IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH                                 HIGH COURT DIVISION

                     (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO.8664 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:

An  application  under  Article  102  of  the Constitution  of  the  People’s  Republic  of Bangladesh

And

IN THE MATTER OF:

Consortium  of  Bashundhara  Multi-Trading Company  Ltd.,  Equentia  Natural  Resources Pte. Ltd. and Atro International FZE.

- Petitioner

       -vs-

Government of Bangladesh and others.

..... For the Respondents.

And

Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan, Senior Advocate Mr. Mamun Chowdhury, Advocate with

Mr. Suhan Khan, Advocate and

Ms. Quazi Irtiza Anjum, Advocate

.... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Aneek R. Haque, Advocate,

.......... For the Respondent No.5

Mr. Sheikh Mohammad Morshed, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramjan Ali Sikder, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Md. Saiful Alam Chowdhury, Advocate

... For the Added Respondent No.6

Ms. Shathika Hossain, D.A.G with

Mr. Md. Mohaddesh-Ul-Islam (Tutul), D.A.G with

Mr. Md. Obaidur Rahman Tarek, A.A.G and

Ms. Sabikun Nahar Tithi, A.A.G

....For the Respondents-government.

Heard on:21.08.2024, 28.08.2024 01.09.2024, 03.09.2024, 04. 09.2024 And judgment on: 05.09.2024

Present:

Mrs. Justice Farah Mahbub.

              And

Mr. Justice A.K.M. Rabiul Hassan

Farah Mahbub, J:

In this Rule Nisi, issued under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, the respondents have been called upon to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Review Penal No.3 of Bangladesh Public Procurement  Authority  (former  Central  Procurement  Technical  Unit), IMED, Ministry of Planning in Review Petition No.062 of 2024 upon disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner in connection with Tender Invitation Reference No.27.32.0000.008.07.003.23.2862 dated 15.11.2023 floated by the respondent No.5 for procurement and delivery of imported coal at plant jetty (CDP) for Matarbari 2X600 MW Ultra-Super Critical Coal Fired Power Plant (Annexure-A), should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and hence, of no legal effect.

At the time of issuance of the Rule the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Review Penal No.3 of Bangladesh Public Procurement Authority (former Central Procurement Technical Unit), IMED, Ministry of Planning in Review Petition No.062 of 2024 was stayed by this Court including all further proceedings of Tender  Invitation  Reference  No.27.32.0000.008.07.003.23.2862  dated 15.11.2023 floated by the respondent No.5 for procurement and delivery of imported coal at plant jetty (CDP) for Matarbari 2X600 MW Ultra- Super Critical Coal Fired Power Plant (Annexure-A), for a prescribed period.

Challenging the interim order of stay the added respondent No.6, Consortium  of  Unique  Cement  Industries  Limited  and  Aditya  Birla Global  Trading  Singapore  Pte.  Limited  moved  before  the  Hon’ble Appellate Division by filing Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2458 of 2024. However, after hearing the respective contending parties the Hon’ble Judge in Chamber of the Appellate Division vide order dated 25.07.2024 stayed the interim order of stay passed by the High Court Division for a prescribed period with direction upon this Bench to dispose of the Rule on merit.

 Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a consortium of 3(three) private  limited  companies  namely,  (i)  Bashundhara  Multi-Trading Company  Ltd.,  a  private  limited  company  incorporated  under  the Companies  Act  ,1994  and  is  engaged  in  the  business  of  trading  of products and/or goods, (ii) Equentia Natural Resources Pte. Ltd., a foreign private limited company incorporated and registered under the laws of Singapore and (iii) Atro International FZE, a foreign private company incorporated and registered under the law of the United Arab Emirates. The petitioner is the market leader for the importation and supply of imported coal in the respective market of Bangladesh. It imports and supplies  coal  for  the  Maitree  Super  Thermal  Power  Plant  project  at Rampal and is playing a critical role in ensuring Bangladesh’s energy security.

On 15.11.2023, the respondent No.5 as being the procuring entity floated  an  international  tender  vide  Tender  Invitation  Reference  No. 27.32.0000.008.07.003.23.2862 for procurement and delivery of imported coal at plant jetty (CDP) for Matarbari 2X600 MW Ultra-Super Critical Coal Fired Power Plant for a period of 36 months following the One Stage Two Envelop tendering method. However, keeping in view of the nature of  the  coal  being  classified  as  a  flammable  and  sensitive  good  the authority  concerned  fixed  the  original  qualification  requirements  and technical criteria for those aspirant bidder or partner of the consortium

who are:

1.    Coal mine owner; or
2.    Holding company of a coal mine owner; or
3.    An international trading company. 

If, however, the bidder is a coal mine owner or holding company of a coal mine owner, then the coal mine owner should have exported at least 12 million metric tones (12.0 MMT) of thermal coal in aggregate during the last 5(five) years, reckoned from the date of opening of technical proposal.

If the bidder is an international trading company then it or any one of the  partners  of  the  consortium  should  have  performed  transportation through sea route using ocean going vessel of at least 10 (ten) million metric tons (10 MMT) of the thermal coal during the past 5 (five) years, reckoned from the date of opening of technical proposal.

The petitioner being aspirant to participate in the said bid purchased the tender documents on 04.12.2023 as the original bid closing date was fixed on 09.01.2024.(Annexure-B). At this juncture, the respondent No. 5, the procuring entity allegedly in order to protect the interest of the vested quarters and precisely to give undue advantage to one particular bidder i.e., the added respondent No.6 had amended the technical criteria on 03.01.2024  (Annexure-C1)  and  included  the  “importer  of  coal  ”  just before 3(three) working days of the original bid closing date. At the same time, the experience of supply of “iron ore, fertilisers, chemicals, cement, etc. or grain” had been enlisted by the said authority as a qualifying experience in addition to the coal supply experience. Along with the said amendment the procuring entity had also refixed the last date of selling tender document i.e. on 30.01.2024 including the bid opening and closing date and time on 31.01.2024 (Annexure-C4).

On 25.01.2024, the respondent No.5 made a further amendment in the technical criteria (Annexure-C2) upon deleting the words “importer of coal” and replaced the same with the word “importer”. Said respondent had also included “a long term sales contract of coal with any power utility or its holding company for at least 06 (six) million metric tons for a minimum period of 03 (three) years” as another option of coal supply experience. However, with the subsequent amendment the bid closing date was re-fixed on 08.02.2024.

The petitioner along with the added respondent No.6 and two other participants submitted their respective bid on 08.02.2024. The petitioner, however, submitted their bid in two envelopes, one containing a technical proposal with all relevant documents and the other containing financial proposal including price schedule as per the terms of the bid documents as stipulated by the respondent No. 5 company.

Accordingly,  on  08.02.2024  the  bids  of  the  respective  bidders including the petitioner were opened and their proposals /offers were evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Committee (in short, TEC) of the respondent No. 5. However, till May, 2024 the TEC of the respondent No. 5 did not ask for any clarification from the petitioner.

