AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court proceedings have been conducted through online court proceeding services due to the prevailing situation in the State due to Covid-19
pandemic.
Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1-5.
This writ petition pertains to a competitive bidding process initiated by a Request for Proposal (‘RFP’, for short) published by the office of the
respondent no. 3, the Additional Director General of Police (Communication) Assam (‘ADGP’, for short) on 04.01.2020 for selection of a
System Integrator for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Video Conferencing Equipments upto Police Stations level in Assam.
Subsequent to the RFP, a corrigendum came to be issued on 03.02.2020 whereby some amendments were made in the original RFP. In response to
said RFP, 5 (five) nos. of bidders submitted their bids.
A litigation, in the form of a writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 2066/2020, ensued in the meantime and the said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment
and order dated 21.01.2021. It is not necessary at this stage to advert to the said litigation.
After the evaluation of the bids at the pre-qualification stage, 4 (four) nos. of bids were found responsive for the technical evaluation stage. A
PowerPoint presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution and a Demonstration on Proof of Concept were parts of the technical bid
evaluation stage.
The present writ petition has been filed assailing the process adopted by the respondent authorities at the technical bid evaluation stage.
Mr. Nair, amongst other contentions, has contended two aspects which, according to him, have vitiated the evaluation process. Firstly, the Power
Point presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution was held on 16.02.2021, 17.02.2021 and 18.02.2021 where all the four bidders had
made their presentations. Thereafter, the Demonstration on Proof of Concept was held on 02.03.2021. It is his submission that the Technical
Committee comprising of a number of members including two external experts, had attended the Power Point presentation on Approach &
Methodology and VC Solution as well as Demonstration on Proof of Concept. But the two external expert members had not evaluated the technical
bids of the bidders, as they had opted out of the process. As the originally inducted two external expert members had declined to be a part of the
Technical Committee, the Technical Committee came to be re-constituted with the induction of two new external expert members and the technical
bids of the four bidders were evaluated by the re-constituted Technical Committee and the marks were only awarded by them. It is his contention that
since the two newly inducted external expert members had not attended the Power Point presentation on Approach & Methodology and VC Solution
as well as Demonstration on Proof of Concept but had awarded marks for the same, the same has vitiated the entire process. Secondly, he has
submitted, by referring to the communication dated 03.07.2021, received pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner, that the respondent
no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 had not met the technical specifications prescribed by the RFP and as such, the respondent no. 6 and the respondent
no. 7 could not have been declared responsive at the technical evaluation stage and in such situation, their commercial bids could not have been
opened for evaluation.
Mr. Nath has submitted that although the two newly inducted external expert members had not attended the Power Point presentation on Approach
& Methodology and VC Solution and Demonstration on Proof of Concept but they had gone through the video recordings of Power Point presentation
and Demonstration on Proof of Concept and as such, the first ground urged on behalf of the petitioner appears to be not a valid ground. He has further
submitted that the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 7 have met the technical specification criteria mentioned in the RFP and the deficiencies in
their bids, sought to be highlighted by the petitioner, were merely optional.
It has been submitted at the bar that though the process of evaluation has been completed in the meantime, no final decision has been taken till date.
In view of the rival contentions made above, this Court is not issuing any notice at this stage to the other respondents as Mr. Nath has agreed to
produce the relevant records of evaluation before the Court and/or to bring the relevant aspects regarding the contentions made on behalf of the
petitioner, as noted above, by way of an affidavit.
List the case on 19.07.2021 in order to enable Mr. Nath to produce the relevant records and/or file an affidavit on the aspects, as mentioned
above.
It is observed that till the next date of listing, no final decision with regard to awarding of the contract in relation to the RFP shall be made.