Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Public Procurement Rules
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Rules 4(12) and 54(6)

Public Procurement Rules, 2008
Rules 4(12) and 54(6)
Tenders were found non-responsive–
Rules 4(12) and 54(6) of the PPR, minimum qualification requirement for the leading partner of the JVCA and other partners may be specified in the pre-qualification document, tender document or proposal document of the tender and, as such, the authority rightly inserted the condition of minimum experience in the Tender Data Sheet as per rules 4(12) and 54(6) of the PPR. Leave is granted to consider the following grounds:
(I) Because, the High Court Division overlooked that the tender which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 686 of 2018 has already been evaluated by the Committee and all the tenders were found non-responsive and accordingly, the authority cancelled the said tenders and issued a fresh tender notice/re-tender notice and so, there was/is no scope to pass work order on basis of the tender notice, which has already been cancelled and Western Company not being a participant in the fresh tender, is not entitled to get any work order upon satisfaction of the authority. So, the judgment and order of the High Court Division, is liable to be set aside;
II) Because, the High Court Division failed to consider the provisions of rules 4(12) and 54(6) of the Public Procurement Rules, 2008 and the facts that rule 54(6) of the PPR provides that minimum qualification requirement of the leading partner of the JVCA and other partners may be specified in the pre-qualification document, tender document or proposal document of the tender, the authority rightly inserted the condition. of minimum experience in the Tender Data Sheet following the aforesaid rules and, as such, the judgment and order of the High Court Division is liable to be set aside. …Roads & Highways Department (RHD), Dhaka =VS= Western Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd., (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 191] ....View Full Judgment

Regulations 6.1(d), 53

Public Procurement Regulations, 2003
Read with
Public Procurement Rules, 2003
Regulations 6.1(d), 53
Re-tender– As purchase committee is the highest Authority which upon considering the above fact has decided to re-tender inasmuch as per regulation 53 of the said Rules it appears that the decision of the Review Penal appears to be beyond its jurisdiction.
The Central Committee of Government Purchase after examining the tender document found serious deviations of both the DCL SBA and EPI-BFEW for which any decision of Central Committee of Government Purchase will not prejudice for proceeding to re-tender of such project as the EPI-BFEW is also entitled to participate in the re-tender process. Moreover, the decision of the Review Panel is neither mandatory nor binding upon approving authority as per Public Procurement Rules, 2003. The approving Authority is fully empowered for directing to invite the tender as per regulations 6.1(d) of the Public Procurement processing and approval procedures.
The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division making the Rules absolute are set aside. …Chittagong Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (CWASA) =VS= EPI-BFEW Consortium, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 303] ....View Full Judgment