Latest news with #InstructionstoBidders
Indian Express
30-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Why MMRDA has scrapped the tendering process for Thane-Bhayandar mega infra projects
The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) on Friday (May 30) informed the Supreme Court that it has decided to scrap the tender process for Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects worth over Rs 14,000 crore in 'public interest'. The Bench was hearing a challenge by Larsen & Toubro (L&T) Ltd to orders passed by the Bombay High Court on May 20 upholding MMRDA's position that the reasons for rejecting the technical bids need not be communicated to the company before the projects are awarded. The top court had on Thursday (May 29) asked Mumbai's infrastructure development authority whether it was willing to carry out a re-tendering process for the two major projects in the financial capital – and warned that failure to do so might lead the court to stay the current tenders. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih had asked this question to Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) first on May 26. On Friday, taking MMRDA's statement on the record, the SC disposed of as 'infructuous' the pleas by L&T. What is the background of this major development, and how did the matter reach the Supreme Court? What are these two infrastructure projects? The two projects will link Thane with Mira-Bhayandar. They are part of an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project. The first project is a 5-km twin tunnel of 14.6-metre diameter, connecting Gaimukh near the mouth of Vasai Creek in Mira-Bhayandar to the Fountain Hotel junction at Shilphata in Thane. The project cost is estimated at Rs 8,000 crore. The second project, a 9.8-km elevated creek road bridge, will connect Bhayandar with Ghodbunder Road in Thane. The cost of this project is estimated at Rs 6,000 crore. The elevated bridge is likely to be second in length only to the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) bridge, also called Atal Setu, which, at almost 22 km, is both the longest bridge and the longest sea bridge in India. What was L&T's contention? MMRDA invited tenders for the two projects on July 27, 2024. L&T approached the Bombay HC claiming not enough time had been allowed to collect geotechnical data. On October 8, MMRDA assured that the last date for the submission of bids would be extended by 60 days. Earlier this month, L&T filed two petitions before the HC, contending that MMRDA did not follow a fair and transparent tender process. The company said that it had submitted its technical bid on December 13, 2024, and the bid was opened on January 1, 2025 – however, it had received no communication about the outcome of the evaluation. After learning that MMRDA had scheduled the opening of financial bids on May 13 and invited select bidders for it, L&T suspected that it had been excluded from the process, the company submitted. This, L&T said, violated the principles of natural justice. The Instructions to Bidders (ITB) – which are detailed guidelines for potential bidders to prepare and submit their bids for a specific project – are discriminatory, L&T said. What was MMRDA's stand? MMRDA claimed that as per the clauses of ITB, it was not required to intimate L&T that its technical bid had been found unresponsive before the opening of financial bids. Once L&T had accepted the terms of the tender, it could not oppose the opening of the financial bids, MMRDA submitted. It argued that public infrastructure projects should not be delayed, and L&T's pleas deserved to be dismissed. And what did the High Court rule? A Vacation Bench of the court dismissed L&T's pleas and declined to continue the stay on opening of financial bids for the elevated road. In the case of the tunnel project, the Bench rejected L&T's plea, noting a 'suppression of material facts'. The HC said it had to be 'mindful' that the matter involved 'mega infrastructure projects of significant public importance', and 'any delay…would adversely impact the execution of the project'. The court gave L&T the opportunity to approach the Supreme Court in appeal. What happened in the Supreme Court? L&T submitted before the SC that there was an arbitrary declaration of the L1 (Lowest one) bid for both projects to Hyderabad-based Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), even though its bid was at a substantially higher project cost compared to L&T's. L&T claimed that compared to MEIL, its price bid was almost Rs 2,521 crore less in case of the tunnel project, and Rs 609 crore less for the elevated road project. MMRDA argued that the question of price did not arise if the petitioner was disqualified. However, the Bench disagreed, and said it shall be considered in case of 'public interest matters' and 'public money would be saved'. On May 26, the SC said it was difficult to comprehend that the technical bids submitted by L&T – the company which had been chosen to execute the Central Vista project in New Delhi – had been rejected for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects. On May 29, the SC reiterated that the difference of nearly Rs 3,100 crore between the two bidders was 'not a small amount'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing MMRDA submitted that the disqualification was not on 'flimsy or fanciful grounds' and the authority would justify its decision and respond to the court's queries during the next hearing. This hearing took place on Friday.
