Abnormally Low Bid, Political Pressure and a March Deadline
You are the executive engineer chairing a five-member tender committee for a Rs 38 crore rural piped water supply scheme under a centrally sponsored programme. Six bids were received. The lowest (L1) is 22% below the department's estimate and 14% below L2. L1's technical bid shows two ongoing works at 80% progress and one show-cause notice for slow progress; its bid security and integrity pact are in order. During evaluation, the local MLA telephones you saying the firm is 'local' and should not be harassed, and a junior engineer forwards a WhatsApp message from the firm offering to 'take care of' committee members. The estimated completion period is 18 months. The chief engineer wants the work awarded before the financial year closes in three weeks. You must decide how to evaluate L1, handle the call and the message, and protect the programme's timeline.
1. How should the committee evaluate L1 under the procurement rules? Set out the tests and the safeguards.
Read the worked answer
L1 is 22% below estimate and 14% below L2, which is prima facie abnormally low. Under the GFR 2017 provisions on abnormally low bids and CVC guidance, do not reject it for price alone. Ask L1 in writing for a rate analysis, proof of material and equipment arrangements, and a cash-flow statement showing it can fund two ongoing works plus this one.
Check the nature of the show-cause notice and whether the delay was attributable to the firm. If the committee is satisfied, award subject to an additional performance security as prescribed and stricter milestones. If not satisfied, record reasons and consider the next responsive bid. Minute the decision and the documents relied on. The test is whether the firm can deliver, not whether its price looks uncomfortable.
2. How would you handle the MLA's telephone call and the firm's WhatsApp message?
Read the worked answer
Respond politely to the MLA that evaluation is a technical matter and that you will send a written reply; immediately make a file note with date, time and the gist. Do not accept the firm's offer or reply on WhatsApp; preserve the message and report it in writing to the chief engineer and the department's vigilance officer.
Do not sit alone with the committee for further negotiation, and if any member is personally approached, record it and consider recusal. The integrity pact and the bidder's undertaking are relevant; a violation can lead to disqualification. The record must show that the decision rested only on the tender documents.
3. The chief engineer wants the award before 31 March. What sequencing would you recommend without compromising the evaluation?
Read the worked answer
Timeline pressure does not justify a shortcut. Complete the clarification within 10 days by issuing a structured query, hold a committee meeting with recorded quorum, and issue the award by 31 March if financial concurrence is ready. If the additional performance security cannot be collected in time, do not issue the work order; seek approval for a conditional letter of award with a validity extension.
Parallel processing of financial concurrence is acceptable, but post-tender negotiation with L1 to match L2 is not. If the award slips, record the reasons and seek an extension of the programme sanction. A spillover with a documented process is less damaging than an unreasoned award.