   In this regard, the respondent No. 5 company has produced before this Court a photocopy of the evaluation report of the technical proposal submitted  by  the  TEC  on  30.04.2024.  From  the  said  report  dated 30.04.2024  it  appears  that  the  TEC  after  careful  examination  and evaluation of the technical proposals of the respective bidders found 3 (three) bidders including the petitioner as technically non-responsive. The offer  of  the  petitioner  was  not  accepted  for  non-compliance  of  the condition of bid security as well as Invitation for Bids (IFB) clause 5.2(ii). However, the bid of the added respondent No.6 was found technically responsive.

         Meanwhile,  on  04.05.2024  the  petitioner  came  to  learn  from  a reliable  source  that  its  bid  was  rejected  as  being  non-responsive. Accordingly, it made repeated applications on 08.05.2024, 09.05.2024, and 12.05.2024 respectively addressing the Company Secretary of the respondent No.5 with a prayer to review their bid as being a qualified and experienced bidder and capable of supplying the good in question. In response  thereof  the  Company  Secretary  of  the  said  respondent  vide Memo dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-D4) informed the petitioner that the tender evaluation process was ongoing. However, on the very next day i.e. on 14.05.2024 (Annexure-D5) said respondent informed the petitioner that the TEC on completion of technical evaluation found the petitioner as technically non-responsive.

 Accordingly, said report of the TEC was placed before the Board of Directors of the respondent No.5 company along with all necessary documents for final decision. The Board of the respondent No.5 company in its 05/2024th Board meeting dated 01.05.2024 took decision to approve the  evaluation  report  of  the  TEC  on  technical  proposal  with  further decision to open the financial proposal of the added respondent No.6 as being  that  only  responsive  bidder.  Said  decision  of  the  Board  was

subsequently approved in the 06/2024th Board meeting of the respondent No.5  company  dated  31.05.2024  (Annexure–F).  On  08.05.2024  with notice to the added respondent No.6, the TEC on opening the financial proposal of the said respondent found its offer significantly high and accordingly, gave recommendation as under:

“  (1) Financial proposal of Consortium of Unique Cement Industries  Limited  and  Aditya  Birla  Global  Trading Singapore  Pte.  Limited  could  not  be  accepted due  to  significantly  higher  price  considering  long  term contract;  

(1) TEC's  report  can  be  placed  before  the  approving

authority for next course of action.”

On 31.05.2024, the Board of the respondent No. 5 company in its 06/2024th Board meeting took decision to give direction upon the TEC to negotiate with the added respondent No.6 on landing price. Relevant part of the said resolution dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure-F) is quoted below:

“দরদাতা  Consortium  of  Unique  Cement  Industries  Ltd.  and Aditya Birla Global Trading (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.  এর Quoted price 108.87 USD/Mt যার মেধ  FOB 86.73 USD এবং Ocean Freight 22.14 USD। উপেরা   ািবত  FOB 86.73 USD িবগত এক বছেরর ICI3 এর

গড়বাজারদর অেপ া ৪.৫২ (৮৬.৭৩- ৮২.২১)  বিশ এবং িবিডং ডকেম  অনুযায়ী ICI3 Reference Base Index (Date 05.01.2024) অেপ া ৭.৩৮ USD  বিশ (৮৬.৭৩-৭৯.৩৫)।  এছাড়াও  দরদাতার ািবত FOB বাংলােদেশর  অন ান   কয়লা  িভি ক িবদু ৎ  কে র  কয়লার FOB Price অেপ া ৫% হেত ৬.৬৫%  বিশ।

Directorate General of Shipping (DG Shipping) 4 Bangladesh Shipping Corporation (BSC)  হেত Ocean Freight  এর  য cost Estimate  দওয়া

হেয়েছ তা অেপ া দরদাতার Ocean Freight ১০৫%  থেক ১০৭%  বিশ। এছাড়াও  দরদাতার ািবত landed price (FOB + Freight)  এর  সােথ বাংলােদেশর  অন ান   কয়লা  িভি ক  িবদু ৎ  কে র  কয়লা  েয়র  দেরর সােথ ত লন াকরেল  দখা যায়  য, দরদাতার ািবত দর BCPCL অেপ া ৮.০২  ডলার (১০৮.৮৭-১০০,৮৫)  এবং  RNPL  অেপ া  ৫.৮  ডলার (১০৮.৮৭-১০৩.০৭)  বিশ। দরদাতার ািবত দর BIFPCL অেপ া 1.44

ডলার (১০৮.৮৭-১১০,৩১) কম।  যেহত  মাতারবািড় িবদু ৎ  কে  Panamax Vessel  এর  মাধ েম  কয়লা পিরবহন  হেব  এবং  মাতারবািড়র GCV 5000 Keal/kg BCPCLRNPL  সেহত   দরদাতার ািবত  পর  বাজারদর significantly  বশী মূল ায়ন  িতেবদেন উে খ কের।

জাতীয়    িবেবচনায়  দেশ িনরব   িবদু ৎ সরবরাহসহ জাতীয়  ীেড Voltage Frequency Stable রাখার  ােথ ম াতারবািড় িবদু ৎ  ক ট চাল রাখা অতীব  জ ির। অবিহত  কেরন  য,  িসিপ জিসিবএল  এর  মাতারবািড় িবদু ৎেকে র EPC  চ    অনুযায়ী Commissioning  বাবদ  অবিশ   ০.৩৮ িমিলয়ন টন কয়লা পাওয়া যােব, যা িদেয় িবদু ৎ  ক ট আগামী জন 2024 পয  চালােন স ব হেব। অ  ১২০০  ম.ও.  মতার মাতারবািড় িবদু ৎ  ক  

ব   হেয়  −N−m  দেশ  িনরিবিপর  িব  সরবরােহ  িব   ঘটেব,  সািব ক

 লাডেশিডং ব  পােব। গত জানুয়াির 2024 সমেয়র পর হেত B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL বাজাের  কাল এর price এর ে  উ মুখী বণতা ল ণীয়। ফেল পুনরায়

দরপ  আহবান Ll−m Lum¡  েয়র জন  আনুমািনক কমপে  আরও ০৬ (ছয়) মাস সময়  বশী লাগার f¡n¡f¡¢n Lj cl fË¡¢f¹l িবষয় টেতও অিন য়তা থাকেব। উ  সমেয় গ াস, HPO, HSD এবং কয়লা িভি ক অন ান  িবদু ৎ

 ক সমূহ পূণ  মতায় চালােনা হেলও িবদু ৎ উৎপাদেন ঘাটিত  দখা িদেব।

ঘাটিত পুরেণ HFO/HSD based িবদু ৎেক েলার সেব া  িবদু ৎ উৎপাদন করেত হেব, ফেল িবদু ৎ উৎপাদন ব য়ও ব  পােব।

জাতীয়    িবেবচনায়, পাবিলক  িকউরেম  িবিধমালা ২০০৮ এর িবিধ ৯৯(১)(গ) অনুযারী k¢c phÑ¢ejÀম ূল ািয়ত  হণেযাগ  দরদাতার উদ্ধত দর

তাৎপয পূণ মা ায়  দা িরক  fË¡‚¢ma hÉ−ul  অিতির   হয়,  তাহা হইেল  য়কারী  উ   অিতির   ব েয়র  অনুস ান  কিরেব  এবং  কায  স াদেনর

