Post-bid documents cannot cure eligibility deficiencies or contradict original bid submissions to establish technical responsiveness.

The Petitioner challenged the Technical Evaluation Result dated 20.02.2026 and the Financial Bid Result dated 12.03.2026 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) regarding a tender for the construction of NH-913 in Arunachal Pradesh

The Petitioner's bid was declared "Non-Responsive" for failing to meet eligibility requirements under Clause 2.2.2.2(i) (Threshold Technical Capacity) and Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) (Similar Work/Hill Road Criteria) of the Request for Proposal (RFP)

Specifically, for a sub-contracted project (Project 'a'), the Petitioner claimed an executed value of ₹806.88 crore, whereas the approved value by the primary authority (MSRDC) was ₹303.14 crore

Additionally, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate 5 km of Hill Slope Protection (HSP) work in its original bid, attempting to substitute a "corrected" certificate post-bid that increased the recorded retaining wall length from 0.87 km to 8.70 km

1. Whether the decision of the Respondent to declare the Petitioner’s bid as "Non-Responsive" based on failure to meet technical capacity and similar work criteria was arbitrary or legally flawed

2. Whether a bidder can rely on post-bid documents or "clarificatory" certificates that materially contradict the original bid documents to cure eligibility deficiencies

The court applied RFP Clauses 2.2.2.2(i) and (ii) governing technical capacity and similar work requirements, noting that sub-contract values are restricted to the "allowable sub-contracting limit" approved by the Government Authority

It relied on the principle from Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) that judicial review of tenders is limited to the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself

Precedents like Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (2023) and N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) were applied to emphasize judicial restraint in tender matters to avoid public exchequer costs

The court also upheld the principle that the tender-issuing authority is the best judge of its requirements as per Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd v. Nirlac Chemicals (2018)

The Court found that the Petitioner failed the Threshold Technical Capacity under Clause 2.2.2.2(i) because its approved sub-contract value (₹303.14 crore) was significantly below the required ₹790.91 crore

The Petitioner's reliance on subsequent, unapproved work orders to inflate the value was rejected because Clause 2.2.2.5(iv) mandates official authority approval for sub-contracts

Regarding the "Similar Work" criteria under Clause 2.2.2.2(ii), the Court noted that the Petitioner’s original bid for Project 'a' only showed 0.87 km of HSP work, far below the mandatory 5 km

The Court held that the "altered certificate" submitted during the representation stage—which showed an inexplicable tenfold increase in length—was inadmissible as post-bid documents cannot cure fundamental eligibility deficiencies

The Court further determined that while Project 'c' met the HSP length, its financial value was below the minimum threshold, thus failing the conjunctive requirements of the RFP

It ruled that the Petitioner failed to meet both the financial threshold for sub-contracted works and the specific technical requirement for 5 km of Hill Slope Protection

The Court reaffirmed that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) and all pending applications were dismissed