Tender disqualification is valid where the bidder’s bridge span falls below the prescribed eligibility threshold.

The petitioner participated in an NHAI tender for Package-VIII of the Vadodara–Mumbai Expressway Project under an RFP dated 23.01.2026.

The RFP, as modified by Corrigendum No. 4, required bidders to demonstrate experience of constructing at least one similar Major Bridge/ROB/Flyover having a span of at least 53.6 metres and a structure length of at least 132 metres.

The petitioner relied, inter alia, on an Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 issued by MSRDC, which recorded VOP span arrangements of 1×15 m + 1×55.80 m + 1×15 m at Chainage 316+759 and 1×15 m + 1×53.80 m + 1×15 m at Chainage 344+075.

NHAI had earlier declared the bid non-responsive for non-submission of a Provisional Completion Certificate; that decision was set aside in W.P.(C) 8524/2026, with a direction for fresh evaluation after considering the PCC dated 30.06.2026.

During fresh evaluation, NHAI compared the 17.04.2026 certificate with an earlier MSRDC certificate dated 13.05.2023, which recorded the relevant VOPs as having two spans of 41.50 m and two spans of 35 m, respectively.

NHAI sought clarification from MSRDC, which by letter dated 27.07.2026 confirmed that the VOP at Chainage 316+759 comprised two spans of 41.50 m each and that its total structural length was 83 m.

NHAI issued a show-cause notice dated 28.07.2026 concerning alleged misrepresentation and subsequently declared the petitioner’s technical bid non-responsive on 31.07.2026 for failure to satisfy the additional bridge-experience criterion.

Whether NHAI correctly interpreted the term “span” under the modified Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP and rightly concluded that the petitioner’s VOP at Chainage 316+759 had a span of 41.50 m, rather than 83 m, thereby failing the 53.6 m eligibility threshold?

Whether the petitioner could rely on the 67 m skew dimension of the Minor Bridge shown in the RFP drawings, or contend that the relevant dimension was 37.949 m, for assessing the applicable eligibility threshold?

Whether NHAI was entitled to verify the apparent inconsistencies between the two MSRDC Experience Certificates and to issue the show-cause notice dated 28.07.2026?

Whether the earlier judgment in W.P.(C) 8524/2026 precluded NHAI from undertaking such verification during the fresh technical evaluation?

The Court exercised limited judicial review under Article 226 over the evaluation of a public tender and applied the principle that the authority which authors a tender document is ordinarily best placed to interpret its requirements, relying on Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, (2022) 5 SCC 362, particularly the principle that the tendering authority’s interpretation should not be interfered with unless arbitrary or irrational.

The Court applied the express terms of modified Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP, requiring prior experience of a similar Major Bridge/ROB/Flyover with a span of at least 53.6 m and structure length of at least 132 m.

It also relied on the definition of “span” in IRC-5/2024 as the horizontal distance between the centre lines of adjacent supports of a bridge superstructure.

A bidder relying upon documents as part of its bid is responsible for their accuracy and cannot avoid accountability merely because the documents were issued by a third party.

The Court further recognised NHAI’s authority to verify contradictory bid documents before determining responsiveness, while refraining from deciding the ultimate merits of the pending debarment proceedings.

The Court held that the relevant measure of span was the distance between adjacent supports, namely, from abutment A1 to pier P1 and from pier P1 to abutment A2, rather than the aggregate distance between the two abutments.

The MSRDC as-built drawing showed two spans of 41.50 m each at Chainage 316+759, and the RFP drawing for the comparable Minor Bridge showed two spans of 67 m each measured in the same manner.

Consequently, the petitioner’s reliance on the aggregate structural length of 83 m was rejected because it did not constitute a single span of at least 53.6 m.

The Court also rejected the argument that the 67 m dimension in the RFP drawing was merely a skew dimension and that the 37.949 m dimension should govern, finding the submission misleading and inconsistent with the corresponding treatment of the MSRDC drawing.

The Court further found that the two MSRDC certificates contained prima facie material contradictions regarding the same structures.

NHAI was therefore entitled to seek clarification from MSRDC, and the clarification dated 27.07.2026, together with the as-built drawing, supported NHAI’s conclusion that the petitioner lacked the requisite span experience.

The earlier judgment only required reconsideration of the petitioner’s bid after taking the PCC into account; it did not prevent NHAI from evaluating the remaining technical requirements or verifying bid documents.

Since the petitioner had relied on the Experience Certificate in its bid, it could not disclaim responsibility for its contents.

The Court nevertheless expressly refrained from deciding whether the 17.04.2026 certificate was fraudulent, leaving that question to the proceedings arising from the show-cause notice.

It held that the petitioner’s VOP experience demonstrated two spans of 41.50 m each, not a qualifying single span of 83 m, and therefore did not satisfy the minimum 53.6 m requirement under modified Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP.

The challenge to the show-cause notice was also rejected; NHAI was entitled to investigate the contradictory certificates, and the earlier judgment did not bar such verification.

The petitioner was permitted to file its reply to the show-cause notice within three days, after which NHAI was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

The writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 payable to NHAI; pending applications were disposed of and interim orders, if any, were vacated.