ব াি   াস বা ঝিক এবং c¡¢uaÄ পুনঃব েনর মাধ েম চ  মূল   াস করার উে েশ   সব ি ন   মূল ািয়ত  দরপ দাতার  সিহত  িনেগািসেয়শন কিরেত পািরেব।”

মাতারবািড়  িবদু ৎেকে র  পিরচালনার  জন   য  কয়লা  েয়াজন  তা িসিপ জিসিবএল  এর  িনজ   অথ া য়েন কর া হেব।  পাবিলক  িকউরেম িবিধমালা  ২০০৮  এর  িবিধ  ১১(৩)  অনুযায়ী- " কা ানী  আইন,  ১৯৯৪ (১৯৯৪ সেনর ১৮ নং আইন) এর অধীন িনবি ত  কান  কা ানী যিদ  কান H²−ul ে  সরকারী রাজ  বা উ য়ন বােজেটর আওতায়  া  সরকারী

তহিবল  ব বহার  কের,  তাহা  হইেল  মূল ায়ন  িতেবদন  এবং  চ   স াদেনর অনুেমাদন  দােনর ে , উ   কা ানী,  কা ানী আইেনর অধীন  েযাজ  িনজ   শাসিনক এবং আিথ ক মতা অপ ণসং া  িবিধ িবধান অনুসরণ কিরেব।”

 বাড েক  আরও  জানােনা  হয়  য,  িবদু ৎ  স ের  কা ািন  আইন  ১৯৯৪ অনুসাের গ ঠত BIFPCL এবং BCPCL তােদর িনজ  ফা  ব বহার কের

ইেতাপূেব   OTM  এ  কয়লা  H²−ul ে সব ি ন responsive bidder  এর  সােথ price negotiation  করতঃ  চ    স   কেরেছ। এমতাব ায়, Coal Procurement জ রী িবেবচনায় এবং মাতারবািড় িবদু ৎ

 ক ট  চাল  রাখার  ােথ   Consortium of Unique Cement Industries Ltd. and Aditya Birla Global Trading (Singapore)

Pte. Ltd. এর দর াব ট  বশী হেলও তা negotiation কের  যৗ ক পয ােয় িনেয়  আসা  যায়  িকনা  স  িবষেয় উেদ াগ  নয়ার  পে   বাড সভায়

সব স িত েম একমত  পাষণ  করা  হয়  এবং  সব ি ন   clc¡a¡l  সােথ িনেগািসেয়শন করার জন  TEC  ক দািয়   দয়ার জন   বাড  সভায় মতামত ব  করা হয়।

িবদ মান পিরি িতেত জাতীয়    িবেবচনায় িনরব  ভােব মাতারবািড় িবদু ৎেক  চাল রাখার  ােথ Coal Procuremnet এর আবশ কতা িবেবচনায় Coal এর Landing Price (FOB + Ocean Freight)  যৗ ক পয ােয়কিমেয় আনার লে  দরদাতা Consortium of Unique Cement Industries Ltd. and Aditya Birla Global Trading (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. এর সােথ negotiation করার জন  TEC  ক দািয়   দান করার িস া  গহীত হেলা। ”

Meanwhile,  the  petitioner  made  a  complaint  on  16.05.2024 (Annexure-F) to the Managing Director of the respondent No. 5 under the Public  Procurement Act,  2006  (in short,  Act, 2006)  read  with  Public Procurement Rules, 2008 ( in short, Rules 2008).  Having receipt no response  thereof  accordingly,  respective  complaint  was  made  to  the respondent No.1 on 29.05.2024, but again there was no response.

Having  no  other  avenue  available  to  vantilate  its  respective grievances the petitioner preferred Review Petition No.062 of 2024 before the respondent No. 4, CPTU under the Act, 2006 and Rules, 2008.

On receipt thereof a review panel was constituted by the respondent No. 4 to hear the appeal of the petitioner. However, upon hearing the respective  contending  parties  the  review  panel  vide  the  impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure-A) disposed of the appeal upon negating the prayer of the petitioner with the respective observations and findings and gave direction upon the respondent No.5 to re-evaluate the financial proposal of the added respondent No.6.

Being  aggrieved  by  and  dissatisfied  with  the  petitioner  has preferred the instant application under Article 102 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule Nisi.

Mr.  Mustafizur  Rahman  Khan,  the  learned  Senior  Advocate appearing  for  the  petitioner  categorically  submits  that  none  of  the consortium partners of the added respondent No.6 have supplied coal for any  government  project  in  Bangladesh,  who  is  mainly  a  supplier  of commodities like cement, grain, fertilizer, etc. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent  No.  5  has  amended  the  technical  cricteria  of  the  tender document with a view to fit in and accommodate the consortium of the added  respondent  No.6;  otherwise,  said  respondent  would  not  have qualified  technically.  In  this  regard,  referring  to  the  observations  and findings of the Review Panel he goes to argue that the impugned judgment and order is self-contradictory, for, the Review Panel has clearly observed that  the  amendments  relating  to  the  respective  technical  qualification criteria component were done in contravention of the Rules, 2008. Despite the said clear observation the Review Panel did not pass any order for remedying or rectifying the breach under Rule 60 of the Rules, 2008; hence,  goes  to  violate  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  petitioner  as guaranteed under Articles 27, 31 and 40 of the Constitution.

He further submits that the Review Panel has miserably failed to give due regard to the technical proposal submitted by the petitioner and without analysing the documents and contentions of the petitioner has arbitrarily found that the technical evaluation of the respective bidders including the petitioner by the TEC was lawful.

He again goes to submit that the TEC after due evaluation of the financial offer of the only responsive bidder i.e. added respondent No.6 opined, inter-alia, that the “Financial proposal of Consortium of Unique Cement Industries Ltd. & Aditya Birla Global Trading Singapore Pte. Ltd. could not be accepted due to significantly higher price considering long term contract”. Fact remains that the added respondent No. 6 did not challenge the said findings of the TEC under Rules, 2008. Despite the said findings  of  the TEC,  the  respondent  No.  5  most  illegally  took  the decision to enter into a negotiation with the added respondnet No.6 for reduction of price in flagrant violation of the Rules, 2008 particularly Rule 99/56(10) of the Rules 2008. On the face of the said position of fact he submits that giving direction by the Review Panel upon the respondent No. 5, the procuring entity to re-evaluate the financial proposal of the added respondent No. 6 without referring to any provision of the Act, 2006 or Rules, 2008 cannot be mandated as lawful.

Further assertion of the learned Advocate of the petitioner is that it is apparent from the decision of 05/2024th Board meeting of the respondent No.5 dated 01.05.2024 that the technical evaluation of the bid documents of  all  the  bidders  including  the  petitioner  was  completed  before 01.05.2024. The respondent No. 5, however, in its board meeting No. 05/2024 dated 01.05.2024 approved that the added respondent No.6 was the only responsive bidder and at the same time declared the technical proposal  of  other  bidders  including  the  petitioner  non-responsive.

Accordingly, the respondent No. 5 took decision to open the financial proposal of the added respondent No.6 on 08.05.2024. In this connection,

he goes to contend that vide office letter dated 13.05.2024 the respondent

No.5 informed the petitioner that the evaluation of the bid documents submitted by the petitioner was ongoing and on 14.05.2024 the petitioner

was informed that they had been considered as technically non-responsive.

