Bombay HC – Courts Cannot Re-evaluate Technical Bids
Judgment dated 9.10.2026 of the High Court of Bombay, in Writ Petition (L) No.29700 of 2026 of M/s Vidya Caterers Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd and others
The Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of institutional, industrial and other catering and hospitality services. Respondent No. 1-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (“BPC”’ for short) is a Government of India Enterprise. It floated an open tender for “Outsourcing of Canteen Services at Mumbai Refinery” for the period of three years vide GeM Bid No.GEM/2026/B/7565032 and CRFQ No. 1000456762. The tender was two-bid tender comprising Bid Qualification Criteria (“BQC” for short) and Price Bid. Clause 1.2 provided for Technical Criteria (Service). Clause 1.5 provided for financial criteria.
After the pre-bid meeting, the corrigendum no.1 dated 8.6.2026 was issued.
The Petitioner submitted its bid as an eligible Micro and Small Enterprise (“MSE” for short) along with requisite statutory, financial and technical documents. The Petitioner submitted three 5 Uploaded on – 09/10/2026 Downloaded on – 09/10/2026 18:14:16 J-WPL.29700.2026.doc separate Public Sector Undertaking (“PSU” for short) catering credentials in support of Clause 1.2 viz. (I) Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (“MRPL” for short) Work Order No. 4200006357-0; (ii) MRPL Work Order No. 4200008450-0; and (iii) Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (“BEML” for short) Purchase Order No. 5900039214. The first MRPL credential was Work Order No. 4200006357-0 dated 15th August 2018 for running of a round the clock industrial canteen. 6. The contract period was from 9th January 2019 to 8th January 2021 i.e. 24 months. The MRPL documentation certified successful completion and satisfactory performance. The completion record shows execution approximately of Rs. 8.14 crores in the first year and approximately 12.25 crores in the second year. The second MRPL credential was Work Order No. 4200008450-0 dated 4th April 2022 for the period 27th April 2022 to 26th April 2024. The MRPL completion certificate dated 8th July 2024 records a Work Order value of Rs. 18,94,04,306/-. The third credential was BEML Purchase Order No. 5900039214 dated 3rd September 2021 for completed value of Rs. 25,51,81,041.60. 7. The Petitioner’s technical bid was thereafter shown/communicated as rejected with a generic remark stating that Bidder is found to not meet the BQC criteria.
it is amply clear that that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subservient thereto. In such matters, ordinarily, the Court would exercise restraint. The technical evaluation or comparison in tender matters, by the Court is impermissible. Even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given by the author/s of the tender.
Further, in the instant case, having regard to Clause 1.2 and Clause 1.4 of the tender conditions, a MSE bidder seeking to qualify under the third alternative was required to demonstrate three successfully executed/completed Purchase Orders, each having an annualized basic value of not less than Rs. 11.72 crores. The BQC further required the bidder to furnish all relevant Purchase Orders together with documentary evidence of successful execution/completion in support of the experience relied upon. 35. Upon perusal of the record, we find that on 1st June 2026 a pre-bid meeting was held. In the said meeting, the Petitioner raised queries with regard to the BQC particularly in relation to the manner in which the said criteria was to be applied in case of ongoing or in-progress multi-year contracts. On 8th June 2026, the Corrigendum was issued setting out its responses and clarifications to the queries raised by the bidders during the pre bid meeting. The Corrigendum specifically clarified the manner in which an ongoing/running multi-year contract was to be considered for the purpose of assessing compliance with the BQC. 26
- We have noticed that pursuant to the said tender, the Respondent No. 1 received total 8 number of bids. Out of the 8 bidders, 3 bidders were disqualified in the BQC evaluation while the remaining 5 bidders were found to qualify. Among the 3 disqualified bidders, 1 bidder did not submit relevant WCCs of Purchase Orders while the other 2 bidders, including the Petitioner submitted Purchase Order documents which did not meet the required threshold value and hence were rejected/disqualified.
Admittedly, in the instant case, what we find is that the Petitioner has submitted the bid on the basis of three Purchase Orders, as the Petitioner falls under the third category. As discussed above, except the documents under Reference No. MRPL WO 4200008450-0, the Petitioner does not satisfy the required annualized value threshold of Rs. 11.72 crores in terms of Clause 1.2 of the tender conditions. As the Respondents had successfully demonstrated before us that the Corrigendum was only issued to widen the zone of consideration and thereby seek wider participation with a further object to introduce and include the category of bidders with ongoing contracts and not to restrict participation only to bidders with completed contracts, with a view to facilitate healthy competition. Therefore, we can safely observe that the Corrigendum applies only to the bidders who have participated on the basis of ongoing Purchase Orders and not qua completed/concluded contracts.
In public procurement, courts do not sit as appellate authorities over technical bid evaluations. Where the tender authority’s interpretation is plausible and consistent with the tender terms, judicial interference is ordinarily unwarranted.