Indian Express
29-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Thane-Bhayandar mega infra projects: Why L&T, MMRDA are in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 29) asked Mumbai's infrastructure development authority whether it was willing to carry out a re-tendering process for two major projects in the financial capital – and warned that failure to do so might lead to the court to stay the current tenders. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih had asked this question to Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) first on May 26. The Bench had said it was difficult to comprehend that the technical bids submitted by Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd – the company which had been chosen to execute the Central Vista project in New Delhi – had been rejected for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects. The Bench is hearing a challenge by L&T to orders passed by the Bombay High Court on May 20 upholding MMRDA's position that the reasons for rejecting the technical bids need not be communicated to the company before the projects are awarded. The two projects will link Thane with Mira-Bhayandar. They are part of an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project. The first project is a 5-km twin tunnel of 14.6-metre diameter, connecting Gaimukh near the mouth of Vasai Creek in Mira-Bhayandar to the Fountain Hotel junction at Shilphata in Thane. The project cost is estimated at Rs 8,000 crore. The second project, a 9.8-km elevated creek road bridge, will connect Bhayandar with Ghodbunder Road in Thane. The cost of this project is estimated at Rs 6,000 crore. The elevated bridge is likely to be second in length only to the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) bridge, also called Atal Setu, which, at almost 22 km, is both the longest bridge and the longest sea bridge in India. L&T's contention MMRDA invited tenders for the two projects on July 27, 2024. L&T approached the HC claiming not enough time had been allowed to collect geotechnical data. On October 8, MMRDA assured that the last date for the submission of bids would be extended by 60 days. Earlier this month, L&T filed two petitions before the HC, contending that MMRDA did not follow a fair and transparent tender process. The company said that it had submitted its technical bid on December 13, 2024, and the bid was opened on January 1, 2025 – however, it had received no communication about the outcome of the evaluation. After learning that MMRDA had scheduled the opening of financial bids on May 13 and invited select bidders for it, L&T suspected that it had been excluded from the process, the company submitted. This, L&T said, violated the principles of natural justice. The Instructions to Bidders (ITB) – which are detailed guidelines for potential bidders to prepare and submit their bids for a specific project – are discriminatory, L&T said. MMRDA's stand MMRDA claimed that as per the clauses of ITB, it was not required to intimate L&T that its technical bid had been found unresponsive before the opening of financial bids. Once L&T had accepted the terms of the tender, it could not oppose the opening of the financial bids, MMRDA submitted. It argued that public infrastructure projects should not be delayed, and L&T's pleas deserved to be dismissed. High Court ruling A Vacation Bench of the court dismissed L&T's pleas and declined to continue the stay on opening of financial bids for the elevated road. In the case of the tunnel project, the Bench rejected L&T's plea, noting a 'suppression of material facts'. The HC said it had to be 'mindful' that the matter involved 'mega infrastructure projects of significant public importance', and 'any delay…would adversely impact the execution of the project'. The court gave L&T the opportunity to approach the Supreme Court in appeal. In Supreme Court L&T submitted before the SC that there was an arbitrary declaration of the L1 (Lowest one) bid for both projects to Hyderabad-based Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), even though its bid was at a substantially higher project cost compared to L&T's. L&T claimed that compared to MEIL, its price bid was almost Rs 2,521 crore less in case of the tunnel project, and Rs 609 crore less for the elevated road project. MMRDA argued that the question of price did not arise if the petitioner was disqualified. However, the Bench disagreed, and said it shall be considered in case of 'public interest matters' and 'public money would be saved'. On Thursday (May 29), the SC reiterated that the difference of nearly Rs 3,100 crore between the two bidders was 'not a small amount'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing MMRDA submitted that the disqualification was not on 'flimsy or fanciful grounds' and the authority would justify its decision and respond to the court's queries during the next hearing. The matter will come up for hearing on May 30.
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Bombay HC refuses relief to L&T in tender process for tunnel, elevated road projects connecting Thane with Mira-Bhayandar
The Bombay High Court Tuesday refused relief to Larsen & Toubro (L&T) in its pleas challenging the opening of financial bids for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects initiated by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). A vacation bench of Justices Kamal R Khata and Arif S Doctor passed a verdict on two pleas by L&T, which claimed that it had not received any intimation about the status of its bids, while the other bidders had received the same. In the case of a plea against the opening of financial bids for an elevated road, the HC refused to continue the stay on the opening of bids and said it was rejecting L&T's request for further stay. In the case of the tunnel project, the HC dismissed L&T's plea stating that it had approached the court with 'suppressed' material. The HC, however, said the price bids submitted electronically by L&T for both the projects should be preserved in a sealed cover for two weeks to enable it to approach the Supreme Court. The bench said the MMRDA shall communicate the decision related to the tender award as per the Instructions to Bidders (ITB). The two projects link Thane and Mira-Bhayandar through a tunnel from Gaimukh to Fountain Hotel junction at Shilphata, and an elevated creek road bridge will connect Bhayandar to Ghodbunder Road in Thane. MMRDA invited tenders for the project in July 2024, and on October 8, responding to a separate plea by L&T, the Authority had said that it would extend by 60 days the last date of submission of bids for the project. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas, representing L&T, informed the HC that the technical and financial bids were submitted on December 30, 2024, and MMRDA opened the technical bids on January 1 and were being evaluated, however, the petitioner firm had not received any communication related to the same. The firm said that without such information about the evaluation result, MMRDA had scheduled the opening of financial bids for the project on May 13. However, it said some other bidders had received an intimation about the opening of financial bids. Therefore, it approached the HC seeking an urgent stay on the same. The firm argued that if the financial bids were opened by excluding it, the same would be contrary to a fair and transparent tender process and against well-established legal norms or principles. L&T's bid unresponsive before opening financial bids: MMRDA Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi for MMRDA, however, argued that it was not required to intimate L&T that the firm's bid was found to be unresponsive before opening the financial bids. The Authority claimed that since the project was in public interest, it was entitled to open the financial bids and communicate the outcome of the technical evaluation without informing L&T. It added that of the five bidders, others were also found unresponsive for both projects at the technical stage and will be informed once the final bidder is selected. The firm termed it 'discriminatory and arbitrary' and against principles of natural justice. Earlier, on May 13, the court directed MMRDA not to open financial bids till it hears the plea. On May 15, while concluding the hearing and reserving its order, the bench extended the said arrangement till its decision on May 20.
