid violated the principles of natural justice or was arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or perverse

Whether the Petitioner could alter or reallocate the roles and responsibilities of the consortium members after submission of the bid

Whether the Petitioner could require ONGC to consider its financial bid despite its technical disqualification

The Court applied the tender conditions, particularly ITB Clauses 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 7.14(j) and 31.0, and 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 consortium members to independently satisfy the experience criteria for the activities they undertook, prohibited attribution of one member’s experience to another member, required the MoU to specify each member’s role and scope of work, and barred post-bid alteration of the consortium or its allocated activities.

The Court reiterated that judicial review in tender matters examines the legality and rationality of the decision-making process, not whether the Court would adopt a different contractual interpretation; courts ordinarily defer to the tendering authority’s technical and commercial assessment, particularly in specialised infrastructure projects.

The Court relied 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.

It further applied Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. Mandeepa Enterprises, (2026) 4 SCC 310, for the principle that a power to seek clarification cannot be expanded into a power to permit substantive rectification or modification of a bid contrary to the tender conditions.

The Court read the tender provisions together and found a consistent activity-specific and member-specific qualification scheme. Since the Petitioner’s own MoU allocated ownership/leasing of the MOPU and O&M-related functions to HAL Offshore and Eagle Holding, those members were required to demonstrate their own corresponding Fleet and O&M Experience.

The allocation was not merely financial because the MoU expressly identified substantive technical activities and formed part of the contractual framework.

The requirement that the consortium leader assume primary responsibility for the entire scope did not permit the Petitioner to transfer or substitute the technical experience of PT Duta Marine for the experience required of the other members.

The Court also held that ONGC had afforded adequate procedural fairness. The Petitioner had received two earlier rounds of clarification, was specifically informed of the deficiency, was given an opportunity to submit supporting documents, received reasons for rejection, and thereafter invoked the IEM mechanism.

The Petitioner’s own clarification effectively acknowledged that HAL Offshore and Eagle Holding lacked the relevant technical experience and asserted instead that their roles were only financial. The Court rejected that interpretation as inconsistent with the MoU and the tender conditions.

The proposed post-bid reallocation of activities was impermissible because it would alter the substance of the bid and violate Clause 7.14(j).

The Petitioner could not simultaneously contend that the MoU allocation was irrelevant for qualification and seek to modify that allocation after discovering that the original arrangement did not satisfy the tender requirements.

Since the technical disqualification was valid, the financial bid was irrelevant under Clause 31.0, and the Court declined to accept it in a sealed cover.

The rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid was neither arbitrary nor contrary to natural justice, and the Petitioner could not modify or reallocate the consortium members’ responsibilities after bid submission.

The Court further held that the Petitioner’s financial bid could not be considered after its failure to satisfy an essential technical eligibility condition.

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