Monday, May 20, 2019 | ePaper

Decision rejecting applications for pre-qualification etc not questionable

  • Print
(From previous issue)
16.    In the instant case although the petitioner claims to have filed a complaint to the administrative authority and thereafter to CPTU against the decision of the procuring authority to evaluate its technical proposal under Rule 56 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2008 in our opinion it is in fact an Appeal to the concerned authority against the rejection of Va Tech Wabag Limited's bid. This view appears to be further evident from the fact that the Tender Evaluation Committee and procuring authority made its final decision on the tender in its final technical proposal evaluation report dated 14th October, 2016 where it was clearly stated
"Bidder 7
The Final Technical Proposal of Bidder 7 contains:
=Material changes to the technical solutions from the (initial) Technical Proposal
=material failures to rectify aspects incorporated into the Memorandum entitled "Schedule of Non-Conformities"
=material failures to respond to addenda.
ITB 25.2 includes: The Executing Agency may reject the Bidder's Final Technical Proposal if the basic technical solutions are not the same as those in the Bidders Technical Proposal:
As a result of the material changes to the technical solutions from the (initial), Technical Proposal, Bidder 7's Final Technical Proposal may be rejected.
ITB Clause 25.2 also states that:
'Failure by a Bidder to rectify all aspects incorporated into the Memorandum entitled "Schedule of Non-Conformities" or to submit a substantially responsive Final Technical Proposal in response to any final addenda to the Bidding Document, which may be issued by the Executing Agency in accordance with ITB 5 (Amendment of Bidding Document) and ITB 21.1 (a) (Invitation for Final Technical Proposals and Bids), will result in the rejection of the Bidder's Final Technical Proposal.
"Therefore, the Final Technical Proposal of Bidder No., 7 is found not substantially responsive and is rejected pursuant to ITB Clause 25.2."
Thereafter the Superintendent Engineer and Project Director of DESWSP by his letter dated 16-11-2016 informed Va Tech Wabag Limited that the Executive Agency has completed the evaluation of the Final Technical Proposals. In accordance with Clause 26.2 of the ITB we confirm that your Final Technical Proposal has been assessed not substantially responsive and so your Bid will not be opened. Four your information, in accordance with ITB 25.2 your. Final Technical Proposal was rejected as it contained:
* Material changes in the basic technical solution from your Initial Technical Proposal
*Material failures to respond to Schedule of Non Conformities (SoNC) and
*Material failures to respond to Addenda after the Initial Technical Proposal.
17.    The aforesaid communication to Va Tech Wabag Limited clearly indicate that their bid was finally rejected by the procuring authority. Thereafter on 20-11-2616 Va Tech Wabag Limited filed its application for administrative review of evaluation of its Final Proposal for the Project to the Review Panel-2 of CPTU under Rule 56 and 57 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2008 . Thus in our opinion since Va Tech Wabag Limited filed its application to the Review Panel-2 of CPTU after rejection of its bid its aforesaid application was in fact an Appeal from the rejection which is barred under Sections 29 and 30 of the Public Procurement Act, 2006. The consequent findings of the Review Panel-2 of CPTU therefore cannot be sustainable in law.
18.    In Writ Petition No.15003 of 2017 the petitioner Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (DWASA) has prayed inter alia for a declaration that the judgment passed by the Review Panel-2 of CPTU allowing Review Application No. 60 of 2016 by Va Tech Wabag Limited directing to constitute a Technical Sub-Committee to re-evaluate the Final Technical Proposal should be declared illegal. It appears that although the Review Panel-2 of CPTU passed its judgment on 7-12-2016 the DWASA did not challenge it until filing of Writ Petition No. 15003 of 2017 which is as late as almost one year after passing of the said judgment and the delay has been explained in the said Writ Petition to have occurred due to ignorance of law. In the meantime DWASA appears to have constituted a 4 (four) member Sub-Committee pursuant to the decision of the Review Panel-2 of CPTU as evident from the Memo No. 46.085.014.01.00. 065.2016-97 dated 9th February, (Annexure 12 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition of the respondent Nos. 1-3) and Memo No. 46.085.014.01.00.065. 