Past-performance eligibility may be assessed against the tender’s defined primary product, not merely similar items.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) issued a GeM tender dated 29 May 2026 for the supply of black lead pencils, erasers, manual pencil sharpeners, metric scales and crayons, totalling 1,05,11,200 units.

During the pre-bid stage, the petitioner challenged the eligibility conditions as restrictive.

By corrigendum dated 9 June 2026, the past-performance requirement was reduced from 80% to 40% of the total bid quantity for the same or similar items supplied during the preceding three financial years.

The petitioner claimed to have supplied 56,63,803 units of stationery items during Financial Years 2022–23 to 2024–25, exceeding the prescribed threshold of 26,27,800 units.

Its technical bid was nevertheless disqualified on the ground that it had not demonstrated past supply of 40% of the primary product, namely black lead pencils.

The petitioner sought quashing of the disqualification and a direction to treat its technical bid as qualified and evaluate its financial bid.

Whether the petitioner satisfied the tender’s past-performance eligibility requirement by demonstrating supply of “same or similar items,” notwithstanding the absence of proof of supply of the primary product, black lead pencils.

Whether the petitioner’s technical bid was illegally disqualified for failing to establish past supply of 40% of the primary product specified in the tender.

The Court applied the eligibility conditions contained in the GeM tender and its corrigendum, including the requirement of past performance equivalent to 40% of the prescribed quantity.

It accepted the tender-specific interpretation that the past-performance requirement had to be assessed with reference to the primary product, which was defined as “Black Lead Pencil V3 conforming to IS 1375”.

Although the petitioner referred to the General Financial Rules, 2017 and the Central Vigilance Commission Circular dated 17 December 2002, the Court did not base its decision on any independent statutory or precedential rule; it determined the matter primarily by construing and applying the tender conditions.

The Court accepted the MCD’s submission that the phrase “same or similar product” in the past-performance clause had to be understood in the context of the primary product and the GeM General Conditions of Tender.

Since black lead pencil was the primary product, the petitioner was required to demonstrate past supply of 40% of the relevant quantity of that product.

The petitioner conceded that it would not meet the eligibility requirement if pencils alone were treated as the primary product.

The Court therefore found no illegality in the MCD’s assessment that the petitioner’s documents did not establish the requisite performance in relation to the primary product, notwithstanding its claimed supply of other stationery items.

The challenge to the technical disqualification was consequently rejected.

The writ petition and the pending stay application were dismissed.