Introduction
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled principles governing public procurement thereby quashing a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment that had permitted post-bid rectification of a financial quote in an e-tender. The Court held that permitting such modifications after the opening of bids undermines the sanctity transparency and finality of the tender process and cannot be justified on grounds of an “inadvertent error.”.

Background
The matter pertained to a public e-tender floated by the West Bengal Public Works (Roads) Directorate for the collection of Road User Fees (RUF) at a toll plaza. Mandeepa Enterprises, one of the bidders, quoted Rs. 9,72,999 in its financial bid for a contract period of 1095 days. This was interpreted by the tendering authority as the total bid value. Prakash Asphaltings, whose bid stood at Rs. 91.19 crores, was declared the H1 bidder.

Mandeepa Enterprises, however, claimed that its figure was a per day rate and that it had inadvertently failed to multiply it by 1095. On that basis, it contended that its bid was in fact over Rs. 106 crores and thus higher than that of Prakash Asphaltings. It sought to justify this by relying on Clause 5B(v) of the tender terms, which allowed for clarifications to be sought. The tendering authority rejected this contention, citing Clause 4(g), which specifically prohibited any modification of the BOQ after submission.

Mandeepa challenged this decision by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, upholding the finality of the submitted bid and the authority ’s interpretation. Mandeepa then filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the instant case is not one of modification or amendment of the bid, but a case where the bidder seeks to explain the rate quoted in the BOQ Form. Based on that finding, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, permitted Mandeepa ’s explanation to be considered and directed the tendering authority to re-evaluate the financial bids accordingly. This order was passed without issuing notice to Prakash Asphaltings, the successful H1 bidder. Aggrieved, Prakash Asphaltings approached the Hon ’ble Supreme Court.

Supreme Court ’s Findings
The Supreme Court held that Clause 5B(v), which permits clarifications in respect of bids, does not override Clause 4(g), which mandates that no change whatsoever be made to the BOQ template after submission. Mandeepa ’s contention that the quoted amount was on a per-day basis ran contrary to the plain language of the BOQ, which required a total amount for 1095 days to be quoted in figures and in words. There was no ambiguity that called for clarification. The Court was critical of Mandeepa ’s “very casual approach” and held that the bidder “cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold”. Permitting such a change post bid submission would compromise fairness, transparency, and the level playing field among bidders. The Court rejected the High Court ’s characterization that Mandeepa was not amending its bid and held that the Division Bench fell in error in accepting the explanation of Mandeepa Enterprises as a mere clarification and that this approach would set a bad precedent.

Conclusion
The decision reinforces the settled principle that tender conditions are sacrosanct and cannot be relaxed or overridden by post-bid clarifications, especially when they pertain to financial offers. Even a bona fide error is not sufficient ground to permit rectification once bids are opened. The ruling strengthens the authority of earlier precedents such as Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 and Reliance Energy Ltd. v. MSRDC, (2007) 8 SCC 1, each of which reaffirm the legal position that procedural fairness, equal treatment of bidders and strict compliance with the terms of the tender are essential to maintaining the integrity of public procurement. The Supreme Court ’s ruling in Prakash Asphaltings affirms that transparency and fairness in the bidding process are paramount and cannot be compromised by subsequent justifications, however inadvertent or well-intentioned the error may be¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar