Bombay HC dismisses two petitions by L&T to quash rejection of its bids

The Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) was the only bidder whose technical bid was found responsive, after which its financial bid was opened and the firm was recommended as successful bidder for the project.

The Rs 11,000-crore six-lane road project, which includes a nearly 11km-long twin tube tunnel, is expected to reduce travel time between Thane and Borivali to 15-20 minutes from 1.5 hours.

A division bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice Gauri V Godse on May 4 dismissed the two pleas of L&T as they were ‘devoid of merits.’

Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas for L&T told the bench that on January 14, the authorities issued a request for proposal (RFP) for package 1 and 2 of the project. The L&T submitted technical bids for both packages on April 6.
On April 19, the MMRDA sought additional documents from L&T to demonstrate project experience and to check whether it is qualified to undertake both phases of the twin tunnel project.

Two days later, the L&T, to establish its technical capacity for both the packages, responded that it had earlier undertaken TBM tunnelling of 5.1km worth Rs 3, 978 crore.

Dwarkadas said on April 25, the day the financial bids were opened, L&T received an email which said that its bid had been rejected during technical evaluation and that it was ‘non eligible’ to undertake the project.

On April 26, L&T wrote to the respondent authorities to withdraw its decision. However, as the respondents did not accept the petitioner’s request, L&T was forced to approach the high court.

Through another plea, the L&T said that with regard to package-2 of the project, the firm realised on April 25 that it had inadvertently submitted a bid amount inclusive of taxes in a certain column. It wrote to the MMRDA clarifying that the bid price they submitted (Rs. 6,625 crore for package 2) was inclusive of all taxes and GST and it should be considered the lowest bidder.

Dwarkadas submitted that the petitioner did not accept a new condition imposed by the MMRDA on April 21 which said that if L & T was held technically responsive for package-1, only then the authority would consider it for the package-2.

He also submitted that the authorities had opened financial bid of successful bidder within two minutes of declaration of outcome of technical bid. The decision making process was “malafide” or intended to benefit the successful bidder, the pleas stated.

Senior advocate Milind Sathe and advocate Saket Mone, representing the MMRDA, opposed the pleas stating that two separate work experience certificates were required to be submitted by the petitioner firm, a condition which L&T did not meet.

The MMRDA also submitted that L&T’s request to rectify its error after the financial bid was opened could not be allowed as per norms and sought dismissal of both the pleas.

After perusing the submissions and material on record, the bench noted that L&T should have been made the successful bidder for the project a party respondent as MEIL would have been “seriously prejudiced,” and that pleas can be rejected on this ground itself.

The court accepted MMRDA’s contentions and held there was ‘no merit’ in L&T’s submissions and dismissed the firm’s petitions.