Such  correspondences  on  the  part  of  the  respondent  No.5  undeniably

proves that the respondent No. 5 has, in fact, provided a false statement to

the petitioner and further, proves their conspiracy and corrupt practices

and  establishes  the  wrongful  and  dishonest  behaviour  towards  the petitioner.

He also submits that clause 5.11 of the bid document clearly states

that the bid security shall have to be provided for an amount equal to USD 6,000,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner provided the bid security in USD 6,000,000/- and also, stated the equivalent amount in BDT which stands at

BDT 660,000,000/- (Annexure-I). The respondent No. 5 at the time of evaluating the bid submitted by the petitioner sought an opinion from the respondent No. 4 vide Memo dated 19.03.2024 to clarify the issue of bid

security submitted by the petitioner. In response thereof the respondent

No. 4 being the governing entity for any public procurement opined, inter-

alia that “ −k−qa¥ equal to AbÑ¡v pja¥mÉ E−õM Ll¡ q−u−R ®p−qa¥ clfœ S¡j¡e−a E¢õ¢Ma a¡¢l−M Cp¤ÉL¡l£ hÉ¡w−Ll ®l−V Xm¡−ll ¢hfl£−a h¡wm¡−cn£ j¤â¡l j§mÉj¡e USD 6,000,000.00 Hl pja¥mÉ q−m f−œ h¢ZÑa clfœ S¡j¡ea NËqZ Ll¡ ®k−a f¡−lz

p§−œ E¢õ¢Ma f−œl j¡dÉ−j ®fË¢la a−bÉl ¢i¢š−a kb¡kb La«Ñf−rl Ae¤−j¡ce p¡−f−r

H ja¡ja fËc¡e Ll¡ q−m¡z H ja¡ja öd¤ p§−œ E¢õ¢Ma f−œl ¢ho−u fË−k¡SÉ q−hz”

The respondent No.5 without considering the said opinion of the

respondent No.4 declared the petitioner as non-responsive. The Review Panel, respondent No.2 while knocking down the prayer of the petitioner with the findings “এই ে  িবিপিপএ এর মতামত পাওয়া  গেলও উ  মতামত আবশ কভােব  হণেযাগ   নয়।  কতপে   দরপ   ডকেমে র  আেলােক  িনরাপ া  জামানত  মল ায়ন  ও  এর

 হণেযাগ তা িন পন মূল ায়ন কিম টর এখিতয়ারভ । ” did not at all consider to employ the power as provided under Rule 98(5) (6) and (7) of the Rules, 2008.

He also submits that the price quotation of coal submitted by the added  respondent  No.6  is  9.6%  higher  than  the  FOB  price  and  the transportation quotation submitted by the same is 105% higher than the prevailing market price. Accordingly, he submits that if the respondent No. 5 being a state-owned entity, enters into a contract with the added respondent No.6 the entire project will roughly cost an additional amount of BDT 12,000,000,000/- (Twelve Hundred Crores Taka).

Accordingly, he submits that upon making the Rule absolute the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 is liable to be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and hence, of no legal effect.

Conversely, Mr. Aneek R. Haque, the learned Advocate by filing affidavit-in-oppositon on behalf of the respondent No.5, the procuring entity goes to submit that vide clause 6 of the Invitation for Bid, the procuring entity i.e. the instant respondent has the right to modify the invitation for bid without assigning any reason whatsoever. In this regard, he  goes  to  contend  that  all  the  tenderers  including  the  petitioner participated  in  the  tender  without  raising  any  objection  regarding  the amendments of the technical qualification; as such, the petitioner is now stopped from raising such objection at this belated stage after becoming non-responsive in the technical evaluation.

He  further  submits  that  after  completing  the  tender  evaluation process on 05.05.2024, its report was duly placed before the Board of the respondent No.5 company for its consideration; whereupon the Board in its Board Meeting approved the technical evaluation report with direction upon the TEC for opening the financial bid of the added respondent No.6, the only responsive bidder. However, on receipt of repeated letters from the  petitioner,  the  respondent  No.  5  duly  informed  the  petitioner  on 13.05.2024  that  the  tender  evaluation  was  ongoing  since  during  the relevant period financial evaluation was still pending.

He also submits that as per tender condition every participants in the tender must furnish unconditional bank guarantee for US$6 million. The petitioner, however, while submitting its bid security for USD 6 million  restricted  the  same  by  stating  the  equivalent  amount of  BDT 660,000,000 only. Consequently, the respondent No.5-procuring entity would not be able to recover an amount more than BDT 660,000,000/- since the conversion rate of USD to BDT is fluctuating/increasing every day. Resultantly, the petitioner was found non-responsive on the said count.

Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to fulfill clause 5.1.2 as each members of the petitioner consortium individually failed to fulfill any  of  the  criteria  as  provided  in  clause  5.2(ii)  (as  amended  on 31.01.2024). In addition, one of the partners of the petitioner consortium i.e. Equentia Natural Resources Pte. Limited failed to fulfill clause 5.2 (iii). As a result, the TEC found the tender bid of the petitioner as non responsive, which was duly approved by the respondent No.5 company in its Board Meeting.  

He again goes to argue that although the TEC in its report dated 30.04.2024 opined that the price of the added respondent No.6 was quite high, but considering the importance of the matter to ensure uninterrupted supply of coal immediately including the fact that the price might go up in case there was any delay in execution of the contract the Board of the respondent No.5 took decision to proceed for price negotiation with the added respondent No.6 as per Rule 99 of the Rules, 2008. In this regard, he further submits that the recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Committee  is  not  binding  upon  the  Board  of  the  respondent  No.5. However,  considering  the  fact  that  the  other  power  plant  namely Bangladesh India Friendship Power Company Limited was purchasing coal at a price of US$110.31 whereas the added respondent No.6 has quoted price at USD 108.67 as per the market price prevailing at the relevant time. In that view of the matter the Board of the respondent No.5 took decision to proceed for negotiation with the said respondent and that during the process of negotiation the added respondent No.5 has agreed to reduce the price of coal from USD 108.67 to USD 106.87. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner having failed to substantiate its respective grounds, this Rule is liable to be discharged.

In support of the arguments so have been advanced on behalf of the respondent No.6 company, Mr. Sheikh Mohammad Morshed, the learned Senior  Advocate  appearing  with  Mr.  Ramjan  Ali  Sikder,  the  learned Senior Advocate for the added respondent No.6 submits that the petitioner filed  the  present  writ  petition  with  an  ulterior  motive  to  hinder  the execution of contract in favour of the added respondent No.6 and thereby resorts to create a monopolistic business in the business of supply of coal to the respective power plants operating in Bangladesh, for, the petitioner is already supplying coal to another power plant in Bangladesh.

He further submits that as per tender condition every participant in the tender must furnish unconditional bank guarantee for US$6 million. In the instant case, the petitioner restricted its bid security to 6(six) million USD  by  stating  the  equivalent  amount  to  BDT  660,000,000  only. Accordingly, he submits that since the conversion rate of USD to BDT is fluctuating/increasing everyday, the respondent No.5 will not be able to recover an amount more than BDT 660,000,000/-.

