11-05-2011, 04:50 PM
THE Lahore High Court on Friday sought reply from the Punjab Secretary Planning & Development and others on a petition of a construction company challenging the award of a contract for the Walled City rehabilitation project to another company despite the fact that the petitioner-company had made the lowest bidding.
Petitioner-company Uni Build-Zeekhan through its counsel pleaded that it submitted tender and bid of Rs.690.98 million for the Pilot Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Improvement Project (Delhi Gate to Old Kotwali Walled City). As per bidding documents purchased by the petitioner on September 9, the bid was to be opened on October 10, 2011 at 4:00pm.
However, later the respondents changed bidding time to 1:00pm. He said a corrigendum was published in the newspapers. He said under bid documents the employer might amend the bidding documents by communicating to all bidders in writing. The petitioner said he was not informed in writing but Director of the project telephonically informed him on bidding day that bidding would take place at 1:00pm.
He said company’s representative rushed to the employer office and submitted his documents but later his bid was declared non-responsive on the pretext that security deposit was not attached with the bidding documents. He said the whole exercise was tainted with malice and done only to keep the petitioner-company out of bidding process, as its bid was Rs. 4.8 billion less than other bidders.
He prayed to the court to set aside the auction proceedings for holding it before the stipulated time of 4:00pm.
Justice Umar Aat Bandial issued a notice to Secretary P & D, Director General of Project for November 15 and directed them to submit replies to the petitioner’s contentions.
Petitioner-company Uni Build-Zeekhan through its counsel pleaded that it submitted tender and bid of Rs.690.98 million for the Pilot Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Improvement Project (Delhi Gate to Old Kotwali Walled City). As per bidding documents purchased by the petitioner on September 9, the bid was to be opened on October 10, 2011 at 4:00pm.
However, later the respondents changed bidding time to 1:00pm. He said a corrigendum was published in the newspapers. He said under bid documents the employer might amend the bidding documents by communicating to all bidders in writing. The petitioner said he was not informed in writing but Director of the project telephonically informed him on bidding day that bidding would take place at 1:00pm.
He said company’s representative rushed to the employer office and submitted his documents but later his bid was declared non-responsive on the pretext that security deposit was not attached with the bidding documents. He said the whole exercise was tainted with malice and done only to keep the petitioner-company out of bidding process, as its bid was Rs. 4.8 billion less than other bidders.
He prayed to the court to set aside the auction proceedings for holding it before the stipulated time of 4:00pm.
Justice Umar Aat Bandial issued a notice to Secretary P & D, Director General of Project for November 15 and directed them to submit replies to the petitioner’s contentions.