this regard, was that the technical bid evaluation consisted of two phases: the first being the examination of the sample provided by the bidder concerned; and the second being whether the bidder concerned fulfilled all the requirements of Parts 3 and 4 of the tender document. The process followed in the 2015 tender was adverted to so as to emphasise that the same process was followed in the present tender too. Upon examining the minutes of the meetings of the Tender Scrutiny Committee held on December 24,2020, it is evident that the sample evaluation as well as the evaluation of fulfillment of the requirements of Parts 3 and 4 of the tender document were undertaken on December 24, 2020. Strangely, in spite of carrying out both stages of the technical bid evaluation on the same date, in the report submitted by the Technical Scrutiny and Finalization Committee to its legal counsel on December 26, 2020, it was not pointed out that the third bidder did not fulfill the requirements of Parts 3 and 4 of the tender document. Consequently, in turn, the State's legal counsel did not inform the Court that Hololive did not fulfill all the technical specifications. Indeed, there is little doubt that the Court would not have recorded that there were three eligible bidders if the Court were aware that Hololive's bid was rejected on the same date. Instead, the result of the bid evaluation would have vindicated the stand of Alpha and Kumbhat that there cannot be more than two eligible bidders, i.e. Uflex and Montage. On this issue, the State, undoubtedly, made selective disclosures, and successfully facilitated the recording of erroneous conclusions by the Court on a vital aspect of the tendering process.
