Uttar pradesh jal nigam tenders dating

UPJN E Tender Online, Latest Govt Tenders of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam - BidAssist

uttar pradesh jal nigam tenders dating

Records 1 - 12 of 27 Construction & Design Services. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (A U.P. Goverment Undertaking) Tender notice for Drain Construction Maharajganj [ Notice Board ] Size: 1 MB. Date: 14/07/ Tender notice for bedded. UTTAR PRADESH. JAL NIGAM. E-TENDER DOCUMENT. (Vide N.I.T No. / M-2/ Dated ). CONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT OF. Find UPJN E Tender online, Latest Govt tenders of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, View Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam tender details and download tender notice documents at BidAssist. Uttar PradeshAgra, Uttar Pradesh. Opening Date 25 Dec

Three were rejected on technical grounds and on March 15, Venkatramani opened the financial bids of the three remaining firms.

Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Latest Online Tenders Detail Information - Tender Asian

The relative position of the three bids was later described in a chart sent by the Jal Nigam to the GPD. Firm B' submitted a bid of Rs This was Rs 1.

The three firms also submitted bids for treatment plants using two other techniques - with a filter press and with centrifuges. Among these bids too, that of firm 'B' was the lowest. In the bids for the Allahabad project too, which had been estimated to cost Rs 8.

In both cases, the Jal Nigam concluded that all three firms had submitted "substantially responsive" tenders. Its recommendations were routed through the state Government to K. But on May 10,V. For the Kan-pur project, he opted for firm 'A' which had submitted the second lowest" bid.

uttar pradesh jal nigam tenders dating

Firm 'B' was not included since its tender was not "substantially responsive". But it argued against retendering as the project had already been delayed. Instead, it said, the contract should be awarded to firm 'C. This procedure was objected to by Jal Nigam Managing Director Venkatramani who pointed out that if the contract were awarded to firm'C the Nigam would ha ve to incur an additional expenditure of Rs The pumping station in Varanasi Venkatramani also questioned the reasoning by which firm 'B' had been eliminated by the GPD.

Firm 'B' hadquoted the price for mandatory imports by converting pound sterling into rupees. In doing this it had violated the tender rules which stated that expenditure to be incurred in other countries should be indicated in the currencies of those countries. Yet, it seemed to be justified in doing so. The Foreign Exchange Regulations Act states that Indian bidders cannot quote rates in foreign exchange nor be paid in foreign exchange directly.

Firm 'B' made a representation to the GPD arguing these points.

Live Tender, Tender, Tender Bids, Municipal Corporation Tender, Fresh Tenders, Tenders Online

When this had no effect, it filed a writ in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court challenging the tender award. The court has passed an interim order asking the Jal Nigam to consider the offer of the petitioner and send a fresh recommendation to the World Bank.

uttar pradesh jal nigam tenders dating

The contract for the Allahabad sewage plant ran into similar problems. Thus, there is an overall concurrence of JICA at every stage for the purpose of approval of the three stages of the bids.

Save Water - Save Life

On the strength of the aforesaid, the case of the Jal Nigam is that no illegality or arbitrariness or unreasonableness can be attributed to the process and the case of all the bidders was considered that was within the jurisdiction of the respondent-Jal Nigam to look into long term financial soundness even before proceeding further with the technical bid after opening the same.

It has been further contended that from the record it is very much clear that no final decision by the tender committee had been taken at the stage of envelop one regarding pre-qualification criteria. All the three bidders were invited without discrimination for the opening of the technical bid, whereas it is very much clear that on record the final decision regarding financial soundness of the short listed bidders by the Tender Committee was still pending.

It is further contended that it was well within the competence of the Jal Nigam to consider the long term financial soundness of the petitioner at the technical stage bid. The petitioner appears to have written a letter to JICA on This was followed by a sort of a legal notice by a counsel of the company on The Zonal Tender Committee had also taken stock of the situation in relation to financial bids on Ultimately the Managing Director cleared the matter for proceeding with the lowest bidder on It is noteworthy to mention that the petitioner company had also annexed along with its letter dated It also accompanied the letter of the chairman of the company which is at page of the paper book of the supplementary affidavit, filed by the petitioner, which mentions that a bank consortium of 27 banks have agreed to consider the restructuring of the total debt to the company of around Rs.

Sri Sushil Kumar gave a reply to the petitioner on 7. The funding agency, namely, JICA after studying the entire documents submitted including the recommendation of the Managing Director dated On page 13 of the supplementary affidavit, the DER and EPS have also been shown, and on page 20, it has been mentioned that pursuant to CDR arrangement, promoters have in brought 68 crores and that the company has also warrants convertible into equity shares.

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed wherein the contents of the counter affidavit are denied. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the controversy involved, it is necessary to consider the conditions of eligibility requirement which are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. These clauses are quoted hereinbelow: Envelop I shall consists of information and forms pertaining to eligibility requirements experience and Financial capability.