Moreso,  he  submits  that  the  petitioner  has  also  failed  to  fulfil Clause 5.1.2 of the tender documents since each member of the petitioner consortium individually failed to fulfil the criteria as provided in clause 5.2(ii) of the tender document, as amended on 31.01.2024.

He  also  goes  to  argue  that  the  added  respondent  No.6  having fulfilled all the required conditions of the tender document has become both technically and financially responsive; as such, the Notification of Award is required to be issued in its favour.

He  lastly  submits  that  the  petitioner  in  filing  the  present  writ petition has failed to appreciate that the procuring entity has the right to amend the tender documents and also, to accept or reject any or all the bids without assigning any reason whatsoever as per clauses 3, 6 and 12 of  the  Invitation  for  Bid.  However,  the  amendment  so  made  by  the procuring entity in the tender document in question is to widen the scope of competitive participation of the aspiring bidders. Further, the petitioner

while submitting its bid had full knowledge of the said amendment but did not raise any objection thereto; hence, is now estopped from raising objection to that effect.

Considering the above context, he submits, this Rule being devoid of any substance is liable to be discharged.

Coal Power of Generation Company Bangladesh Ltd. (CPGCBL), an enterprise of the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, acting as the employer invited sealed bid from the eligible bidders vide Invitation Reference No.27.32.0000.008.07.003.23.2862 dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure-B) for procurement and delivery of imported coal at plant jetty (CDP) for Matarbari 2x600 MW Ultra Super Critical Coal Fired Power Plant at Maheshkhali Upazilla of Cox’s Bazar District under Chattogram Division,  Bangladesh  following  single  stage  two  envelope  bidding procedure (Envelope-1: Technical Proposal and Envelope -2: Financial Proposal) as per the scope of work as mentioned in the tender document. However, last date and time for receipt of bid (Envelope 1 and 2) was fixed on 09.01.2024 upto 12:00 hours (BST) and opening date and time of Envelope-1 (Technical proposal) was fixed on 09.01.2024 at 12:30 hours (BST). The date of opening of Envelope-2 (Financial Proposal) was to be intimated  by  the  authority  concerned  separately  after  evaluation  of Envelope-1 (Technical Proposal).

Further  condition,  among  others,  was  that  all  bids  must  be accompanied by bid security for an amount of USD 6,000,000.00 (US Dollar six million) only. Any bid not accompanied by an acceptable bid security in a separate sealed envelope shall be rejected by the respondent No.5 company as being non-responsive.

However, qualifying requirements for the respective bidders have been prescribed in clause 5 of the tender document. In this regard clause 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.2(ii) of the tender documents (Annexure-A) are required to be looked into and are accordingly quoted below:

“5.1 Qualification Criteria:

1.      A  bidder  should  be  a  firm  meeting  the  technical  criteria stipulated at Clause 5.2 (i), (5.2 (ii), 5.2 (iii) and financial criteria mentioned at Clause 5.3.
   2.       A bidder can be a consortium of a maximum of three (03) firms,  collectively  meeting  the  technical  criteria  stipulated  at Clause  5.2  (i),5.2  (ii),5.2  (iii),  hereunder  and  financial  criteria mentioned at Clause 5.3.

Each partner of the consortium shall meet at least any one of the technical criteria requirements stipulated at Clause 5.2 and at least 25% of the Financial Criteria mentioned at Clause 5.3.

The consortium shall necessarily identify one of the partners as lead partner who shall meet on its own at least 40% of Financial Criteria mentioned at Clause 5.3. 5.2 Technical Criteria:

1.                 .........
2.              Bidder or any partner of the consortium must be;

1. coal mine owner; or
2. holding company of a coal mine owner; or
3. an international trading company

............”

Meanwhile, the respondent No.5 company caused amendment in the tender document on 03.01.2024 (Annexure-C1) upon replacing clause 5.2(iii) with regard to technical criteria. For ready reference clause 5.

2(iii), as it then was before amendment, is quoted below:

“5.2 (iii) Bidder or any one of the partner of the consortium should have  performed  transportation, through sea  route, using  Ocean Going Vessel(s) (OGV) of at least ten million metric tonnes (10 MMT) of thermal coal during the past five (5) years, reckoned from the date of opening of Technical Proposal.”

After amendment on 03.01.2024 clause 5. 2(iii) stands as under:

“5.2 (iii) Bidder or any one of the partner of the consortium should have  performed  transportation, through sea  route, using  Ocean Going Vessel(s) ("OGV") of at least ten million metric tonnes (10 MMT)  of  dry  (bulk)  solid  commodity(ies),  like  Coal,  Iron  ore, Fertilizers, Chemicals, Cement etc. or Grain in bulk during the past five  (5)  years, reckoned from the date of  opening of  Technical Proposal.”

The petitioner as being the aspirant bidder participated in the tender

process along with 3 (three) others including added respondent No.6 with submission of tender documents. On 08.02.2024, the bid of the respective bidders  were  opened  by  the  TEC.  The  bid  of  the  4th  bidder  namely consortium of Akij Cement Company Ltd. Century Commodities Solution Pte Ltd. were ousted for not filing technical proposal but only financial proposal. The bid of the 2nd bidder namely Bary Chemical Private Ltd. was also not considered for non-compliance of bid security. The bid of the 3rd bidder, the petitioner, was ousted for non-compliance of bid security for stating- “not exceeding in total an amount of USD 6,000,000.00 (US Dollar Six Million) only equivalent to BDT 66.00.00.000.00 (Sixty Six crore)  only”  despite  having  opinion  from  the  Bangladesh  Public Procurement Authority (BPPA) in favour of the petitioner vide Memo dated 21.04.2024 and also, for non-compliance of clause 5.2(ii) and 5.1.2 of the tender document,

Ultimately,  vide  order  dated  14.05.2024  (Annexure-D5)  the Company  Secretary  of  the  respondent  No.5  company  informed  the petitioner that it has been declared as non-responsive after evaluation of its  technical  proposal  by  the  TEC.  Subsequently,  upon  hearing  the respective  contending  parties  the  Review  Penal  vide  the  impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2024 disposed of the appeal negating the prayer of the petitioner with direction upon the TEC to re-evaluate the financial proposal offered by the added respondent No.6.

In this regard the categorical contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a consortium of 3(three) establishments who as a consortium jointly performed various coal supply contracts across Bangladesh. The same consortium members that is the petitioner has a long-term sales contract  of  coal  dated  07.06.2023  with  Bangladesh  India  Friendship Power Company Ltd. for supply of 8 million metric tones of coal within 3(three) years. The members of the petitioner consortium previously had jointly performed various coal supply work and such experience of the petitioner consortium fulfils the technical criteria as stipulated in clause 5.2(ii)  of  the  bid  document.  Further,  the  consortium  partner  of  the petitioner namely Equentia Natural Resources Pte. Ltd, fulfilled clause 5.2(iii)  of  the  technical  criteria  and  demonstrated  experience  of transporting 10.04 million metric tonnes of coal for the last five years of reckoning  the  bid  closing  date.  The  respondent  No.5,  however,  with malafide  intention  came  up  with  a  futile  interpretation  of  the  above mentioned clauses and purposefully had declared the petitioner as non- responsive for protecting the interest of the vested quarters.

