Misprocurement

Held, that general and specific guidelines were required to be followed in internationally funded projects as mandatory to ensure fairness

In the present case, there were four pre-qualifications criteria; i.e. eligibility, pending litigation, financial status and construction experience and any bid was required to be assessed on its basis

Bid validity period had expired, therefore, the offer of petitioner remained non-responsive

Bid security period, in the present case, was extended and not the bid validity period, therefore, the offer had become invalid and any violation of the guidelines provided for the project might be considered a mis-procurement

However, its reasons could be communicated under guidelines of the project

As per the understanding between the parties the rate of exchange of US dollar was to be calculated on the date of signing of the contract and not the date of offer since it was experiencing unpredictable fluctuation

Reasons of the bid being non-responsive had been conveyed to the petitioner during the present proceedings, therefore, the petitioner, could avail his remedy in accordance with law (but not through present Constitutional petition)

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner, a pharmaceutical company, whose technical bid had been rejected by the procuring agency sought direction to National Accountability Bureau for initiating inquiry/investigation against the authorities and direction to the Province to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them for misprocurement of the medicines against the rights of the petitioner

Rule 31 of Part-II of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010 provided mechanism for redressal of grievances of bidders that might surface during the procurement proceedings

Rule 32 of the Rules provided appeal to the Review Committee in case a bidder was not satisfied with the decision of the Complaints Redressal Committee

Powers of the Review Committee in terms of R.32 (7) of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, in relation to the actions of the procuring agency were highlighted

Chairman of National Accountability Bureau or officer duly authorized by him, having received a complaint, might refer the matter for inquiry or investigation

Petitioner had not approached National Accountability Bureau and/or Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority

Petitioner had also filed civil suit wherein it had specifically sought declaration in regard to rejection of its bid for its product and award of the tender for procurement of the drug in question to the respondents

Any finding or direction, at present stage and in the given circumstances of the case in the collateral proceedings, would be prejudicial to the rights of contesting parties and would also amount to circumventing the civil suit

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.