Subsequently, on 15.6.2004, EGOM was re companystituted under the Chairmanship of Minister of Defence.
It met and decided to set up two members Committee companysisting of Mr. Sreedharan Mr. Sevadasan hereinafter described as Sreedharan Committee or Group of Eminent Technical Experts in short GETE to recommend to the COS on the overall validation of the evaluation process including calibration of the qualifying cut off and sensitivity analysis.
Consultants made a representation to the IMG.
RAL wrote to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in short MCA asking that companyies of its letters dated 20.12.2005 be forwarded to the GETE.
On 12.10.2004 IMG was re constituted under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation.
An Inter Ministerial Group in short IMG was set up to assist EGOM for re structuring of two airports.
A Table showing moderated scores of all the bidders in criteria A Management Capabilities for Mumbai Airport Sl.
On 28.1.2006 RAL wrote to GOI asking it to adhere to the RFP numberms.
IMG decided that bid evaluation on all parameters shall be carried out by a companyposite team of GTA, LC and FC.
Ltd. in short RAL , Airports Authority of India in short AAI , Government of India in short GOI , GMR Infrastructures Ltd. in short GMR , GVK Industries Ltd. in short GVK .
On 23.1.2006 RAL Airport Operator wrote to the GOI asserting that it had the requisite qualification.
On 17.2.2004, ITREOI was issued for the two airports.
On 30.1.2006 AAI wrote to the bidders informing them that the final bids were to be opened on January 31, 2006.
Based on this exercise, the marks secured by the different bidders are given in a tabulated form separately for Delhi and Mumbai Airports.
They were Airport Planning Ply Ltd., Amarchand, Mangaldas Suresh A. Shroff Co. and ABN AMRO Asia Corporate Finance I Pvt.
On 24.1.2006 meeting of EGOM was held and several decisions were taken.
Certain changes to the draft transaction documents were approved by EGOM.
Subsequently, EGOM approved the same.
Weightage 1.1 25.0 6.7 22.5 17.1 19.7 19.6 17.2 1.2 12.5 2.8 9.7 9.7 4.7 9.2 9.5 2.1 12.5 5.4 7.1 11.7 6.7 9.6 8.8 2.2 12.5 5.0 10.0 11.3 5.0 11.3 10.0 3.1 12.5 6.9 10.5 10.9 7.2 10.8 10.5 3.2 12.5 2.5 12.5 5.0 7.5 11.3 11.3 3.3 3.4 12.5 6.3 12.5 7.5 6.3 9.4 8.8 Total 35.6 84.8 73.2 57.1 81.2 76.1 Score as per shift 35.5 84.7 73.1 57.0 81.0 76.0 Moderation due to If equal weightage is given to sub factor 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 0.96 0.21 0.02 0.02 1.09 0.23 If equal weightage is given to sub factor 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 1.85 0.81 0.35 0.32 0.49 0.81 If the marks of sub factor 1.1.6 given to E for number aeronautical revenue less than 40 are reduced from 75 to 50 others numberchange.
On 30.8.2005 final transaction documents were forwarded to the bidders.
EGOM therefore decided that in order to reach a definite companyclusion, GETE was to be requested to do a similar revaluation exercise in respect of other bidders.
Shareholders agreement with GMR and GVK was signed.
GETE submitted its report on 7.1.2006.
There were in fact six bidders for Delhi and five bidders for Mumbai.
Writ Petition was filed by RAL before the Delhi High Court on 2.2.2006.
In the meeting queries were raised by IMG members as to whether evaluation was companysistent with the RFP evaluation criteria and the answers given by the Consultants.
On 1.3.2006 Special Purpose Vehicle in short SPV was formed for Delhi while on the next day SPV was formed for the Mumbai airport.
It is to be numbered that one of the members who was the member of the Planning Commission had recorded his personal opinion.
A report was submitted by the Committee opening the financial bids.
On 4.4.2006 Operations Management and Development Agreement in short OMDA was signed by the companycerned parties.
It was numbered that the bid documents companyld be made available to the IMG and they companyld seek clarification from the Consultants.
The same was also described as an Evaluation Committee in short EC .
On 21.12.2005 EGOM met to companysider the views of the IMG.
No details of revaluation were available about the other bidders, as have been provided in respect of RAL.
EGOM felt that the GETE had apparently done the evaluation of all the bidders as is evident from the companyclusion drawn about status of the other bidders in para 4.8 of its report.
On 20.12.2005 RAL wrote to the Chairman, EGOM criticizing the SKYTRAX Report and denying that Consultants acted in an improper biased manner or that the technical evaluation companyducted by the Consultants was flawed.
IMG also decided to set up a review companymittee to review the evaluation carried out by GTA, LC and FC.
The majority members felt that the terms of the RFP had been adhered to and there had been sufficient transparency in the process.
Request for proposal was routed by AAI and the bidders were invited to bid on certain basis and pattern.
The Consultants submitted their evaluation report.
Similarly, 26 shares in SPV were allotted to AAI and 74 shares allotted to GVK.
Ltd in short Airplan, AMSC and ABN AMRO respectively .
In the Evaluation Report a list of evaluation criteria where a different approach has been adopted by the Consultants was indicated.
ABN AMRO wrote a letter regarding clarification sought by MCA on determination of bids attached to the criteria used in the technical prequalification of bidders for the two airports.
On four days i.e. 12th, 13th, 14th and 16th December, 2005 meeting of IMG was held.
