Non-Submission of Duplicate Documentation Does Not Render a Bid Non-Responsive if Essential Technical Capacity is Substantially Established

The Petitioner, an infrastructure company, participated in a tender issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on 23.01.2026 for the construction of a section of the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway.

On 25.06.2026, NHAI declared the Petitioner’s technical bid "Non-Responsive".

The sole reason for rejection was the Petitioner’s failure to submit a "Provisional Completion Certificate" (PCC) alongside its Experience Certificate, as required by Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) and Annexure-IX of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The Petitioner contended that the Experience Certificate, issued by the client (MSRDC), already contained all material information typically found in a PCC, making the requirement a mere duplication.

During the proceedings, the Petitioner obtained and furnished the PCC dated 30.06.2026.

1. Whether the non-submission of a Provisional Completion Certificate (PCC), when the requisite information was already contained in a valid Experience Certificate issued by the same client, justified declaring the bid "Non-Responsive"

2. Whether the subsequent submission of the PCC before the opening of financial bids cured the technical deficiency

The Court examined Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP regarding "Technical Capacity," which mandates the submission of an Experience Certificate in a specific format (Annexure-IX) along with a PCC or CC.

The Court applied the principle from S and P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India [2026 SCC OnLine Del 4384], which cautions against a "hyper-technical approach" in tender evaluations where substantive requirements are met.

It distinguished Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors. [(2016) 8 SCC 622], noting that while employers can insist on strict compliance with essential terms, such terms must serve a substantive purpose.

The Court compared the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 with the PCC dated 30.06.2026 and found them to be functionally identical, with the Experience Certificate providing even more detailed information.

The Court reasoned that since the Experience Certificate was not a self-declaration but a document issued by the client (MSRDC), its authenticity was not in doubt, rendering the insistence on a separate PCC a "duplication exercise".

The Court observed that because MSRDC had not actually issued the PCC until requested during litigation, the Petitioner could not have submitted a non-existent document at the time of the bid.

Applying the law, the Court held that the "essential requirement" of proving technical capacity was substantially complied with, and rejecting the bid for a missing corroborative document that adds no new information was arbitrary and hyper-technical.

The Court set aside the Technical Evaluation result dated 25.06.2026.

It ruled that the deficiency, if any, stood cured by the submission of the PCC dated 30.06.2026 before the opening of financial bids.

The Court directed NHAI to evaluate the Petitioner's technical bid in light of the now-submitted PCC and consider its financial bid alongside other qualified bidders to enhance market competitiveness and serve the public interest. Writ petition allowed.