Also, it has been contended that in compliance of clause 4 of the tender document the petitioner did submit bid security for an amount of USD  6,000,000.00  (USD  six  million)  and  also,  stated  the  equivalent amount in BDT which stands at Tk. 660,000,000/-. In this connection, on 21.04.2024 (Annexure-I-1) the respondent No.4, a government entity for any public procurement while giving reply to the query so made by the respondent No.5 company opined, inter-alia-:

“..... −k−qa¥¥ equal to AbÑ¡v pja¥mÉ E−õM Ll¡ q−u−R ®p−qa¥ clfœ S¡j¡e−a E¢õ¢Ma a¡¢l−M Cp¤ÉL¡l£ hÉ¡w−Ll ®l−V Xm¡−ll ¢hfl£−a h¡wm¡−cn£ j¤â¡l j§mÉj¡e

USD 6,000,000.00 Hl pja¥mÉ q−m f−œ h¢ZÑa clfœ S¡j¡ea NËqZ Ll¡ ®k−a f¡−lz

p§−œ E¢õ¢Ma f−œl j¡dÉ−j ®fТla a−bÉl ¢i¢š−a kb¡kb LaѪf−rl Ae¤−j¡ce p¡−f−r

H ja¡ja fÐce Ll¡ q−m¡z H ja¡ja öd¤ p§−œ E¢õ¢Ma f−œl ¢ho−u fÐ−k¡SÉ q−hz”

  In this regard, the findings of the Review Panel are quoted below:  

“HC −r−œ ¢h¢f¢fH Hl ja¡ja f¡Ju¡ ®N−mJ Eš² ja¡ja BhnÉLi¡−h NËqZ−k¡NÉ

euz fÐL«af−r clfœ XL¥−j−¾Vl B−m¡−L ¢el¡fš S¡j¡ea j§mÉ¡ue J Hl NËqZ−k¡NÉa¡ ¢el¦fe j§mÉ¡ue L¢j¢Vl HM¢au¡l i¥š²z......”

In this connection, Rule 98(5),(6) and (7) of the Public Procurement

Rules, 2008 being relevant are quoted below:

“98(৫)  দরপ   মূল ায়ন  কিম ট  কান  দরপ েক  হণেযাগ   িহেসেব িবেবচনা  কিরয়া  মূল ায়ন কিরেত  পািরেব,  যিদ  উহােত   পূণ কান িবচ িত (material deviation) বা  কান আপি কর িবষয় (reservation) না থােক এবং উহা দরপ  দিলেলর অবশ  পালনীয় শত িতপালনপূব ক দািখল করা হইয়া থােক ।

(৬) িন বিণ ত  য  কান িবষয় অতীব   পূণ িবচ িত বা আপি কর বিলয়া গণ  হইেব, যিদ উহা-

(ক)  কান কােয রব াি , মান বা কায- স াদনেক   পূণ ভােব ভািবত কের ;

(খ) দরপ  দিলেলর সিহত স িতপূণ নেহ এই  প  কান িবষয় হয়, যাহা  কান চ  র  অধীন  য়কারী  অিধকার  বা  দরপ দাতার  আইনগত বাধ বাধকতা উে খেযাগ ভােব সীিমত কের ; এবং

(গ)  এ প  কান  সংেশাধন  হয়,  যাহা  অন ান   হণেযাগ   দরপ দাতােদর

 িতেযািগতামূলক অব ানেক অন ায ভােব  ভািবত কের ।

(৭)  দরপ   মূল ায়ন  কিম ট  কান  দরপ েক  হণেযাগ   দরপ   িহসােব িবেবচনা কিরেত পািরেব, যিদ উহােত—

(ক) দরপ  দিলল উি িখত কািরগির িবিনেদ শ,  বিশ  এবং বািণ জ ক বা AeÉ  কান শেত রঅথ বহপিরবত নহইেব না এমন  গৗণ বা কম   পূণ িবচ িত থােক  এবং  উ প  িবচ িত  যথাস ব  আিথ কভােব (quantify in monetary terms) পিরমাপ কিরেত হইেব ; বা

(খ)  কান ট বা অসাবধানতাজিনত ভ ল থােক, যাহা পরবত েত সংেশাধন করা হইেলও দরপে র মুখ  উে শ  পিরবিত তহইেব না । ”

Considering the above provision of law as well as the opinion so made by the respondent No.4 stating equivalent amount in BDT by the petitioner with the amount of USD 6(six) million while submitting bid security  in  compliance  of  clause 4  of  the  tender  document,  does  not appear to be a material deviation in order to knock out the technical proposal of the petitioner on the said count.

However, fact remains that the offer of technical proposal of the petitioner was also turned down by the TEC on two other counts i.e. for non-compliance of clause 5.2(ii) and 5.2(iii) respectively of the tender documents. In this regard, the relevant part of the findings of the report of TEC dated 30.04.2024 is quoted herein below:

“

” The  Review  Panel,  respondent  No.2  while  discarding  the

contentions of the petitioner on those counts observed, inter-alia,

“........  Efl¿¹  clc¡a¡  Constortium  of  Basudhara  Multi  Trading

Limited  M/S  Equentia  Natural  Resources  Pte  Lmited  and  M/S

ATRO International FZE IFB 5.(ii) and 5.1.2 n−aÑ h¢ZÑa L¡¢lN¢l ¢eZÑ¡uL fТaf¡me  L−le¢ez  Hja¡hÙÛ¡u  Ef−l  h¢ZÑa  c¤C  clfœc¡a¡−L  L¡¢lN¢l  j§mÉ¡u−e ANËqZ−k¡NÉ ®O¡oZ¡ p¢WL j−jÑ fÐa£uj¡e q−u−Rz”

The above observations of the respondent No.2 in the light of the

findings of TEC does not appear to have been tainted with illegality.

The  other  categorical  contention  of  the  petitioner  is  that  on 30.04.2024 the  TEC  after  evaluation of  the technical proposal of the petitioner along with 3 (three) other bidders had declared the offer of the petitioner and another i.e. Bary Chemical Private Ltd. as non-responsive and the offer of the added respondent No.6 as responsive. Said opinion of the TEC was subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent  No.5  company  in  its  05/2024th  Board  meeting  dated 01.05.2024.

On the face of the said position of fact it has been alleged that informing the petitioner by the officer concerned of the respondent No.5 vide office letter dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-D4) that evaluation process

was still ongoing and on the next date i.e. on 14.05.2024 again informing the petitioner that its technical proposal had been negated as being non- responsive,  is  an  act  of  providing  false  statement  as  well  as  a demonstration  of  conspiracy  and  corrupt  practices  on  the  part  of  the respondent No.5 company.

Moreso, it has been contended that vide Rule 35(1) of the Rules, 2008  the  procuring  entity  is  required  to  inform  the  petitioner  within 7(seven) days of the decision taken by the Board of the respondent No.5 company, which has not been done in the present case. 

