VECTRA GLOSEC PVT. LTD., VECTRA HOUSE, 5TH MAIN, NO. 15, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. RAJESH TEWARI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE EXPR.) GOVERNMENT OF KA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the order dated 13.04.2011 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the contract awarded In favour of respondent No.2 for the supply and erection CCTV based security systems, is set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to initiate action to call for fresh tenders.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the purpose of this case are, that respondent No.3 called for tenders for installing CCTV based security systems at various locations in Bangalore city vide notification dated 11.05.2009. 44 tenderers submitted applications in the prescribed form, out of whom only four were shortlisted. The tenders were farther shortlisted to the petitioner and respondent No.2, It is necessary to notice that M/s. Zicom Ltd., who had participated in the tender process has been later on taken over by respondent No.2 and that is how respondent No.2 presented the appeal before respondent No. 1 - Appellate Authority.

(3.) IN its meeting held on 04.10.2010, as is clear from the minutes of the meeting produced at Annexurs -D, the Steering Committee had the opportunity of having the presentation of the detailed techno administrative report of the two shortlisted firms viz., petitioner and respondent No.2. It was noticed that the products of the two firms differed greatly in terms of quality and technical features. The minutes of the meeting produced at Annexure D disclose that quality -wise, petitioner was graded higher than respondent No. 2, in that, petitioner was awarded 83 marks, whereas respondent. No. 2 was awarded 44 marks. On. deliberations, it was decided that top quality in security related equipment, like CCTV was the need of the hour and therefore, the same had to be balanced with cost considerations. Hence, it was decided to proceed with final selection on the basis of judicial mix of technical and commercial evaluations in tune with the tender document. Accordingly, the committee decided that for the purpose of selection 50% weightage should be given for technical evaluation and 50% weightage for commercial evaluation. It was decided in the said meeting that the committee should not proceed only by considering costs on commercial evaluation. It was decided in the said meeting that the committee should proceed not only for initial purchase of equipment, but also the subsequent operation and maintenance of equipments for many years. Thus, the committee decided that the recurring cost of operation and maintenance should also be taken note of by normalization so as to enable effective comparison.