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

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

Public Procurement Act, 2006
Section 29 and 30 read with
Rules 56 and 57 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2008:
Section 29 of the Act, 2006 (Act No.24 of 2006), however, provides the right to file complaint to the authority concerned (সংশ্লিষ্ট ক্রয়কারী প্রশাসনিক কর্তৃপক্ষের নিকট) under Section 30 of the said Act on the context as prescribed under Rule 56 of the Rules, 2008. In view of Rule 57(1) of the Rules of 2008 said complaint has to be filed/made within the period as stipulated in Schedule 2 of the said Rules i.e., within 7(seven) calendar days of receipt of knowledge of the complaint which gives rise to the cause of action. In other words, the complainant in his petition of complaint has to disclose the date of cause of action in order to compute the period of limitation. …SHOHOZ-SYNESIS-VINCEN JV Vs. CPTU & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 25
Review Panel has to give specific findings on the point of limitation:
Since in the first complaint dated 30.11.2020 (Annexure-VIII) respondent No.9 did not disclose the date of knowledge giving rise to the cause of action hence, it is barred by limitation. Hence, taking into cognizance of the office letter dated 23.11.2020 by the Review Panel-02, as being introduced by the respondent No.9 for the first time while filing appeal on 28.12.2020 in order to escape limitation without giving specific findings on the first complaint dated 30.11.2020 on point of limitation is also not maintainable. …SHOHOZ-SYNESIS-VINCEN JV Vs. CPTU & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 25 ....View Full Judgment

Writ of certiorari is directed against order of public functionary and the local body as and when the public functionary or the local body are required to do a particular act under law which they are not doing or implementing or when such authority is debarred by any law from doing any act under the law which they are not obeying.
The High Court Division observed that the bidder submits documentary evidence related to completion of computer based solution involving software development, supply, implementation, maintenance and support services and collection of government toll/ fees/ text/ revenue under any government, semi government or autonomous body or which, the contract value is not less than 40 (Forty) crore or equivalent USD in a single contract. But the documents submits by the HPCC indicate that it is under contract with its client Korean Express corporation for supply of prepaid type IC (smart Card only) HPCC clearly failed to provide any documentary evidence related to toll collection software development implementation maintenance and support services of software as required under sub- clause 3 of ITC clause 21.1(c) under section 20 (proposal data sheet). Further, it is noted that non compliance of clause 4 of ITC 21.1© under Section 2 has been clearly observed by the CPTU which is evident in supplementary affidavit filed by the HPCC in entire G series. There are lots of correspondences and testimonial and almost all of them are written in the letter head of HPCC and those are not even endorsed by the local Bangladesh Embassy. These are the positive findings of fact which have been categorically addressed by the CPTU while taking it’s decision. Even in case of marking there is also a positive findings in the impugned decision endorsed by the CPTU and accepted in favour of the Respondent No. 6, CNS. Significantly, it has been submitted though not by an affidavit that no mark at all was given to the petitioner HPCC in this regard. Logical justification together with the decisions focusing on the issues have been well articulated in the discussions as made above. Therefore, unhesitatingly the High Court Division hold that the decision of CPTU in allowing the Appeal suffers from no legal infirmity. AHN. HONG, SIK. HPCC-SEL JV -Vs.- Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU) and others (Spl.Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 259 ....View Full Judgment

Public Procurement Rules 2008
Rule 60
CPTU, Rule 60 of the PPR, Review Panel, NOC;
It has been settled by this Division that when a proceeding is initiated which affects the rights of a party, the party whose right would be affected is to be given the opportunity to represent its case, whether statutory contemplated or not. ...Softesule Private Limited Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 205 ....View Full Judgment

The Review Panel found the petitioner “non responsive” and found the respondent No.9 responsive. This means that the Review Panel, in exercising its powers, substituted its judgment over the Selection Panel’s finding. The powers of the Review Panel, as set out in Rule 60 of the PPR are clear. The Review Panel is not conferred with the power of “substitution of judgments”. Rule 60 of the PPR also does not confer any residuary power upon the Review Panel. The powers conferred are exhaustive. The Review Panel cannot, in exercising powers under Rule 60 of the PPR, proceed to assume more powers than actually conferred. In the instant case, the Review Panel has done exactly this. In the instant case, the Review Panel has exceeded jurisdiction and therefore, its findings cannot be sustained. ...Softesule Private Limited Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 205 ....View Full Judgment