Tender Notice— Paid for the bid money in respect of 5 items out of 14 items and taken delivery of the same as per the decision of the writ respondent— Appellate Division would like to record our utmost disapproval and dissatisfaction at the conduct of the learned Judges of the writ Court in negotiating the price of the remaining 9 items by substituting the decision of writ-respondent Government for the same and thereafter directing the said respondent Government to allow the writ petitioner to take delivery of the remaining 9 items by accepting such negotiated price inasmuch as negotiation of sale price between the parties never falls within the domain of the Court. .....M/S. Ashraf =VS= Md. Zahangir Alam, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 442] ....View Full Judgment

The plaintiff tender had already withdrawn the excess money against the works done— Admittedly the plaintiff could not complete the earth filling works within the stipulated time which he admitted. While examining as P.W.1 he stated in course of cross-examination that he was required to complete the works by 17th August, 1998 and that all works should have been completed by 17th September, 1993. He further admitted that he had withdrawn the security money of Tk.2,80,000,00/-. As per tender document, ext-ka, in paragraph 9, it is a condition precedent that the contractor was required to deposit 10% performance guarantee of the accepted contract amount in the form of bank guarantee valid for a periods of 30 days beyond the date fixed for the completion of works. The works are yet to be completed, then how he has withdrawn the entire amount of perform an guarantee is shrounded with mystery. Certainly the officials of National Housing Authority, the defendant No.1, who are involved in the project helped him in withdrawing the said amount illegally by taking pecuniary advantage from him. If the plaintiff fails to complete the unfinished works or if he fails to perform the works as per specification, it will be difficult for the defendants to take legal actions against him. This security money as per paragraph 18, will be released after the payment of the final bill. It is therefore, directed the defendant No.1, to hold an enquiry as to the official who are responsible in helping the plaintiff in withdrawing the security money and recover the said amount from them and also take legal actions against them for showing undue favour to the plaintiff. The appeal is, therefore, allowed without any order as to costs. The judgment of the High Court Division is set aside. .....National Housing Authority =VS= M/s. M.R. Trading Co., (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 166] ....View Full Judgment

It appears that in view of the decision of the Review Panel and the regulation 31(12) of Public Procurement Rules there is no scope to accept the bid in compliance with any direction to execute contract in the matter with the respondents as directed by the High Court Division. The impugned Judgment and Order by the High Court Division making the Rules absolute are set-aside. Chittagong Water Supply & Sewerage Authority (CWASA) vs EPI-BFEW Consortium 16 BLC (AD) 9.

Bangladesh Public Procurement Regulations, 2003
Regulations 53(6)(a) & (d)
Public Procurement Rules
Regulations 31(12)
Challenging the decision of the Cabinet Purchase Committee— The Review Panel exceeded its jurisdiction for rejecting the tender of DCL SBA who is not a complainant before the Review Panel under regulations 53(6)(a) nor under regulations 53((6)(d). The Review Panel cannot proceed for annulment in whole the tender of DCL SBA as the Review Panel have only power to suggest such annulment in whole or in part of the procuring entity. The procuring entity is not bound by such suggestion of the Review Panel under regulations 53(6)(d) of the Public Procurement Regulations, 2003 overriding the decision of Central Committee of Government Purchase. Ignoring such provisions of law the High Court Division came to the finding that the Review Panel canceled the tender of DCL SBA under regulations 53(6)(d) of the Public Procurement Regulation and rightly exercised in accordance with such regulations in cancelling the tender of DCL-SBA and also proceeded for further actions under regulations 31(12) of the Public Procurement Rules. 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 WASA =VS= EPI-BFEW Consortium, (Civil), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 593] ....View Full Judgment

Public Procurement Regulations r/w
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