RFCL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts are that the respondent no.2 Central Medical Store Organisation is the central medical procurement agency of the State Government (for short the CMSO) and carries on the business of procuring medical equipments and supplies for the State Government, the respondent no.1. Tender was invited by CMSO for supply of 129, subsequently increased to 134, Blood Cell Counter (3 Part 18 Parameter) Auto Hematological Analyser (for short the AHA) from reputed manufactures/direct importers or subsidiary of original/foreign manufactures. THE AHA machines use reagents for start up, shut down and to conduct analyses of blood samples. THE AHA machines are reagent specific and each manufacturer has its own specification/chemical composition of the reagents to be used with its machine. THE technical and commercial bids were to be submitted by 4.10.2010.

(2.) THE commercial bid required the bidders to quote their price for the AHA machines, cost of comprehensive maintenance contract (for short the CMC). THE bidders were also required to mention per AHA machine (i) reagent cost for per start up and shut down (ii) reagent cost per cycle excluding start up and shut down (iii) the cost of reagents of 30,000 tests for five years should be mentioned considering 500 tests per month. THE petitioner and respondent no.3 made their bids and they qualified in the technical bid. THE commercial bids were opened on 7.2.2011. THE petitioner has filed additional affidavit wherein it had been stated that in the affidavit in reply the CMSO had filed the Revised Technical Specification which at item no.4 mention that the system should be capable of processing more than 50 samples per hour. THE petitioner has given his own calculations based on item no.4. By letter dated 31.3.2011 the contract has been awarded by CMSO for supplying 134 AHA machines to the respondent no.3 who was the lowest bidder which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2 CMSO has urged that it is for tenderer to quote the cost. The respondent no.3 has reaffirmed by his letter dated 24.2.2011 that he would charge Rs.7.50 for 30000 tests per machine and thereafter he would charge Rs.6.46 per test. The learned counsel for the CMSO relied on additional affidavit in reply filed by him and urged that in the Revised Technical Specification, after item no.29, note mentions that rates filled in commercial bid, point nos. 1 and 5 would be considered for price comparison. Point nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not to be considered for price comparison. Item no.4 of the Revised Technical Specifications only mentioned about the capacity of the machine. The learned counsel urged that no payment was required to be made for points no. 2,3 and 4, therefore, its price was not considered. The learned counsel also relied on paragraph 8 of the additional affidavit in reply that if 30000 tests are completed before five years then fresh tenders will be invited for supplying the reagents specific to the machines as the machines would be available with the government. The learned counsel further urged that the tender was for AHA machines only. Tender was not for reagents or for conducting tests, over 30000 tests.