Yuku free message boards

Very interesting case this.
To understand the course of action, we have to goto the genesis of the 'sealed' cover procedure and the reason for its adoption. Offers are (supposed to be) taken in sealed cover and dropped in a sealed box. However even if offers are not sealed but if these have been dropped in sealed box, others have no way of knowing the content of offer. Hence what sealed cover as wel as sealed box achieves is
1. Prevents any error of intent on the part of the tenderers as well as the officials due to hidden nature of offer.
2. Gives level playing field to all tenderers in so much as nobody has any clues to the rates of others.
3. Tries to obtain the best rate for that particular tender as tenderers in their attempt to win the contract are likely to quote most competitive rates.

Let us consider the present situation. If the tenderer has faxed his rate as Rs. X, following situations are likely to get attracted
1. He might have faxed his rate at 1 second after closing of box and as such it is delayed tender.
2. He might have faxed it 1 second after opening of box in which case it is late tender.
3. He might have faxed his rate 1 second before closing of box in whch case it is a case of tender deemed to have been opened before due time.
4. He might have faxed his rate 1 second before closing of box which forces other tenderers to fill in their rates as Rs. (X-1) thereby vitiating the tendering process. If there are only two offers we all know who the winner is.
5. The officer who recieved the fax is in the know of the rate of one of the tenderers thereby exposing him to accusations.
6. He has not dropped his rate in the designated box.
7. He has not paid tender cost and EMD etc. as these cannot be faxed! And offers unacompanied with EMD is to be summarily rejected.

I donot think we need more than these many reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the authority who issued the corrigendum to authorise 'tender by fax' acted ultra vires and against the provisions of Finance Code and Engineering Code.

scmitra

Chesula

Thanks for pointing out that fax tenders have been permitted by Board. So I have no reason to dispute that.In that case if the present tender happens to be Stores tender, everything would be alright. (I have to get a copy of that letter. Can you possibly put the content of that letter on this site?)

However your under-mentioned stand is disputable

"For other types of tenders-bulletin, limited, open, offers received through fax and found in the tender box at the time of opening ,complete in all receipts and signed by authorized signatory ......."

I could not understand how a fax would find itself in the tenderbox?And EMD etc?
scmitra

I could lay my hands upon this circular so am putting it here. In light of this letter, whatever my reservations regarding this procedure, I stand corrected.

Government of India

Ministry of Railways

(Railway Board)

No. 2005/RS(G)/779/1
New Delhi, dt: 09-11-2006

The General Manager,

All Indian Railway & Production Units,and others
Sub: Modification to tender condition- Offer by Fax.

One of the Railways has referred the matter of consideration of offers received by FAX. The matter has been examined by Board and it has been decided that:

i. Offer received through FAX may be considered in case of procurement of items through proprietary article certificate & single tender only subject to the firm submitting post confirmation copy on their letter head duly signed by the authorized person as per the tender conditions within ten working days from the date of opening.

ii. However, for other type of tenders i.e. for Bulletin, Limited and Advertised/open Tenders etc., offer received through FAX and found in the tender box at the time of opening of Tenders and complete in all respects and duly signed by the authorized signatory should be treated as in time offer subject to the firm/firms submitting post confirmation copy duly signed by the authorized person as per the tender conditions within ten working days from the date of opening.

iii. All other offers received by FAX not covered in Para (i) & (ii) above shall be treated as invalid. The offers received by FAX as covered in Para (ii) above shall be deemed as unresponsive in case the confirmation copy is not received within the time stipulated in Para (ii) above.

iv. No purchase order shall be issued against the FAX offers without receipt of the confirmation copy of the same.

v. It shall be the sole responsibility of tenderers to ensure that the offers submitted by FAX are dropped in appropriate tender box in sealed cover/covers and within the prescribed time and date. The Railways shall not be responsible in any way for any delay in dropping the FAX offers in the appropriate tender box. Suitable guidelines may be included in Instructions to Tenderers as part of Tender documents, covering the offers by FAX in tenders as detailed above respectively.

This issues with the concurrence of Finance Directorate of Ministry of Railways.





(Aruna Jain)

DDRS(G)-II

Railway Board



No. 2005/RS(G)/779/1
New Delhi, dt: 09-11-2006

Copy to:

1. FA&CAO, all Indian Railways & Production Units.

2. The ADAI(Rlys.), New Delhi (with 10 spare copies).

3. The Director of Audit, All Indian Railways.

for Financial Commissioner / Railways



No. 2005/RS(G)/779/1
New Delhi, dt: 09-11-2006

Chesula may like to clarify if for stores tender, EMD is paid in those 10 days? If EMD is not paid or the confirmation copy doesnot come in 10 days, is it a case of wthdrawal by L1 or simply a case of 'unresponsive offer'?

Please also see the third paragraph of that letter which , in an oblique way, allows/enables for the withdrawal of offer by L1 without the tender having to be cancelled as per CVC's guidelines. If FAX offer is L1, he can simply not give confirmation copy within 10 days thereby making L2 as L1 and thus in zone of consideration. This may be against CVC's express guidelines. And by giving 10 days' to FAX tenderer, the entire process is going to be vitiated. One example for Chesula and others.

I,scmitra am L2 for which I have participated in a tender and quoted Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Chesula sent his offer by FAX owing to his busy schedule. his offer was Rs. 1 lakh. Now Chesula has 10 days for his confirmatin copy. In the mean time I find out frojm our webmaster who Chesula is and give him a deal which he might not refuse. I tell him to take Rs. 25 K from me (if tender is awarded to me) and NOT give his confirmation copy. Thus CVC's guideliens would be circumvented and L2 would be considered and withdrawal by L1 would not neccessiate retendering.
I hope I have made myself clear.

Thank you,Chesula.
scmitra

Chesula
The link to the circulars are at

10.1.10.21/stores/Circulars_2006.htm

However I have edited my earlier comment. Please throw some light on that.
scm