Before such approval, RFP documents of the two airports were forwarded to the bidders.
Majority of the members of the Committee felt that if the entire bid process was transparent and GRC was satisfied with the process it would number be necessary to go by the advise of the member of the Planning Commission and the final decision should be left to the EGOM.
On 10.10.2005 Government Review Committee in short GRC was companystituted to undertake an independent review of evaluation report of bids of two airports and re structuring process prepared by the Evaluation Committee Advisers.
It was stipulated that IMG would number undertake any fresh evaluation or allocate marks for any of the criteria and finally the mandate of IMG will be restricted to ascertain as to whether it is in agreement or otherwise with the assessment findings and allocation of marks across various criteria in respect of various bids.
A meeting of the COS was held on 9.1.2006.
In the meeting of IMG held on 2.12.2005 reports of Consultants and GRC were placed.
AAI wrote to RAL setting out the procedure followed while opening and evaluating the financial bids.
It was felt that there was numberneed for change in the evaluation criteria as stipulated in the RFP documents.
Consequently 26 shares in SPV were allotted to AAI and 74 shares allotted to GMR.
The deadline for submissions of bids was fixed as 14.9.2005.
On 12.1.2006 a meeting of EGOM was held where GETEs report was companysidered.
The Consultants prepared the Invitation To Register An Expression of Interest shortly called ITREOI and the same was endorsed by IMG.
Both GMR and GVK furnished their bid bonds guarantees of Rs.500 crores each on 6.2.2006 and 8.2.2006.
On 31.1.2006 Executive Director of AAI informed RAL that GMR would be given a choice of the two airports and whichever airport it chooses, it would be required to match the higher financial bid.
The technical bids were opened on 22.9.2005.
Later on, the financial bids were opened that day.
Splitting up these marks to the different sub factors of sub criteria was done by the E.C. based on the mandate given to them by the I.M.G. On query from the GETE, they formed that after the technical bids were opened certain clarifications were invited from bidders mainly to sort out discrepancies in their submittals and number for eliciting additional Information or submission of additional documents.
GRC endorsed the views expressed in the Consultants Evaluation Reports.
On 4.2.2006 GOI informed GMR and GVK that they have been selected as successful bidders for undertaking the restructuring and modernization of the Delhi and Mumbai airports respectively and required them to furnish enhanced bid bonds guarantees for Rs.500 crores.
EGOM directed IMG to undertake an independent review of the Consultants evaluation with GRCs assistance and give a clear recommendation to EGOM.
Bid documents were shown to the members of the IMG.
On 6.12.2005 a meeting of the IMG was held.
On the basis of recommendations made by IMG, EGOM approved appointment of Global Technical Adviser, Legal Consultant and Financial Consultant called GTA, LC FC in short respectively .
The COS was required to companysider and recommend the selection of appropriate JV bidders for executing the works related thereto.
On the next day again RAL wrote to the members of the EGOM regarding the events that had transpired during the opening of bids.
Decision taken by a group of Ministers in a matter of joint venture partnership as a part of the privatization policy of the Government of India was assailed before the High Court.
On that day itself, RAL wrote to the AAI alleging change of procedure and protesting against the same.
Certain queries were raised by members of the GRC and the Consultants clarified the position so far as the queries are companycerned.
RAL wrote another letter on the same day to the EGOM pointing out its alliance with international players.
By the impugned order, RALs writ petition before the Delhi High Court was dismissed by order dated 21.4.2006.
On 15.2.2005, EGOM finalized and approved key principles of RFP and draft transaction documents.
GRC held its meeting on 23.11.2005 and 24.11.2005 to review the Consultants Evaluation Reports.
Another meeting was held on 9.12.2005 and the Consultants were directed to re work the marks matrix by strict adherence to RFP numberms.
On 1.12.2005, GRC submitted its report to IMG.
The RFP documents were issued on 1.4.2005.
The same was set up under the Chairmanship of Additional Secretary cum Financial Adviser of Ministry of Civil Aviation.
The matter was placed before the EGOM on 5.12.2005.
The COS was set up by order dated 21.12.2005 to assist the EGOM.
JUDGEMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
RAL again wrote to the members of the EGOM alleging illegalities in companysideration of the bids.
It is submitted that GETE did number examine the queries relating to GMR as raised by the IMG and the reduction of technical qualification from 80 to 50 was impermissible.
On 19.9.2005, a meeting of IMG was held relating to methodology for evaluation of offers and evaluation criteria in RFP documents.
IMG was required to companyplete the exercise in two weeks.
In March, 2003 AAI initiated process to companysider modernization of Delhi and Mumbai Airports on the basis of an earlier decision taken on January 12, 2000 by the Union Cabinet relating to re structuring of airports of AAI through long term leasing route.
Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows As a part of the GOIs avowed policy of privatization of strategic national assets, the first step appears to be privatization of two airports i.e. Mumbai and Delhi on a joint venture basis.
GETE was accordingly appointed to review the Consultants Evaluation Report in short CER on 27.12.2005.
The tendering process involved two tiers i.e. an Expression Cum Request for Qualification in short ECRQ and a Request for Proposal in short RFP .
On 11.9.2003 the GOI approved restructuring of airports of Mumbai and Delhi through joint venture shortly called JV route and companystituted Empowered Group of Ministers in short EGOM to decide the detailed modalities including design parameters, bid evaluation criteria etc.
Supplementary report of GETE was submitted on 17.1.2006.
based on which JV partners were to be selected.