Envelope II shall consist of all the Technical Information. This section relates to the eligibility requirements of bidders. All applicants must meet the following criteria for Experience and Financial capacity, to be considered eligible for Technical evaluation. The requisite information to be furnished shall be supplemented by enclosing relevant certified documents with the Application in order to satisfy the above criterion.

The requisite information shall be furnished duly certified by a Registered Accountant. The audited financial statements for the last five years shall be submitted and must demonstrate the soundness of the Applicant's financial position, showing long-term profitability.

  • Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (UPJN) eProcurement Tenders
  • Photo Gallery
  • Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Tenders

Where necessary, the Employer will make inquiries with the Applicant's bankers. The bidder shall have the available bid capacity not less than INR Million. Any clarification submitted by a Bidder that is not in response to a request by the Employer shall not be considered. The Employer's request for clarification and the response shall be in writing. No change in the substance of the Technical Bid or prices in the Price Bid shall be sought, offered, or permitted, except to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors discovered by the Employer in the evaluation of the Price Bids in accordance with ITB In case of annulment, all bids submitted and specifically, bid securities, shall be promptly returned to the Bidders.

Section II which relates to bid Data Sheet also includes several importance clause which are also being extracted hereinbelow: The bid security may be forfeited: The Employer shall open the Bid Security first and envelope I comprising the 'Eligibility Requirements' in public, in the presence of Bidders' designated representatives and anyone who choose to attend, at the following venue, time and date: After evaluation and screening of the 'Eligibility Requirements", the Employer will invite qualified bidders to attend the opening of the Technical Bids.

The Employer Shall open the Technical Bids of qualified Bidders in Public, in the presence of Bidders' designated representatives and anyone who choose at attend. The Price Bids will remain unopened and will be held in the custody of the Employer until the time of their opening to be specified in accordance with ITB The Employer shall examine the Bidders' documents submitted in Envelope I- 'Eeligibility Requirements' to confirm that all documents including completeness of the documents submitted as required under Part I in support of the qualifications of the Bidder have been provided.

Failure to provide information that is essential to evaluate the Bidder's qualifications as required in Part I, may result in disqualification of the Bidder. The Employer will examine each bid to determine whether the Bidder meets the minimum eligibility requirements as stipulated in Part I of this document before considering the Bid for further Technical Evaluation.

If a Bidder singly or as Joint Venture does not satisfy the minimum eligibility requirements, for experience as well as financial capability, his Bid will not be considered for further Technical Evaluation. Under Technical Evaluation, the Employer shall only examine the Technical Bids of eligible Bidders to confirm that all documents and technical documentation requested in ITB The Employer shall carry out evaluation fo the Technical Bids of Eligible Bidders only, previously determined to have satisfactorily met the bid's eligibility requirements.

The Employer's determination of Technical Bid's responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself, as defined in ITB A negative determination shall result in disqualification of the bid, in which event the Employer shall return the Technical Bid and unopened Price Bid to the Bidder.

It is also relevant to extract the relevant portion of the resolution recorded against the petitioner whereby the committee found that the bid of the petitioner was not considered responsive for long term financial soundness by the U.

Jal Nigam, even though found technically valid. Relevant extract of the Summary of the report of Financial Bid Evaluation Report is extract hereinbelow: It may be mentioned that tenders were called earlier on single stage three envelop system Eligibility, Technical and Financial. Hence no sale of technical and financial tenders was involved now.

Based on the technical evaluation, the bids submitted by two of the bidders, listed below in Table-1, where found substantially responsive. After getting concurrence on technical evaluation from JICA, the financial bids of two responsive bidders were opened on The crux of the arguments of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is that once the petitioner's financial capability had been found fit as per the eligibility requirements, it was only then that the petitioner was invited at the opening of the technical bid.

Thus, there remained nothing to be reconsidered or reviewed on the financial capability of the petitioner which had been evaluated and determined to the satisfaction of the respondents. He submits that in such a situation the presumption that has to be drawn in favour of the petitioner is that he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements of financial capability and his information contained in Envelope-I as clarified on On such facts he contends that there was an affirmative determination as per It is for this reason that the petitioner on For this Sri Shashi Nandan has invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated With the aid of the supplementary affidavit Sri Shashi Nandan has urged that the same Project Director Sri Sushil Kumar had been issuing these letters allowing the petitioner to participate in the technical bid and who was aware of every fact.

He submits that the reply which was sent to the lawyer of the petitioner by the said Sri Sushil Kumar on 7.

Sri Shashi Nandan submits that this reason is not to be found in the impugned resolution and even otherwise the same is absolutely incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner in response to the letter dated He submits that these were all part of the financial document that was required to assess the capability and soundness of the petitioner company's financial status, including the Chairman's declaration which also incorporates the Director's report and the Auditor's report.

