|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1989) 3A CLR 908
1989 August 5
[STYLIANIDES, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
EVGENIOU AND PIERIDES OVERSEAS LTD.,
Applicants,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE COUNCIL OF
MINISTERS AND OTHERS,
Respondents.
(Case No. 37/83)
Tenders - Non-compliance with an essential term of the invitation of tenders or the tender documents - Renders a tender invalid.
The outcome of this recourse, whereby the award of tenders for the supply and installation of Aviation Ground Lighting equipment at Paphos International Airport was awarded to the interested party, was whether on the true construction of the invitation for tenders and the tender documents the tender of the interested party contravened or not an essential condition thereof.
The Court interpreted the said documents and reached the conclusion that the tender of the interested party was a valid one.
Recourse dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Cases referred to:
Medcon Constructions and Others v. Republic and Others (1968) 3 C.L.R. 535.
Papadopoulos v. Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 154,
J.& A. Philippou v. The Republic of Cyprus (1989) 3 CL.R. 829,
K. & M. Transport & Co. Ltd. and Others v. EteriaFortigonAftokiniton (EFA) and Others (1987) 3 C.L.R. 1939.
Recourse.
Recourse against the decision of the respondents whereby the tender for the supply and installation of Aviation Ground Lighting (AGL) equipment at Paphos International Airport to the interested party.
G. Triantafyllides, for the Applicants.
S. Grorghiades, Senior counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.
STYLIANIDES, J. read the following judgment. By means of this recourse the applicants challenge the validity of the decision of the Respondents, whereby Tender 37/82 for the supply and installation of Aviation Ground Lighting (AGL) equipment at Paphos International Airport was awarded to A. & B. Techno-Electrical Supplies Ltd. (the "Interested Party").
The sole ground on which applicants rely is that the successful tender was not valid, being contrary to clause 10 of "Instructions to Tenderers", in that it was an alternative tender and no specified tender had been submitted.
The facts in brevity are:-
The Director of the Department of Electrical and Mechanical Services (the "Department") invited tenders for the supply and installation of Aviation Ground Lighting (AGL) Equipment at Paphos Airport. The invitation was published in the Official Gazette, Notification 1320, Gazette No. 1784 of the 18th June, 1982, and the local press.
Five tenders were received at the offices of the Tender Board within the appointed time.
The "Tender Documents" contained eight sections.
Paragraph 10 of Section A - "Instructions to. Tenderers" reads:-
"10 All tenderers must base their quotations on the specified equipment, and may submit in addition to the tender for the works specified, an alternative tender incorporating a different, design or alternative, materials and methods of manufacture. Such alternative tenders must be fully detailed and priced and full documentation indicating the exact manner in which the alternatives depart from the specification shall be submitted."
In Schedule No.2: "Recommended Material, Items of Equipment" it is stated:-
"The reference herein, to particular manufacturers shall be read as an indication of type and quality only. Should tenderers propose alternative equipment in addition to the specified they shall enter in Schedule 3, the type and manufacturer proposed for each item submitting at the same time full technical details of the offered equipment."
Below follows a list of twenty items of equipment and there is a column "Manufacturer and type", where manufacturers and types for each item are recorded.
Schedule No. 3: "Alternative Materials" reads:-
"The Tenderer shall enter below the manufacturer and. type of any equipment offered as an alternative to the item listed in Schedule No. 2."
The tenders submitted by the five firms were evaluated by an Officer of the Department, who in his Report, dated 12th August, 1982, described the tender of the interested party alternative, "as the equipment proposed were all of Crouse-Hinds manufacturers", and, therefore, in his opinion none "specified tender" was submitted by the interested party. In the Appendix to his Report, listing prices, equipment and time of completion he wrote for the interested-party: "No-offer". He noted only the aforesaid particulars, completion time and equipment used.
On 12th November, 1982, the Director of the Department submitted to the President Main Tender Board detailed views on the tenders. He not only considered the tender of the interested party as valid, but he recommended it as the best overall tender.
A Technical Committee reported on the matter on 25th November, 1982, and considered this as a valid tender.