Countering  the  said  assertions  of  the  petitioner,  Mr.  Aneek  R. Haque, the learned Advocate and Mr. Sheikh Mohammad Morshed, the learned Senior Advocate conjointly submit referring to Rule 68Gha(4) of the Rules, 2008 that prior to issuance of Notification of Award (in short, NOA) the procuring entity is not required to inform the bidder whose technical proposal has been found non-responsive. In the instant case, he submits,  till  date  no  Notification  of  Award  has  been  issued  by  the procuring entity in favour of the added respondent No.6. As such, for issuance of office letter dated 13.05.2024 by the respondent No.5 pursuant to  the  repeated  representations  of  the  petitioner  dated  08.05.2024, 09.05.2024  and  12.05.2024  respectively  informing,  inter-alia,  that evaluation process was going on, cannot be branded as false statement, for, till that period process of evaluation of financial proposal was still pending, which was finally decided by the Board of the respondent No.5 company in its 06/2024th Board meeting dated 31.05.2024 with direction upon the TEC to make negotiation with the added respondent No.6 over the landing price (FOB+ Ocean Freight). Hence, it has been contended that the allegation so brought forth to that effect has no substance in the eye of law as well as facts.

We find substance to the said contention of the respondent No.5 and the added respondent No.6, for, Rule 68Gha(4) clearly provides that

“ ৬৮O। এক ধাপ দুই খাম দরপ  প িতেত আিথ ক াব উ  ও মূল ায়ন।—

(১) ............

(২) .............

(৩) ............

(8)  য়কারী কতকায  দরপ দাতার সিহত চ    া েরর পর, কািরগির াব মূল ায়েনর

নন- রসপনিসভ  িবেবিচত  দরপ দাতােদর  নন- রসপনিসভ  হওয়ার  িবষয় ট  অবিহত  কিরেব  এবং

আিথ ক াব উ  না কিরয়া  ফরত িদেব।] ”.

 In view of the said provision of law prior to issuance of NOA the

procuring entity is not required to inform the bidder of its technical offer

being found non-responsive. Moreover, from record it appears that the recommendation of the TEC on the technical proposal of the respective

bidders  were  approved  by  the  Board  of  the  respondent  No.5  on

01.05.2024 and that financial proposal of the added respondent No.6, the

only responsive bidder on its technical proposal, was opened by the TEC

with notice to the said bidder on 07.05.2024. Ultimately, the Board in its

6/2024th Board meeting dated 31.05.2024 took decision to negotiate with

the added respondent No.6 with regard to landing price. In the given

context stating, inter-alia, “−Vä¡l XL¥−j¾V Ae¤k¡u£ clf−œl j§mÉ¡ue L¡kÑœ²j kb¡kb fТœ²u¡ Ae¤LlZf§hÑL Qmj¡e l−u−R,” cannot be termed as “false statement”, as

alleged by the petitioner.

Next assertion of the petitioner is the amendment so made in the

qualification criteria of the tender documents on 03.01.2024 (Annexure-

C1)  prior  to  closing  date  of  bid,  fixed  earlier  on  09.01.2024  and

subsequently re-fixed on 31.01.2024 (Annexure-C) by incorporating the

experience of supply of “iron ore, fertilizers, chemicals, cement etc. or grain” along with “coal” in order to widen the qualification criteria to fit in and accommodate the added respondent No.6.

 In this regard, the contention of the petitioner is that without the purported amendment by the respondent No.5, the added respondent No.6 would not have technically qualified, for, none of the consortium partners of the added respondent No.6 have supplied coal for any government project in Bangladesh and that the consortium members of the added respondent No.6 is mainly a supplier of commodities like cement, grain, fertilizer etc.

Accepting the said assertion of the petitioner the respondent No.2, the Review Panel while passing the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 observed, inter-alia:

(খ) এই দরপ ট (এক ধাপ দুই খাম িবিশ  অথ াৎ   য়া ট  িতেযািগতামূলক ।

 িতেযািগতামূলক প িতেত  য়তব   পেণ র  কািরগির,  ব বহািরক  ও  বািন জ ক িবিভ  আবিশ কতা পূরণকে  দরপ  দিলেল সমধম  পণ  সরবরােহর অিভ তা চাওয়া  হেয়  থােক  যা  এক ট  পাস/ ফইল  িভি ক  যাগ তার  িনণ া য়ক। এই শেত  সাধারণত ািবত পেণ র উপযু  আবিশ কতার সে  সাম স তা রেয়েছ এমন ধরেনর পণ েকই সমধম  পণ  িহেসেব িবেবচনা করা হেয় থােক। দরদাতার সমধম  অিভ তা ( য পেণ র জন  দরপ আহবান করা হেয়েছ  সই পণ  বা তার সমধম   পেণ র  সরবরােহর  অিভ তা)  কত  বছেরর,  কত ট  চ  র এবং  িত ট চ   কত মূেল র-ডাটা িসেট উে খ করেত হয়। এই দরপে  সমধম  অিভ তা সংেশাধন কের কয়লার ে   য সকল পণ  (কয়লা অথবা  লাহা, সার,

 কিমক াল, িসেম , অথবা খাদ  শস ) সরবরােহর অিভ তার কথা উে খ কের অনুে দ  ৩(খ)  অনুযায়ী  শত সংেশাধন  করা  হেয়েছ  তার  মধ   িদেয়

 যাগ তার  এই  িনণ া য়েকর মূল  উে শ ই  ব াহত  হেয়েছ।  এ াক  দরপ   সভায়

সরবরাহকারী নানািবধ শত  বা শত  িশিথল চাইেবন,  স ট কখনও িনেজর  ােথ  কখনও  িতেযািগতা  স সারেণর  ােথ ।  সুতরাং  চাইেলই  স টর  অনুকেল  িসধা   হণ করেত  হেব  এমন  কান বাধ বাধকতা  নই।(তদুপির  এই  সংেশাধন ট  যিদ দরপ দাতােদর অনুেরােধ করা হেয়ও থােক  স ট িবিধস ত হেত হেব, এখােন যার

ব ত য়  ঘেটেছ।  কান  য়কািরর  এই প  সংেশাধন  িবিধ  অনুযায়ী

 হণেযাগ  নয়)। ........................  একইসে   ািবত পেণ  সমধম  িহেসেব নানািবধ পেণ র  নাম  ব বহার  কের  দরদাতার  অিভ তা  িন পেনর  সুেযাগ  অবািরত  করা সং া   য়কািরর এই প উেদ াগ সু ভােব অ হণেযাগ  মেম মেন কের।

On the face of the above findings making the ovservations, inter- alia, by the Review Panel “তেব িবেবচ  দরপে র ে   যেহত  কািরগির অন ান  শেত কাল আমদানী/সরবরােহর শত  িতপালেনরিবষয় ট রেয়েছ  সেহত  িশিখলকত বিণ ত শত  দরপ    য়ায়  কান  ভাব  ফলেত  পােরিন মেম  প ােনল  িবেবচ   েয়  িবষয় ট

উেপ া করেছ। ” and giving direction upon the procuring entity to include similar experience in the qualification criteria in future “  (ক)  দরপ  ডকেমে  ভিবষ েত পণ  সরবরােহর pjdjÑ£ অিভ তা (Similar Experience) naÑ িবেবচ  

ে র ন ায় উ /অবািরত করা যােব না কারণ এ ট  য়তব  ব র (Proposed goods)

pjdjÑ£ অিভ তা এবং এ ট স ঠক ও  যাগ  দরদাতা িনব া চেনরঅন তম উপযু  পাস/ ফইল

িনণ া য়ক;”, are clearly self contradictory and thereby frustrates the object for promulgation of the Act No.24 of 2006 i.e., “ plL¡¢l aq¢h−ml AbÑ à¡l¡ ®L¡e fZÉ, L¡kÑ h¡ ®ph¡ œ²−ul ®r−œ üµRa¡ J Sh¡h¢c¢qa¡ ¢e¢ÕQa Ll¡ Hhw Eš²l©f œ²uL¡−kÑ AwnNËq−Zl CµR¤L pLm hÉ¢šl fË¢a pj-BQlZ J Ah¡d fË¢a−k¡¢Na¡ ¢e¢ÕQa L¢lh¡l SeÉ ”. Thus, goes to make the entire process of tender being initiated and pursued by the respondent No.5 with reference to Tender Invitation Reference No.27.32.0000.008.07.003.23.2862 dated 15.11.2023, questionable.