2016-61 dated 29th January, 2017 (Annexure 11 of the said Affidavit-in-Opposition). In Memo No. LGED/CE/E-57(Angsha-l)/2004/2073 dated 15-2-2017 (Annexure 14 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition of the respondent Nos. 1-3) certain difficulties have been pointed out by the Chief Engineer, Local Government Engineering Directorate, Agargoan, Dhaka. In the Memo No. 46.085.014.01.00. 004.2016-12 dated 05th January, 2017 (Annexure L to the Supplementary Affidavit in Writ Petition No. 13490 of 2017) the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives, Local Government Division, Dhaka has stated that if the bid of Degremont-OTV JV accepted and the work order is awarded to them then the project cost will be higher than the estimated cost and opinion has been sought as to how surplus fund is to be procured. Paragraph Nos. 8, 10 and 11 are reproduced below:
৮। এ প্যাকেজের জন্য ডিপিপি-তে ট্যাক্স ও ভ্যাটসহ ২৮২ মিলিয়ন ডলার বরাদ্দ রয়েছে (ট্যাক্স ও ভ্যাট বাবদ ৫৪ মিলিয়ন ডলার)। ঢাকা ওয়াসা হতে প্রাপ্ত  অপর একটি পত্র (সংলাপ) হতে জানা যায় যে, বর্ণিত উইঙ প্যাকেজ একমাত্র রেসপনসিভ দরদাতার দর প্রাক্কলিত দর অপেক্ষা ট্যাক্স ও ভ্যাটসহ ৪৩% বেশী পাওয়া গেছে, যা সাধারণ বিবেচনায় স্বাভাবিক নয়। চলমান দরপত্র প্রক্রিয়া অনুসরণ করা হলে এ প্যাকেজের জন্য অতিরিক্ত প্রায় ১৩৪ মিলিয়ন ডলার বা প্রায় ১০৪২ কোটি টাকার (ডিপিপি অনুযায়ী ১ ডলার = ৭৭.৭৬ টাকা) প্রয়োজন হবে যার সংস্থান ডিপিপি তে নেই। প্রথম দরপত্র প্রক্রিয়ায় প্রাক্কলিত দরের চেয়ে ৪৩% বেশী দর প্রাপ্তি এবং ডিপিপি-তে দরপত্র প্রাপ্ত দরের সমপরিমাণ আর্থিক সং¯'ান না থাকার বাস্তবতায় বর্তমান চলমান দরপত্র প্রক্রিয়া নির্ধারিত সময় সফল হওয়ার সম্ভাবনা সীমিত। ফলে, অঋউ হতে এ প্যাকেজের খড়ধহ উরংনঁৎংবসবহঃ বাস্তবতায় নিরিখে জুন ২০১৭ এর মধ্যে সম্পন্ন করার সম্ভাবনা ক্ষীণ। সামগ্রিকভাবে চলমান দরপত্র প্রক্রিয়ায় আর্থিক প্রস্তাব মূল্যায়ন ও তা প্রক্রিয়াকরণ আরো যে সময় ব্যয় হবে তা ফলদায়ক হবে না। এ ক্ষেত্রে, চলমান দরপত্র প্রক্রিয়ায় পরিবর্তে ঢাকা ওয়াসা কর্তৃক পুনঃদরপত্র আহবানের ব্যব¯'া করা সময় সাশ্রয়ী হবে বলে ¯'ানীয় সরকার বিভাগ মনে করে।
১০। সিপিটিইউ এর রিভিউ প্যানলের আদেশ এবং এডিবি ও এএফডি-র মতামত এর প্রেক্ষিত ঢাকা ওয়াসা হতে যে দিক নির্দেশনা চাওয়া হয়েছে তার অনুব"ত্তিক্রম সার্বিক তথ্য ও বাস্তবতা বিবেচনাপূর্বক ঢাকা ওয়াসা-কে বর্ণিত উইঙ প্যাকেজের চলমান দরপত্র মূল্যায়ন প্রক্রিয়া যথাযথ পদ্ধতিতে বাতিলপূর্বক পুনঃদরপত্র আহবানের নির্দেশনা প্রদানের প্রস্তাব সদয় অনুমোদনের জন্য সরকারি ক্রয় সংক্রান্ত মন্ত্রিসভা কমিটিতে পেশ করা হলো।
১১। ¯'ানীয় সরকার, পল্লী উন্নয়ন ও সমবায় মন্ত্রণালয় দায়িত্বে নিয়োজিত মাননীয় মন্ত্রী এ সার-সং-ক্ষেপটি দেখেছেন, অনুমোদন করেছেন এবং সরকারী ক্রয় সংক্রান্ত মন্ত্রিসভা কমিটিতে প্রেরণের সদয় সম্মতি জ্ঞাপন করেছেন।
19.    Thus even though the petitioner DWASA in Writ Petition No. 15003 of 2017 has impugned the judgment and order of the Review Panel-2 of CPTU they appear to have made an effort to implement and it is not clear why they have come to this Court after almost one year with a prayer to declare the same illegal. Furthermore from the aforesaid Memo dated 5-1-2017 (Annexure L) it appears that the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Local Government Division, Dhaka has made a proposal to the Cabinet Committee for Government Purchase (CCGP) to cancel the present tender and invite fresh bids for the Dhaka Environmentally Sustainable Water Supply Project (DESWSP) but from the Memo dated 13-12-2017 (Annexure Y-2) it appears that the matter was dropped from the Agenda of the meeting of the CCGP dated 18-1-2017 (Annexure 21) but there is nothing before us to show the final outcome of the aforesaid proposal for cancelling the present tender.
20.    The learned Deputy Attorney General has vehementally submitted that if there is fresh tender then it will cause a Jelay in implementation or the Project and that ADB is going to withdraw its promised fund for the Project and that may frustrate the project. It is for the respondents to decide whether to take decision in the light of the proposal by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives, Dhaka (Annexure L) for fresh tender or whether to award the work order to Degremont OTV JV even though their quoted Project cost is more than 43% of the estimated cost as these matters are beyond the scope of adjudication by this Court. Thus in our opinion both the Writ Petitions suffer from legal infirmities and the Government is at liberty to make a final decision on the proposal by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives, Dhaka vide Annexure L and proceed accordingly in awarding the work.
21.    With the above observations both the Rules are disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Concluded)