He further submits that the loss of one year by the company does not in any way dilute the financial capability of the petitioner's company that had withstood business for almost 50 years except for the period of one year about which mention has been made by the Chartered Accountant report.

There is nothing which may indicate the diminishing financial status of the company. He contends that there is a total non-consideration of such factors and the action suffers from perversity as the impugned resolution and evaluation report nowhere indicates consideration of the letter dated Sri Shashi Nandan reiterated that it was after being satisfied with all such documents on record that the petitioner on The contention, therefore, is that the respondents cannot turn around against their own terms and conditions of the tender documents and they cannot be allowed to plead that the petitioner company deserves to be non-suited.

He, therefore, submits that the action is arbitrary and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the resolution has been tailored to eliminate the petitioner company whose bid is approximately crores lower than the company which has been finally short-listed. The contention is that the transaction is being malafidely sought to be executed which deserves to be forestalled as the petitioner's bid is being wrongly excluded.

Sri Shashi Nandan has relied on three judgments to contend that the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in the said decisions do not permit the respondents to act contrary to the tender conditions and the impugned evaluation resulting in the disqualification of the petitioner is illegal, irrational and procedurally improper. He submits that the petitioners have been denied a level playing field and as such the impugned action deserves to be struck down being in violation of Article 14 and 19 1 g of the Constitution of India.

The judgments relied upon by him are in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. State Electricity Board Vs.

uttar pradesh jal nigam tenders dating

And others, 8 SCC Page 1. Kazmi, learned senior counsel for the Jal Nigam, contends that the primary concern of the Jal Nigam was to observe all the terms and conditions of the tender and in consultation with Japanese International Cooperation Agency JICA as the project is being financed by it.

He submits that it was in the discussion which was held on He submits that this resolution dt. He submits that it is in pursuance thereof that the letter dated To the contrary, the petitioner acquiesced to this query and sent the information.

Rajneeti: Scam busted out in UP Jal Nigam, finger pointed on Akhilesh Govt

Sri Kazmi submits that the petitioner company has failed to demonstrate that it satisfied the queries as per the requirements inasmuch as no affirmative decision was taken accepting the explanation by the petitioner to the said queries. He contends that these parameters about which the queries had been raised were essential for the purpose of appropriately assessing the financial capability of a company and he submits that even if all the facts had been disclosed by the petitioner company, the tender committee had the authority to assess the financial capabilities as well, and the mere invitation to participate in the technical bid does not amount to waiving of all future consideration on this count that is permissible as per ITB 32 and ITB He submits that from the record it is clear that the petitioner company under the terms of the bid was required to give at least 3 years continuous audit reports verified by the Chartered Accountant and the said reports, admittedly, indicate a loss by the petitioner company in one of the years.

It is this which was taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the claim of financial soundness of the company. The contention, therefore, is that there was no bar merely because the terms of the tender indicated the opening of the technical bid on assessment of the financial capability as contained in envelope one. He submits that the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that the tender committee was debarred from looking into the issues touching upon the financial capability at the time of opening of technical bid and this could not prevent the answering respondents from rejecting the bid of the petitioner on such a ground.

He submits that general terms and conditions of the tender as noted above clearly indicate that the bid would not be final unless the capabilities financially and technically were fulfilled. This according to Sri Kazmi can be assessed even before award of the contract at any stage. He submits that so far as the letter sent by Sri Sushil Kumar on 7. He submits that if the norms are not fulfilled then, it is in order to save the project from being carried out by an incapable firm, that such precautions are engrained in the terms and conditions of tender which was being observed by the tender committee.

The contention of the petitioner that the tender bid of the petitioner committee was being selectively eliminated for malafide reasons is thus unfounded. He submits that even if there was a slight variation in the time table of the terms of contract, the proceedings were being conducted in order to avoid any further delay and it is in this exercise that it was thought fit to invite the petitioner as well for the technical bid which was obviously subject to the resolution dated Sri Kazmi submits that even on facts it is evident that the Debt Equity Ratio, admittedly, clearly reflected that due to having suffered losses, that the company had negotiated the reconstruction of debts under a scheme for which financial institutions are stated to have offered packages.

He submits that such offer of packages as urged on behalf of the petitioner does not in any way lead to the presumption that such packages had led to the improvement in the company financial status and that its debts had all been cleared. He submits that they were mere offers and that cannot be treated to be an asset of the company. The fact remains that the twin conditions under the resolution dated The financial status previously or even thereafter of the company would not be material except the relevant years which had been mentioned in the tender notice.

Sri Kazmi in support of his submissions relating to minor abrasion and other aspects argued, has relied on the decisions in the case of Jagdish Mandal Vs. Having considered the aforesaid submissions we find that the petitioner company has been non-suited on the ground of not fulfilling the tender requirements relating to financial capability as per the resolution dated In our opinion, the invitation given to the petitioner on Consequently, such information was to be assessed and taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudging the financial capability of the petitioner.

It was thus not the mere report of the Chartered Accountant dated