Forums Search/Statistics.
Track Forum29/10 16:40
Brainstorming for 2nd Phase Track Modernisation25/09 13:02
Rly Bridge Forum31/10 23:59
General Forum01/11 07:02
Works Forum31/10 14:20
Track Machine Forum24/10 10:08
ROB/RUB/LXING Forum18/10 11:47
Track Procurement Forum29/10 14:24
 How to use RSS
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/IRICEN1/themes/fisubsilversh/theme.php:138) in /var/www/html/IRICEN1/includes/sessions.php on line 249 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/IRICEN1/themes/fisubsilversh/theme.php:138) in /var/www/html/IRICEN1/includes/sessions.php on line 250
Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering: Forums

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/IRICEN1/themes/fisubsilversh/theme.php:138) in /var/www/html/IRICEN1/includes/page_header.php on line 477 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/IRICEN1/themes/fisubsilversh/theme.php:138) in /var/www/html/IRICEN1/includes/page_header.php on line 479 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/IRICEN1/themes/fisubsilversh/theme.php:138) in /var/www/html/IRICEN1/includes/page_header.php on line 480
 
Post new topicReply to topic
View previous topic View next topic
Author Message

V Natarajan
AEN(TP)CCG

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined: May 02, 2005
No. of
Replies: 2552

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:39 am Back to top

If the conditions of a tender state that the tenderer is required to submit proof as to how they fulfill the eligibility criteria for the work and in case they do not submit any proof for the same (along with tender documents is not mentioned) , the offer will be considered incomplete and will be summarily rejected and in case a tenderer submits all required documents except the document for proof of completion of similar work but has mentioned in the covering letter the details of similar work completed by them and their cost can we give chance to the tenderer to submit the documentary proof.

In Western Railway PCE had issued a circular that one reference can be made giving a time limit if maximum 15 days (only in cases where the tenderer has though mentioned in the tender documents regarding his fulfilling of eligibility criteria but has not fully supported with the relavant documents) clearly stipulating that if the required documents are not furnished within the stipulated time, the offer will be treated as incomplete and will be rejected. However a joint circular issued by Sr.DFM & Sr.DEN in the division to all TC members after the date of issue of PCE's circular state that such post tender correspondence should not be entertained.

What should be the right course of action in such circumstances? Can a prospective tenderer who has not partipated in the tender claim that since it was mentioned in the tender documents that offer without proof of eligibility criteria in tender documents would be summarily rejected and that if it was made clear in the tender documents that one opportunity would be given for submission of the documents , he would have participated in the tender and perhaps could even be the lowest. Can he complain of the grounds that transperancy in the tender has been vitiated and rules of the game has been changed after opening of tender.

SHIV KUMAR
Retd General Manager(Construction),Northeast Frontier Railwa

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 402

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:32 am Back to top

Mr Natrajan,
PCE/ WR 's circular contains the right course of action to deal such a situation.Divisional circular can not be issued to the contrary because PCE is the right authority to issue circulars on such matters on zonal railways.
Secondly, it is not for any tenderer to protest on such a matter . Actually, the deptt. is giving help to a bonafide L1 tenderer who might have genuinely forgotten to annex the proof even though he possesses such a qualification.Therefore no favour is being extended by asking the lowest tenderer to submit a proof after opening of tender. We are not permitting the tenderer to add any qualification. Lack of Transparency or breaking of rule should not deter the deptt. because you are going to extend such favour to one and all in all such cases.
Shiv Kumar

V Natarajan
AEN(TP)CCG

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined: May 02, 2005
No. of
Replies: 2552

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:19 am Back to top

Divisional finance do not take cognigance of the circulars involving financial implications issued by HQ without the concurrance of HQ Finance and Board's letters which have financial implications without the concurrance of Finance direcorate of the Railway Board.

R. P. Saxena
sr professor engg

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 1098

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:48 am Back to top

It appears that mumbai divn is an authority by itself .It creates problems & expect other to solve it

R. P. Saxena
sr professor engg

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 1098

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:58 pm Back to top

A remark on above discussion in IRAS forum

"all CE Circulars on tenders should invariably have the concurrence of FA&CAO. Likewise, all policy circulars of Board having financial implications should have the stamp of FC/Railways. That is the norm which no Sr.DFM would compromise on.

I believe that there should be uniformity in the way we deal with tenders and divisions should refer any contentious issue on this subject to HQ for instructions"

Any comments

Hansraj Sharma
Sr System Manager

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 372

PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:30 pm Back to top

The topic was regarding entertaining requests for post tender correspondence.

It seems that there are instructions for entertaining such requests, but ONLY FROM Bonafide L1.

