Incomplete or abandoned works do not satisfy "satisfactorily completed" eligibility criteria in technical tender evaluations.

The Petitioner challenged the rejection of its technical bid for a CPWD redevelopment project in Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi

The tender required bidders to satisfy Clause 7.1, involving "similar work" completion (RCC buildings of 10+ storeys with specific services) and experience in an "opted technology" (Monolithic Concrete Construction using Aluminium Formwork) valued at no less than ₹134.67 Cr

The Petitioner relied on its work at LNJP Hospital to meet these criteria

The Respondents rejected the bid, noting that the LNJP project was abandoned by the government at 95% structural completion, lacked required electrical/sanitary works, and utilized a "composite steel and RCC" system rather than the purely monolithic system required by the opted technology

The Petitioner contended that since the government abandoned the work, it should be treated as "completed" and the 30% deeming formula for structural value should apply

1. Whether the Respondents’ decision to treat the Petitioner as technically ineligible under Clause 7.1 of the NIT was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to tender conditions

2. Whether an abandoned or suspended project can be classified as a "satisfactorily completed" work for the purpose of meeting eligibility criteria

3. Whether the 30% deeming formula in Clause 7.1 automatically qualifies a hybrid technology project regardless of the actual extent of the opted technology used

The Court applied the principles of judicial restraint in tender matters as established in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., which holds that the author of the tender is the best interpreter of its documents and courts must defer to such interpretation unless it is perverse or mala fide

It also relied on Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST), emphasizing that courts should not interfere in technical commercial matters unless there is a clear case of arbitrariness or bias

The core legal rule derived is that eligibility must be strictly established via the documents submitted with the bid, and authorities are not bound to seek clarifications to allow a bidder to supplement a deficient bid

The Court reasoned that the Respondents' interpretation was plausible and based on the Petitioner's own documentation. Form D-2 and the Performance Certificate submitted by the Petitioner expressly stated the LNJP work was "suspended" and "abandoned," failing to meet the "satisfactorily completed" threshold

Furthermore, the Performance Certificate described the LNJP structure as a "composite" system (RCC and Steel), whereas the Petitioner's opted technology was "Monolithic Concrete Construction"

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the 30% deeming formula should apply automatically to any project mentioning the technology; the formula is a valuation tool for otherwise qualifying completed works, not a substitute for proving the use of the specific tech at the required scale

The court found that the Petitioner could not be deemed eligible simply because the abandonment was not its fault, as the tender lacked a clause treating abandoned works as completed

Finally, the 4-minute delay between a system-generated acceptance email and the actual rejection email did not constitute a lack of transparency

The LNJP project did not satisfy the "similar work" definition due to non-completion of essential services (electrical/SITC of lifts) and did not satisfy the "opted technology" requirement as it was a hybrid structure rather than a monolithic one. The court affirmed that the Petitioner failed to meet the mandatory eligibility conditions of Clause 7.1 of the NIT. All pending applications were closed.