MP HC Upholds Contractor’s Substation Tender Bid Rejection Over EPF Certificate Not Self-Attested

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant’s technical bid was properly rejected because the uploaded EPF registration certificate was not self-attested, as required by the tender documents.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the appellant. It held that the rejection of the technical bid for failure to submit a self-attested EPF registration certificate was justified and that the explanation in the respondents’ reply did not invalidate the rejection.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

01Facts

MPPKVVCL invited tenders for civil works at a 33/11 KV sub-station. The appellant’s bid was rejected as “Not complied with technical specification,” while other bids were admitted and the contract was awarded to respondent No. 5.

pp. 2, 5–6 · ¶ 3, 10

The appellant, whose bid was L1, challenged the rejection, contending that it had uploaded its EPF registration document and that the respondents had not given a specific reason for disqualification. The respondents explained that the uploaded EPF document was not self-attested.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–5

The writ petition was dismissed, and the appellant brought this appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant’s technical bid was properly rejected because the uploaded EPF registration certificate was not self-attested, as required by the tender documents.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–9, 12

ii.Whether the rejection was invalid because the initial communication stated only “Not complied with technical specification,” while the specific EPF-document deficiency was explained in the respondents’ reply.

p. 6 · ¶ 13

03Law Applied

The tender’s qualifying criteria required a self-attested copy of the EPF registration certificate.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

Under Clause 6.2.1(a)(iv)(A) of MPPKVVCL’s Procurement Manual, the Technical Evaluation Committee must examine whether bids are complete and whether required attachments and documents supporting qualifying requirements have been furnished.

p. 5 · ¶ 8–9

Where the tender documents provide no procedure for correcting an inadvertent bid deficiency, the bidder has no entitlement to an opportunity to rectify it.

p. 6 · ¶ 12

The writ court had relied on Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273; Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, (2013) 10 SCC 95; and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517.

p. 5 · ¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 2

M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 Section 2

Procurement Manual (Policies and Procedures) of Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (MPPKVVCL) Section 6.2.1

04Reasoning

The appellant had uploaded the EPF document, but it was undisputed that the document was not self-attested, contrary to the express qualifying criterion.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–8

The Court held that the tender contained no provision permitting correction of such a deficiency, so the respondents were not required to allow the appellant to cure it.

p. 6 · ¶ 12

Although the rejection communication used the general description “Not complied with technical specification,” the Court accepted the respondents’ explanation that the deficiency concerned the EPF document: it was the same technical ground, consistent with the Procurement Manual’s completeness requirement, and did not establish mala fides or arbitrariness.

p. 6 · ¶ 13