Law: Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009

Section: 29

Law: Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014

Section: Rules 2(aa), 56, 25(5)

(a)  Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014---

----Rr.2(aa) & 56---Tender for civil works---Lowest bid---Vested right--- Responsive bid---Object, purpose and scope---Security of different nomenclature--- Excluding security from insurance companies---Petitioners/bidders claimed to be the lowest bidders who were aggrieved of demand of authorities to furnish "Quality Assurance Security" or "Quality Control Guarantee"---Validity---Lowest quoted bid per se did not make bidder successful and eligible for award of contract, when quoted price was lower than estimated cost---Such bid was not responsive in the first place---Bidder with lowest quote was directed to provide security for covering differential and at such point of time there was no relevance of performance guarantee---If bidder had met the contingency and furnished requisite security, in the kind as directed, only then bid could be classified as "lowest evaluated bid"--- Unless contingency was met, no occasion for acceptance of bid had arisen, notwithstanding howsoever low the quote was---Once such condition was fulfilled, the bid was accepted and contract was awarded, then status of the bidder was elevated to the contractor, who was then obligated to provide performance guarantee---Bid was to be accepted only once it was found responsive, and it could not be treated as responsive unless the security demanded, for difference between quoted price and estimated cost, was provided---Only upon acceptance of the lowest evaluated bid the adjective "successful" was added to the credit of bidder--- Division Bench of High Court endorsed findings recorded in clause (i) of operative part of decision in case titled as A.M. Construction Company (Private) Limited v. Province of Punjab, reported as 2023 CLC 616---Demand for arranging "Quality Assurance Security" or for that matter "Quality Control Guarantee", where applicable and subject to the amount ascertained, did not conflict with the requirement of procuring performance guarantee, in terms of R. 56 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014---Furnishing of additional security did not absolve the lowest evaluated bidder, identified as successful bidder in common parlance, from provisioning of performance guarantee---Exclusion of arranging security from insurance companies was a policy matter decision---Such exclusion did not violate mandate of public procurement regime, prevalent in the province of Punjab--- Division Bench of High Court also endorsed decision passed in case titled Messrs Jalal Construction Company v. Secretary C & W Department of Government of Punjab and others, reported as 2024 LHC 329, to the extent of the findings recorded and conclusions reached therein regarding prevalent provincial procurement regime--- Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

A.M. Construction Company (Private) Limited v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others 2023 CLC 616; Messrs Jalal Construction Company v. The Secretary C&W Department, Government of Punjab and 3 others W.P. No. 23988 of 2022 and Messers Ghulam Muhammad & Sons v. Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) Faisalabad through Director General and others 2022 MLD 1216 rel.