The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of A2Z Infraservices Limited & Anr. vs Central Works Public Department & Ors. consisting of ACJ Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed that whenever a tender requires a bidder to provide performance certificates, it is the solemn duty of the agency to provide a truthful and correct certificate.
Facts
The petitioner preferred the present writ petition to assail the technical disqualification of the petitioner in respect of the tender floated by the respondent Central Public Works Department (CPWD). The petitioner was disqualified on the ground that it did not meet the quality standards which the bidders were required to meet in respect of their experience for similar works. The respondents stipulated that the bidders works should have been assessed as “very good” or even higher. In this regard, reference was made to the stipulation which required submission of documents, including performance report of works referred in Form C and in Form D. Along with its bid, the petitioner also provided the certificate issued by the DIAL in respect of agreement/ purchase order in relation to the aforesaid contract, which recorded its performance to be “satisfactory during the period of work”.
Since the respondent found a discrepancy in the two certificates issued by the DIAL i.e. the certificate issued contemporaneously, assessing the work of the petitioner and the Form D which described the petitioner’s performance as “very good” on all parameters, the respondents CPWD corresponded with DIAL on the aforesaid aspect, to which DIAL sent an email communication. Founded upon the aforesaid clarification, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s technical bid observing that it was not found to be eligible for opening of the financial bid, which led to the filing of the present writ petition. Upon issuance of the notice, the respondents filed their counter affidavit and along with the counter affidavit, the documents above referred too were placed on record.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The petitioner had no occasion to doubt its eligibility to participate in the tender in question. The petitioner should, even at this stage, be permitted to be considered by taking into considered the other works performed by it wherein its assessment is “very good”, though Form D has not been submitted in respect of those works.
Respondent: The overall performance of the petitioner on the scorecard was found to be 67% in respect of the aforesaid purchase order. Learned counsel for DIAL submitted that since it does not make assessment in terms of poor/ good/ very good/ satisfactory, Form “D” issued to the petitioner recorded the performance of the petitioner as very good. It is stated in Form “D”, was based on subjective assessment, and in the absence of any rating criteria in the said Form “D”, the officer graded the petitioner’s work as “very good”.
Observations of the Court
The Bench did not find this justification provided by the DIAL to be acceptable as if this explanation were correct, the petitioner’s work would not have been described as “satisfactory” when the contemporaneous certificate was issued.
It was emphasised that whenever a tender inviting authority requires a bidder to provide performance certificates in respect of other similar works undertaken by the bidder to assesses the eligibility of the bidder on the basis of such certificate, it is the solemn duty of the agency who is issuing a performance certificate, to provide a truthful and correct certificate, since that agency is being trusted and relied upon by the Tender Inviting Authority to provide its true and correct assessment. By issuing Form “D”, as done by respondent No.3 (DIAL) in the present case, that responsibility was not duly discharged as issuance of such like certificates irresponsibly, if done repeatedly, would erode the credibility of DIAL as an institution to issue experience certificates.
Judgment
The Bench was of the view that no fault can be found with the respondent CPWD in rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid, since the work in respect whereof Form “D” was issued, was only found to be “satisfactory”, and not “very good”. So, the petition was dismissed.
Case: A2Z Infraservices Limited & Anr. vs Central Works Public Department & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 5742/2022 & CM APPL. 17169/2022
Bench: ACJ Vipin Sanghi, Justice Sachin Datta
Decided on: 3rd June 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
