Full Text
W.P.fCI 2209/2016 &CM No.9494/2016 (stay)
IBIS TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED &ANR. Petitioners
Through: MrParagTripathi, SrAdvocate with MrMahesh Aprwal, Ms Shally Bhasin, Mr Chaitanya Safaya, Ms Shruti Garg, Ms KanikaTandon and Mr Rishi Agrawala, Advocates.
ThroughiMr-Aniirag-AMuy/aliawith Mr PraShant Ghai and
'^' Ms Astha{J^ni^yot^es with;% fcanath ConM^t.:GP^i:E)iy{i:^ion, Ministry^ofExternal Affairs.
HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SANJEEV SAGHDEVA ,OTlD.E?lTa t. iT8.03:20i(S:;ii .o'h.
CM No.949^/2ni6 Yexempti6n)
Exemption is alldwed suBjectitp alfjustie^^
JUDGMENT
1. Several issues have been raised in the writ petition but the focus was entirely on two issues on the part ofthe petitioner. The first issue is with regard to Para VI(9)(a) of the RFP issued by the respondent No.2 for consular, passport, visa services at Abu Dhabi and on behalfofEmbassy of India at Abu Dhabi. Paragraph VI(9)(a) has prescribed that if aCompany WP(C) 2209/2016 Page 1 of[5] 2016:DHC:9211-DB takes part in the tender process on the basis of a 'Two Service Provider Model' and refuses to honour the selection and award of contract, the Mission reserves its right to debar such Company from future tenders and also to forfeit the bid securitydeposit of such Company. A clarification was sought by the intending bidders. Question No.22 pertains to this clarification, which reads as under:-
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Question Answer │ │ No. │ │ FEE/VAS: │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 22 In /'continuation to the above As per Para Vi (9) (a) │ │ point and Page No.' 42 Pt/(i) of d │ │ where two Service Providers; are RFP. If a company │ │ selected, both LI and;L2^injbe which takes part in the │ │ asked to operate atjbe LLj^ tender process on the │ │ As the prices submifted; by ^dach basis of a two Service │ │ company wilL off its p Provider /f model, │ │ individuafscapacity, if^cduM be :refoses;tQ< honour the │ │ possible tha,t L2 ihay not be able seieption and award of │ │ to afford to match the LI :price Contract, the Mission │ │ offer. In such a; case we: assume; reserves the right to │ │ that L2 will have the'fight to debar such a Company │ │ decline and opt out at the stage from future tenders. │ │ when the decision is being made The Bid Security │ │ without having any adverse Deposit by the said │ │ effect on the future tenders with Company will also be │ │ the government of India or the forfeited. │ │ bid security. Kindly confirm our │ │ understanding. │ │ 2. The answer given is also indicated above. Thereafter, inter alia, an │ │ WP(C) 2209/2016 Page 2 of5 │ │ 2016:DHC:9211-DB │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
3. The amendment indicates'that if k Cbrh^ny tkkes part in the tender process on the basikofa two Service Provider model, and if it refuses to sign the contract after confirming its wilimgness, the Missionlwould have a right to debar such a Company from futlire tenders. 5
4. The point of controversy is thatlifthe L[2] bidder refuses to accept the LI price, would such bidder entailthe'lia^^^ ofdebarment and forfeiture of the security deposit? It has beem ckri^ counsel for the respondent, on instructions, that once the L[2] bidder is asked to match the LI price and the L[2] bidder refuses to do so, there would be no liability of debarment or forfeiture. The said liability would only arise if the L[2] bidder agrees to match the LI price and then backs out. The same would apply to the L[3] bidder in case the L[2] bidder does not match the LI price and so on. It is obvious that this clarification does not apply to the LI bidder who will be WPfCJ 2209/2016 Page 2of[5] bound by his offer. The learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with this clarification on this aspect.
5. The other aspect on which there was some controversy was with regard to the volume of work for the 'Two Service Provider Model'. A query had been raised as to whether the volume of work would be divided amongst the two service providers by the Mission. The exact pre-bid query that was raised was at Serial No.5 of the Tre-bid Q&A. The same reads as under:- SI. No. Questibh ' Answer FEEA^AS
5 In the Introduction to the and Section VI, mission intends, to select ty/o spr<^ice pfdviders: this makes it apparent •that'one service pfoyiderwillnot receive the full volume ascgiven-in:'thd RFP. May we/request the, mission to specify the volumes for which each service provider has to provide the pricing? The volume of work for each vendor will depend oh the quality of service/ facilitiesj tq be provided bydqch ofthe 2 vendors.
5. The answer given by the respondents was that the volume ofwork for each vendor will depend upon the quality ofservice/facilities to be provided by each ofthe two vendors. This clearly indicates that the volume ofwork Page 4 of[5] for each vendor shall not be determined by the Mission. It will be open to the applicants to choose either of the two vendors. This clarification also completely satisfies,the petitioner on this aspect ofthe matter.
7. In view ofthe above clarifications, nothing further survives in this writ petition. The same stands disposed of. Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master. F MARCH 18, 2016 st •. MDAR ptmEZ AHMED, J SACtoEVA, J '. • V F--':.... 1 CJUJ;, • < •, Page 5 of[5]