3/2021 M.A. M/s. Jiangsu Dajin Heavy Industry Co. Limited (Appellant) V/S Port Qasim Authority (PQA) and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
- Indeed, it appears that it was more than a month after opening of the bid that the appellant made an attempt to rectify its material inability by furnishing a separate/counter bank guarantee from Bank AlHabib for both the tenders. This deficiency could not have been resurrected as by then the ship sailed. These belated attempts would have amounted to a modification of the tender documents, which is not permissible under Rule 31 of Rules 2004. Eventually only those whose technical bids were found to be in consonance with the terms of the invitation, were liable to be considered for further steps and were considered accordingly. -Petitioner being aware of the said tender conditions participated and having participated in the tender cannot challenge or dislike prerequisites meant for technical qualification. He could only expect judicious treatment within the playing rules however, it was too late for appellant when it realized that playing conditions were not palatable to it. The situation faced by appellant based on the aforesaid facts is not res integra as a number of judgments are in the filed covering the issue as settled law. - Even if I have to measure bidding terms on the touchstone of malice and mala fide, I would come out with understanding that these terms are for every one and not to exclude anyone. These are commercial transactions and decisions in this regard should base on strict compliance of terms of tenders whereas equity and fair play based on financial offer is not primary concern. Even if someone intends to impress by showing better financial offer, he has to qualify first on technical grounds. It is the overall impact till completion of job that needs serious consideration by procuring agency. Whether a bidder has the ability to deliver as per terms of tenders and having capacity to ensure projects completion should be the primary concern of procuring agency. There is thus nothing which could lead to conclude that the process ended up in a decision of rejecting technical bid of appellant was flawed. - Any term within frame of law is also not open for a judicial review even under the hierarchy of procurement laws as Rule 25 enables the procuring agency to require bid security not exceeding five per cent of the bid price to be furnished by every bidder and procuring agency may save its effectiveness for a period as they required in terms of Rule 26.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.