Delhi HC sets aside tender process for consular, visa services at four Indian Missions

New Delhi, Jul 15 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside the Centre's technical evaluation process for outsourcing of Consular/Passport/Visa (CPV) services at the Indian Missions in Kuwait, Abu Dhabi in the UAE, Singapore, and Canberra in Australia. A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shain Jain directed the Centre to issue fresh Requests for Proposal (RFP) for procurement of CPV services across all four Missions within a month and conclude the process at the earliest. In the meantime, the existing incumbents may be permitted to continue to provide services to ensure there is no disruption in the provision of public services or inconvenience to the public, it added. The court passed judgment on petitions by two unsuccessful bidders -- E TRAV Tech Limited and M/s Verasys Limited. The court held that the parameter-wise marks awarded to the petitioners by the authorities were "vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency", which rendered technical evaluations unsustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution. "The present Petitions are allowed. The impugned technical evaluation processes are set aside," the court held. "The Respondent Nos.1 (Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs) and No. 2 (Indian embassies) are directed to issue fresh RFP for procurement of CPV Services across all four Missions, namely, Abu Dhabi (UAE), Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra (Australia), within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and make sincere efforts to conclude the process at the earliest," it ordered. The court also nullified the award of the tender in favour of certain private parties. In the judgment, the court stated that the authorities failed to disclose the basis on which marks were awarded, as the "evaluation sheets neither identified deficiencies in the petitioners' proposals nor disclosed the comparative benchmarks applied while awarding proportionately lower marks under comparative criteria". It rejected the authorities' claim that the deficiencies were explained during oral presentations before the Technical Evaluation Committees, stating that even if it is assumed that such presentations formed part of the evaluation, they cannot substitute recorded reasons. The petitioners assailed the communications, declaring them unsuccessful at the technical-bid stage because they had failed to secure 70 per cent marks to qualify for opening of their financial bids. They contended that criteria-wise evaluation of their technical bids is arbitrary and that the marks awarded to them under the respective parameters stipulated under the respective RFPs are unsupported by any reasons. PTI ADS RHL