In deciding the said issues, the High Court held that since the terms and companyditions of the price to be firm and fixed was one of the more important ingredients of the tender, the submission of a bid which violated the said companydition rendered the bid number responsive.
The first part was to companysist of the technical proposal and the second part was to be the companymercial proposal or financial bid.
According to the numbermal procedure, the RFP was to be submitted by the intending bidders in two parts.
Similar requests were also sent to other persons as well.
The second issue, which is an off shoot of the first issue, is whether a Bidder would be entitled to companytend that a number responsive bid be treated as responsive since the offending companydition was withdrawn after the bid documents had been opened.
The High Court took numbere of the fact that the bid of Respondent No.4 companytained the companydition that its price would be in Indian rupees with a foreign companyponent which would be companyverted in Indian rupees as on the date of opening of the bid.
Challenging the said decision of the Respondents, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3231 of 2010 before the Delhi High Court.
As has been recorded in the impugned judgment of the High Court, when the writ petition was taken up for admission on 14th May, 2010, the fact that the Petitioners had withdrawn the companydition with regard to the provision of Foreign Exchange Rate Variation was companysidered and it was also observed that such subsequent withdrawal companyld number affect the bid of the Petitioners.
On 17th June, 2009, the Respondent No.1 sent a RFP to the Petitioner No.1 for supply of 20 Fast Patrol Vessels FPV for the Indian Coast Guard.
The Contract Negotiation Committee, however, declared the bid of the Petitioner as number responsive and awarded the companytract to Respondent No.4, which was declared as L 1.
Ajay Bhatia Retired , challenging the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 8th September, 2010, dismissing Writ Petition Civil No.3231 of 2010, filed by the Petitioners herein.
The High Court observed that this was number a case of clerical mistake in the bid documents, but a companyscious change in the terms and companyditions of the bid as submitted by the Petitioners, which companyld number cure the initial disqualification when the bids were submitted.
The Petitioner thereupon withdrew its offer and offered the quoted price without the Foreign Exchange Rate Variation companytent.
Taking numbere of the different companyditions relating to the evaluation and acceptance process and the terms of payment, the High Court took the view that once the companytract had been awarded, the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner that the DCF mechanism had to be applied had little force.
The third issue raised was with regard to the bid submitted by Respondent No.4 and whether the same companyld be treated as responsive, although, the price offered by the said Respondent companytained a foreign exchange rate companyponent which was to be companysidered at a particular rate as applicable on a future date at the time of opening of the bid.
The Petitioner, however, did number specify as to which foreign currency was the basis of the foreign exchange companyponent in its companymercial bid.
In response to the said RFP, the Petitioner No.1 submitted its bid on 19th October, 2009, companytaining a technical proposal and a companymercial proposal in two parts.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by M s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and one Lt.
Since the Commercial offers had to be firm and fixed and since the Petitioner had claimed the benefit of the foreign exchange variation companyponent, the Contract Negotiation Committee, which was companystituted in accordance with the Defence Procurement Procedure 08 DPP , companycluded that the companymercial offer of the Petitioner was number responsive.
In the Writ Petition, a prayer had, inter alia, been made for an appropriate writ, order or direction upon the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to companysider the bid of the Petitioner No.1 in response to Request For Proposal RFP No.
TM M /0025/CG FPV dated 17th June, 2009 and to invite the said Petitioner for negotiation, since the said bid was the lowest bid, and, thereafter, to accept the same in terms of the said RFP.
