WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A public notice was issued on 13.06.2009 by R-1/MCD, inviting tenders from the reputed/specialized watch and ward agencies/contractors having capacity to provide required number of uniformed trained manpower for security services for the hospitals to protect its assets and to regulate public in OPD/Indoor etc. The petitioner claims that this was in breach of the Circular dated 09.05.2006 stipulating that all the tenders after 30.09.2006 would be processed only through the etendering process.

(2.) The tender floated had two stages the technical bid and the price bid. It is only on qualifying the technical bid, was the price bid liable to be opened. The technical bids were opened on 15.07.2009 and four bidders qualified including the petitioner and R-3 (M/s Prehari Protection System Private Limited). The price bids were opened on 10.08.2009 and evaluated by the Price Evaluation Committee. On 24.08.2009, the MCD asked the technically qualified bidders to provide the complete bifurcation of the quoted price. The MCD on 11.09.2009 concluded that the price bid only of R-3 was valid and responsive. We may notice that it is the say of the petitioner that R-3 used forged and false documents for qualifying the technical bid since the performance certificate stated to be issued by M/s NTPC Limited was forged and fabricated. The Price Evaluation Committee called R-3 for negotiation on 25.09.2009. There were complaints of irregularities including to the Central Vigilance Commission, but the tender was awarded to R-3 on 26.04.2010.

(3.) The petitioner claims that the Chief Vigilance Officer ( CVO? for short), MCD on the basis of the complaints received with regard to irregularities in awarding the contract to R-3 requested the Commissioner, MCD for initiating action against R-3 and further recommended to call for an explanation from all the members of the Technical Evaluation Committee ( TEC? for short) which was to be forwarded to the Vigilance Department along with relevant comments and the action taken report. In pursuance to the said decision dated 22.09.2010, reply was submitted by the Health Department, but the explanation of the TEC was found unsatisfactory by the CVO on 27.10.2010 and a recommendation was made for cancellation of the tender awarded to R-3 along with recommendation for suitable action against the Technical Evaluation Committee Members. It is the further claim of the petitioner that the MCD took a decision on 02.11.2010 for cancellation of the tender of R-3 and issued a show cause notice on 11.11.2010 to R-3.