01 / ANALYSIS
Overview of the Case
This matter arises from a petition assailing the judgment of the High Court, which had allowed a writ petition challenging a notification rejecting a tender bid, forfeiting earnest money, and debarring the bidder. Leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed.
02 / ANALYSIS
Brief Facts
The Frontier Highway Authority invited tenders on 16 May 2011 for five road-work packages. Brothers Constructions and Builders participated in the competition and became the successful bidder for an eight-kilometre portion of the D.I. Khan–Chashma Road improvement project, estimated at Rs.138.65 million. Its tender was 7% below the Composite Schedule of Rates 2009, and it deposited earnest money of approximately Rs.2.773 million. The Authority then demanded additional security of 8% calculated by reference to an engineer's estimate that had not been disclosed in the invitation. The contractor declined to deposit it. The Authority rejected the bid, forfeited the earnest money and debarred the contractor for six months.
03 / ANALYSIS
Questions of Law
- Can a procuring agency demand additional security based on an engineer's estimate not disclosed in the tender advertisement?
- Does modifying essential tender terms after the bidding process has commenced violate the principles of transparency and equal treatment?
04 / ANALYSIS
The Court's Answers
Can a procuring agency demand additional security based on an engineer's estimate not disclosed in the tender advertisement?
Answer. No. An undisclosed estimate could not justify imposing an essential financial condition after bids were submitted.
“The introduction of an additional security requirement by reference to a benchmark not disclosed in the advertisement, appears to be patently arbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of transparency and fairness in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Does modifying essential tender terms after the bidding process has commenced violate the principles of transparency and equal treatment?
Answer. Yes. Alteration of material bidding criteria during the process undermines transparency and equal treatment.
“Any midstream departure from the stipulated tender terms, without prior public notice, and in the absence of legal/cogent justification, is inherently arbitrary, and undermines the principle of equal opportunity among bidders.”
05 / ANALYSIS
Practical Relevance
Procuring agencies should disclose essential financial evaluation criteria in tender documents before bidding begins. Contractors facing forfeiture or exclusion should compare the stated tender conditions with requirements introduced later.