Accordingly, we have no manner of doubt to find that respondent

No.2 has miserably failed to perform it statutory duties being bestowed by

the framers of the Rule under Rule 60 of the Rules, 2008.

Another  contention  of  the  petitioner  is  that  on  accepting  the technical proposal of only one bidder the impugned tender process is

being proceeded by the procuring entity. However, Rule 98(14) does not

delimit the minimum number for acceptance of bid rather has clearly spelt out that even if only one acceptable bid is received subject to evaluation and satisfaction of technical and financial proposal respective contract can be entered into.

In the instant case, with the negation of the technical proposal of 3(three) other bidders including the petitioner the only technical proposal which  remained  for  consideration  was  the  proposal  of  the  added respondent No.6 which was duly accepted by the TEC as responsive. However, after evaluation of its financial proposal the TEC opined inter- alia:

“   I. Financial Proposal of Consortium of Unique Cement Industries Ltd. and Aditya Birla Global Trading (Singapore) Ptd. Ltd. could not be accepted due to significantly higher price considering long term contract.

II.  TEC’s  report  can  be  placed  before  the  approving

authority for next courts of action”

Accordingly,  the  matter  was  placed  before  the  Board  of  the

respondent No.5 company. The Board after discussion in its 6th /2024 Board meeting dated 31.05.2024 took the following decision:

“we`¨gvb cwiw¯’wZ‡Z RvZxq… l¦aÄ ¡ we‡ePbvq wbiwew”Qbœfv‡e gvZvievwo we`y¨r‡K›`ª Pvjy ivLvi ¯^v‡_C © oal Procurement Gi Avek¨KZv we‡ePbvqCoal Gi Landing Price

(FOB+Ocean Freight) †hŠw³K ch©v‡q Kwg‡q Avbvi j‡¶¨ `i`vZv Consortium of

Unique  Cement  Industries  Ltd.  and  Aditya  Birla  Global  Trading

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Gi mv‡_ negotiation Kivi Rb¨ TEC †K `vwqZ¡ cÖ`vb Kivi

¢pÜ¡¿¹ M„nxZ n‡jv|”

However,  while  disposing  of  the  appeal  of  the  petitioner  the

respondent No.2 in this regard has decisively observed, inter-alia:

“(O) 6 /২৪  তািরেখর  বাড   সভায়  দরপ   মূল ায়ন  কিম টর  সুপািরশ  এর  উপর

¢pÜ¡¿¹  দােনর ে  বাড মূল ায়ন  কিম টর  সপািরশ (একমা   রসপনিসভ cরদাতার j§mÉ বাজার মূেল র চাইেত তাৎপয পূণ ভােব ঊে ) আ মেল িনেয়েছ এবং ৩(গ)  অনুে েদ  উি িখত  মত  ব   কের  ৬/২৪  তািরেখর  সভায়  বাড সব ি ন clc¡a¡l সে   নেগািসেয়শন কের মূল   যৗ ক পয া েয়আনার  য িনেদ শনািদেয়েছ,

 স ট িবিধ বিহভ তz যিদ মূল ািয়ত মূল  দা িরক  া িলত মূেল র সে  p¡j”pÉf§ZÑ

হয় তাহেল  য অফার ট  দয়া হেয়েছ  স মেল ই  না টিফেকশন অফ এওয়াড দান করেত হেব । এই ে  িন বিণ ত ৪(ঙ) এর িবধান  িণধানেযাগ ,

(ঙ) িপিপআর িবিধ ৯৮(২৭) 'একািধক দরপ  মূল ায়েনর পর যিদ দরপ  মূল ায়ন কিম টর িনকট তীয়মান হয়  য,  ধ এক ট দরপ   হণেযাগ  হইয়ােছ এবং উ  দরপে র উদ্ধতমূল  দা িরক  া িলত মূেল র কাছাকািছ এবং উহা বত মানবাজার

মূেল র  সিহত  সাম স পূণ তাহা  হইেল  উ   কিম ট  িবিধ  ৩৬ অনুযায়ী  উ   দরদাতার  সিহত  চ    স াদেনর  সুপািরশ  কিরয়া  অনুেমাদনকাির কত পে রিনকট মূল ায়ন পশ কিরেব ।

(চ)  রকড  পরী াে   দখা যায়  য়কাির কত ক ণীত দা িরক  া িলত cl  হে  

 িত  ম ক টন কাল ১৫৫.৬০ (একশ প া  দশিমক ছয় শণ ) মািক নডলার। মূল ািয়ত একমা  দরদাতার Eܪa দর  িত ম ক টন ১০৮(একশ আট) মািক ন ডলার।  সু   য,  Eܪa  দর  দা িরক  দেরর  চাইেত  কম  এবং  এ ট এক ট আইনী িবধান  য দা িরক  া িলত মূেল র সে  সাম স পূণ দর হেল তা সুপািরশেযাগ  হেব। এই সাম স পূণ তার কান ক াপ  নই। মূল ায়ন কিম ট উদ্ধত মূল  তাৎপয পূণমা ায়  বিশ মেন হেলই বাজার যাচাই করেব এবং অ াভািবক কম হেল  দরদাতার  িনকট  ব াখ া  চাইেব।  দরপ   মূল ায়ন  কিম ট  এই ে িবিধ ৯৮(২৩), ৯৮(২৪) ও ৯৮(২৫) িবধান অনুসরণ কেরিন ।

 (জ) পাবিলক  িকউরেম  আইন ২০০৬ এর ধারা ৪৯ এবং পাবিলক  িকউরেম িবিধমালা  ২০০৮  এর পিৰিধ  ৯৯  অনুযায়ী  িতেযািগতামূলক  প িতেত  সব ি ন  দরদাতার  সােথ (কেয়ক ট  ব িত ম  ব িতত,  যা িবেবচ   ে   েযাজ   নয়)  নেগািসেয়শন  করা  যােব  না।  এই  কারেণই  নেগািসেয়ন  এর  সং ান  দরপ  দিলেলও  অ ভ    নই।  এমতাব ায়  এই  দরপে   মূল ািয়ত  দর  যৗ ক  পয ােয় Be¡l SeÉ  নেগািসেয়শেনর  য িস া   দয়া হেয়েছ তা িবিধ বিহভ ত।”