Chennai: Madras high court has directed the Tender Evaluation Committee, Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation (TUFIDCO) not to proceed with Rs 100 crore tender for Master System Integrator to design, develop and implement and maintain common cloud based DC & DR system, citizen mobile application and e-governance application along with integrated command and control center (ICCC) for 10 smart cities.
Justice R. Mahadevan before whom writ petition from Acetech Machinery Components India Private Limited, Coimbatore, came up for hearing on Tuesday, ordered notice to special government pleader to get instructions and directed that the authorities not to proceed till then. Later, the judge posted the matter to September 3 for further hearing.
The matter relates to an urban renewal and retrofitting programme by Central Government with a mission to develop 100 Smart Cities Mission (SCM) cities all over the country to enable them citizen friendly and sustainable. The union ministry of urban development is responsible for implementing the mission in collaboration with the state governments. The Centre rolled out the mission on June 25, 2015, and the object of the scheme is to promote sustainable and inclusive cities that provide core infrastructure and give a decent quality of life to its citizens, a clean and sustainable environment and application of “Smart Solutions”.
In the petition the company sought the court to set-aside the RFP (Request for Proposal) declaring Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai as L1 vide notification dated August 7, 2018. The company said the chairman and managing director of TUFIDCO failed to follow the terms and conditions of the RFP and declared the L&T, Mumbai as L1, which does not qualify under the technical conditions of RFP. The evaluation of technical bids had not been done in accordance with RFP and TUFIDCO had also failed to disclose the method of calculation to arrive at a conclusion that L&T is L1.
Stating that the evaluation process done by TUFIDCO is wholly arbitrary and illegal the petitioner sought for re-evaluate bids strictly in the manner provided in RFP and award the contract to the petitioner.