More News For this Category

Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court

Appellate Division (Civil) :Syed Mahmud Hossain CJMd Imman Ali JHasan Foez Siddique JMirza Hussain Haider JBene Martime Inc..........PetitionersvsAlam Feed Limited and others........Respondents JudgmentFebruary 27th, 2018Admiralty Court Act (XLIII of

Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Borhanuddin    J     } Bangladesh Water                                                                                                                                                                                     Sardar Md Rashed } Development Board   Jahangir        J     }…………..Petitioner                               }           VSJudgment              } Additional DistrictJuly 23rd, 2018     }

Further Investigation

HIGH COURT DIVISION :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)Syed Md Ziaul Karim J     Pannu @ Md Pannu ANM Bashir Ullah      J     Mia & others……………...Accused Petitioners                            VS  State…………. Opposite Party.Judgment February 3rd, 2014Code

Absorption in BCS Cadre

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Moinul Islam Chowdhury J      JBM Hassan JAnowara Chowdhury and others...........PetitionersvsBangladesh and others ...........RespondentsJudgmentMarch 11th, 2014Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Nationalized

Proceedings should not be stifled

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Sheikh Abdul Awal  J } Abdul Awal (Md)…............    (Bhishmadev      } …………Accused-Petitioner Charabortty    J }         vsJudgment         } State and another ………January 7th, 2019        }

Deduction from awarded compensation

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Naima Haider JZafar Ahmed J Kazi Abdul Aziz Petitioner VsRajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) and another........RespondentsJudgment January 23rd, 2018Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 102(2)

Wife is found killed in in-law's house

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) ANM Bashir Ullah    J  }  Parimal Adhikari…...Mustafa Zaman Islam J }  Informant-Appellant                                                      vs       Judgment                } Sree Kisno SarkerAugust 6th, 2018          }  

Appearance through an agent in a Family Court

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Md Abdul Hafiz J Mizanur Rahman Howlader  (Md)…....……….Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner                          VSMehnaz Karim ………….. Plaintiff-Respondent-Opposite-PartyJudgment August 17th, 2016 Family Courts Ordinance (XVIII of 1985) Section

Waqfs administrator shall be notified any change in the management of waqf property

High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction) Moyeenul  Islam  Chowdhury JMd Ashraful Kamal  J      Habib Ahmed  Shukur Morshed ……Petitioner       vs Waqf Administrator  Bangladesh and others …………RespondentsJudgment   

Non-obtaining signature in mediation report is a mere irregularity

High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction)     Zinat Ara   JKazi Md Ejarul Haque  Akondo JMohammad Ali………………Petitioner                    VSJudge,  Artha Rin Adalat, ChittagongAnd  others… ...................RespondentsJudgment  August 7th, 2017Artha Rin Adalat Ain