Needs some more clarification since the author had posed a wider problem.

V Natarajan
AEN(TP)CCG

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined: May 02, 2005
No. of
Replies: 2552

PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:00 am Back to top

This correspondence is in fact required to find out who is the bonafide L1 as proof of fulfilling eligibility criteria is required to decide who is the lowest eligible tenderer.

This issue is regarding correspondence for documents for fulfiiling the eligibility criteria with any or all the tenderers.

Nilmani .
Prof. Track

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 62

PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:41 pm Back to top

Conditions in the tender documents relating to processing of tender are provided in such a way that there is adequate flexibility available to the Department for deciding the tender efficiently. Otherwise, unscrupulous tenderers may succeed in delaying/vitiating the tender process by recourse to courts etc. This seems to be the main reason for stipulations that the tender may be summarily rejected , if not accompanied by proof of credentials etc.

However, the ultimate aim while deciding a tender is to award the tender to the lowest eligible and competent tenderer, expeditiously. Therefore, if a tenderer has submitted credentials which make him eligible but has not submitted the proof thereof, the Tender Committee should make reasonable efforts to ascertain the genuineness of the credentials. In my opinion, action of the Tender Committee should be guided by these basic principals, and keeping in view the urgency of the work. In any case, by entering into correspondence with tenderers on this issue, no new/enhanced credentials are being allowed beyond the cut-off date.

In Eastern Railway, there is a practice of entering into correspondence with tenderers for such credential certificates . However, it would be better to have more clarity on the issue, like the circular issued by PCE/WR.

V Natarajan
AEN(TP)CCG

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined: May 02, 2005
No. of
Replies: 2552

PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:54 pm Back to top

Instead of the term `summarily rejection' if proof is not submitted along with the tender, we may use the term 'if proof is not submitted, the tenders may be rejected. We may also include a condition that one oppurtunity will be given to the tenderers giving a maximum of 15 days for proof if the tenderer has even mentioned in the tender documents about how he qualifies the eligibility criteria as brought out in PCE W.Rly's circular.

Hansraj Sharma
Sr System Manager

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 372

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:25 am Back to top

30 days' notice is reasonable period for studying the site conditions, tender conditions, rates, collecting credentials and submitting them.

V Natarajan
AEN(TP)CCG

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined: May 02, 2005
No. of
Replies: 2552

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:36 am Back to top

There are some peculier instances where back reference becomes necessary.

We should not close the door of L1 permenently or for that matter any tenderer by putting such condition of summarily rejecting the offer if proof is not submitted along with the offer. The ultimate loser in that case will be the Railway when lower offer gets overlooked on these grounds.


Last edited by N1772135 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total

H.S. RANA
Dy.CE/C/W/ALD

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 11

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:22 am Back to top

How will you handle the situation if as per the documents submitted with offer in post tender correspondene on resubmission gets changed to fulfill the eligibility criteria by the lowest tenderer.May be for solvency or payments received in defind period as per NIT.There are cases on being the lowest financial offer the tenderer manages and submits such requisite certificates.

V Natarajan
AEN(TP)CCG

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined: May 02, 2005
No. of
Replies: 2552

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:25 am Back to top

For this we should not accept new documents that are not mentioned by the tenderer in the tender documents. We give him an oppurtunity only when he states how he fulfills the eligibility criteria, but not supported it with relavent documents or for clarifications in the documents submitted by him earlier.

SHIV KUMAR
Retd General Manager(Construction),Northeast Frontier Railwa

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined:
No. of
Replies: 402

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:27 pm Back to top

I am happy to see what Mr. Natrajan is now saying in his last posting.If you see my first posting on this topic , I had given exactly same reply.

V Natarajan
AEN(TP)CCG

View user's profile
Shared Documents

Joined: May 02, 2005
No. of
Replies: 2552

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:44 pm Back to top

PCE in the last para of the circular had mentioned that the tender documents and NIT should be worded accordingly and this principle should apply uniformly for all new cases after date of issue of his letter.

However the tender conditions and NIT were not corrected accordingly and in the contrary a clause for summarily rejecting the tenders where the tenderers have not submitted any proof was included in the NIT/tender conditions as per instructions contained in joint circular of Sr.DEN & Sr.DFM in contravension of PCE's circular which was withdrawn by Sr.DFM very recently.

What i said earlier is as per the conditions of NIT. If our NIT or tender conditions are contrary to the instructions of PCE or for the matter even Railway Board, we cannot implement the decision of the circular in the tender as one has to go by what is given in the conditions of NIT/tender and the circulars are internal issues.
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicReply to topic
View previous topic View next topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum