Yet another letter dated 25th February, 2013 the appellant called for evaluation of energy values by an independent third party agency so as to ascertain whether the GEC values offered by HR were achievable.
Allotment of the award in favour of HR as the lowest bidder, thus, appeared as a writing on the wall to the appellant who sent a companymunication dated 12th February, 2013 to DMRC alleging that the GEC values offered by HR were untenable and unsustainable and pointing out that since the appellants price bid was lesser than that of the HR by 665 crores approx.
Bidder Other than HVAC Y Total HVAC X 1 ALSTOM 1434 595 2029 2 BTC 1621 564 2185 3 CAFC 1159 790 1949 4 HBC 1767 514 2281 5 HRC 1259 567 1826 6 SIEMENS 1560 786 2346 In terms of Annexure ITT 8 the GEC value of respondent No.2 which was the lowest was taken as the baseline for the purpose of loading the rupee equivalent of the higher values offered by other bidders on to their price bids.
Alstom Transport India Ltd. was the only other bidder aggrieved by the award of the companytract who filed Writ Petition No.2615 of 2013 challenging the tender process.
The appellant, therefore, sought a restraint order against the award of the companytract before the High Court who in turn accepted an undertaking given by the companynsel for the DMRC and HR that they will number act in pursuance of the letter of award pending disposal of the writ petition.
That writ petition was numberified for hearing on 1st May, 2013.
The GEC values offered by the six bidders found technically companypliant were as under No.
Both the writ petitions were eventually heard by the High Court on 1st May, 2013 and dismissed by the order under appeal before us.
The High Court held that the bidders were well aware of and had accepted the tender companyditions which were free from any vagueness or uncertainty.
The parameters of evaluation companyditions were also held to have been applied uniformly to all the bidders under a procedure that was open, transparent and fair as required by law.
Yet another letter dated 1st March, 2013 to the same effect having failed to cut any ice with the DMRC, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.1853 of 2013 before the High Court of Delhi.
Alstom Transport India Ltd. Ors.
The Indian rupee companyversion of the said value above the baseline, proportionate to the higher GEC values was worked out as under No.
Bidder GEC GEC for INR X loading Y KWH 1 ALSTOM 2029 203 6,911,264,587.08 2 BTC 2185 359 12,222,384,171.24 3 CAFC 1949 123 4,187,613,518.28 4 HBC 2281 455 15,490,765453.80 5 HRC 1826 O 0 baseline 6 SIEMENS 2346 520 17,703,731,947.20 The position that emerged after the GEC values companyponent was loaded to the price bid of the bidder was as under Bidder Grand INR perPositGrand INR per PositTotalSEC Total in Car ion Total Car ion Energvalu INR withoubefor with with aftery e t e energy loading loadi kWH kWH loadingLoadiloading ng ng in INR 1000 GTKM Siemens3625,27,927,45,94L 1 5395,65,2411,10,21L 4 2346 55.7 Consort,409 ,223 ,355 ,655 1 ium Bombard4242,27,838,72,89L 2 5464,51,6711,24,38L 5 2185 51.8 ier ,378 ,678 ,548 ,616 9 Consort ium Hyundai4290,57,948,82,83L 3 4290,57,948,82,83,L 1 1826 43.3 ROTEM ,689 ,528 ,690 528 6 Alstom 4373,87,658,99,97L 4 5065,00,2910,42,18L 3 2029 48.1 Consort,001 ,459 ,588 ,168 8 ium CAF 4614,18,669,49,42L 5 5032,94,8010,35,58L 2 1949 46.2 Consort,794 ,113 ,313 ,601 8 ium Hitachi4891,32,6010,06,4L 6 6440,40,2613,25,18L 6 2281 54.1 BHEL ,656 4,569 ,108 ,572 7 It is evident from a companyparative study of the charts extracted above, that while the appellant was L 1 in the price bid, it went down to L 4 after GEC value was loaded to its price bid.
On the companytrary respondent No.2 HR who was L 3 in the price bid rose to L 1 position on account of its low GEC value in companyparison to a higher GEC value offered by the appellant.
The price quotations of the six bidders found eligible were as under Bidder Grand Total in INR per Car Position before INR without Loading due to loading difference in GEC values Siemens Consortium 3625,27,92,409 7,45,94,223 L 1 Bombardier 4242,27,83,378 8,72,89,678 L 2 Consortium Hyundai ROTEM 4290,57,94,689 8,82,83,528 L 3 Alstom Consortium 4373,87,65,001 8,99,97,459 L 4 CAF Consortium 4614,18,66,794 9,49,42,113 L 5 Hitachi BHEL 4891,32,60,656 10,06,44,569 L 6 Significantly, however, the above did number represent the true inter se position of the bidders.
The present appeal assails the companyrectness of that judgment and order.
The financial bids offered by these six bidders were then opened on 9th February, 2013 and the bid amount along with GEC values offered by each bidder announced by the DMRC.
The GEC values in turn companyprised two distinct companyponents, namely, X factor representing the electricity companysumption for the operation of the train without HVAC and Y factor for operation of HVAC.
That was so because apart from the price quotation, the terms and companyditions of the tender numberice required loading of GEC values duly companyverted into Indian rupee to the price quotation of each eligible bidder.
Writ Petitioners in companynected Writ Petition No.2615 of 2013 have, however, remained companytent with the view taken by the High Court and have number chosen to appeal.
it should be taken as L 1 instead of determining the inter se position of the bidders on the basis of a supposedly anticipated saving in the companysumption of energy on a lifecycle of 30 years.
In the meantime DMRC issued a Letter of Acceptance in favour of HR under intimation to the appellant.
Respondent Delhi Metro Rail Corporation DMRC for short has planned to implement Phase III of the MRTS for Delhi to keep pace with the ever increasing traffic demands in Delhi.
Phase III of the MRTS, Delhi companyprises metro companyridors of Mukundpur Rajori Garden Dhaula Kuan Maujpur Gokulpuri and Janakpuri West Munirka Kalkaji Kalindi Kunj Botanical Garden Noida .
With the opening of the technical bids GEC values which the bidders were required to submit as a part of their technical bid and which were relevant and to a great extent critical for evaluation of the price bid under the applicable terms and companyditions also became known to the bidders.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has by a companymon order passed in Writ Petition C No.1853 of 2013 filed by the appellant and Writ Petition No.2615 of 2013 filed by Alstom Transport India Ltd. declined to interfere with the award of a companytract for the supply of 486 Standard Gauge Cars Electrical Multiple Units meant for use in Phase III of the Mass Rapid Transit System MRTS for short for Delhi and its extension companyridors.
The High Court has taken the view that the process of evaluation of the bids received from eligible bidders culminating in the award of a companytract in favour of respondent No.2 Hyundai Rotem Company HR for short was transparent and did number suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity of any kind to warrant interference by it.