The Tender Board considered these tenders on 27th November, 1982 and 4th December, 1982, and referred the matter to the Ministerial Committee for Tenders with its recommendation for the award to the lowest tenderer - Messrs. CY.P.E.S. Co.
The Ministerial Committee met on 15th December, 1982. I consider pertinent to quote the minutes of that meeting:-
"Αεροναυτιλιακός φωτισμός εδάφους (Aviation Ground Lighting) του αεροδρομίου Πάφου.
Διεξήχθη μακρά συζήτηση και ανταλλαγή απόψεων πάνω στις εκθέσεις του Διευθυντή της Ηλεκτρομηχανολογικής Υπηρεσίας, της Τεχνικής Επιτροπής και του Προέδρου Συμβουλίου Προσφορών που πραγματεύονται το πιο πάνω θέμα. Στη συνέχεια έγινε μακρά ενημέρωση πάνω σε τεχνικά θέματα από τους τεχνικούς της Ηλεκτρομηχανολογικής Υπηρεσίας, ζητήθηκαν διευκρινίσεις και δόθηκαν απαντήσεις σε όλα τα ερωτήματα που εγέρθηκαν.
Με βάση την γνωμάτευση της Νομικής Υπηρεσίας με αρ. Φακ. Γ.Ε. 50/39/18 ημερ. 14.12.82 αποφασίζεται να απορριφθεί η προσφορά των κ.κ. CYPES γιατί είναι αντίθετη με τους όρους των προσφορών.
Μετά από συζήτηση η Επιτροπή κατάληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι η επόμενη προσφορά των κ.κ. Α. & Β. Technoelectrical Supplies πληροί τις τεχνικές προδιαγραφές.
Συζητήθηκε επίσης πολύ εκτεταμένα κατά πόσο η προσφορά αυτή πρέπει να θεωρηθεί σαν διαζευκτική και να απορριφθεί γιατί δεν υποβλήθηκε επιπρόσθετα άλλης προσφοράς σύμφωνα με τον όρο V.10 των προσφορών.
Μετά από ανταλλαγή απόψεων αποφασίζεται αποδοχή της προσφοράς των κ.κ. Α. & Β. Technoelectrical Supplies για το σύστημα ΡΑΡΙ στο συνολικό κόστος των £280,642.800 υπό τον όρο ότι η προσφορά των δεν είναι αντίθετη με τις οδηγίες προς τους προσφοροδότες V.10."
Thereafter legal opinion was obtained from the Deputy Attorney-General and the tender of the interested party was found in accord with the Tender Documents as a specified tender and not contrary to clause 10 of the "Instructions to Tenderers".
The decision of the 15th December, 1982, aforesaid, was implemented.
It is well settled that non-compliance with an essential term of the Invitation of Tenders, or the Tender Documents renders a tender invalid - (see, inter alia, Medcon Construction and Others v. Republic (Minister of Finance and Others) (1968) 3 C.L.R. 535; Papadopoulos v. Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 154; J.& A. Philippou v. The Republic of Cyprus (1989) 3 C.L.R. 829).
The Greek Council of State in Case No. 53 1/49, (1949), vol. 2, p. 13, said at p. 14:-
"Επειδή διακήρυξις των πάσης φύσεως δημοσίου συμφέροντος δημοπρασιών, αποτελεί πράξιν κανονιστικού περιεχομένου, η παράβασις των όρων της οποίας, ιδία των εξ αυτών υπό χαρακτήρα ουσιώδη τεθειμένων, συνεπάγεται ακυρότητα της δημοπρασίας,..."
In Case No. 668/74, the same Greek Council of State said:-
"1. - Η διακήρυξις της δημοπρασίας συνιστά το νομικόν αυτής πλαίσιον, δεσμεύουσα τόσον την επί του διαγωνισμού δημοσίαν αρχήν όσον και τους διαγωνιζομένους, η δε παράβασις των ουσιωδών διατάξεων της, ήτοι των αποβλεπουσών εις την ουσιώδη εξυπηρέτησιν του διά της δημοπρασίας επιδιωκομένου σκοπού, άγει εις ακυρότητα του αποτελέσματος της δημοπρασίας και των σχετικών εγκριτικών πράξεων."
In Case No. 1828/67 the Greek Council of State said at p. 2082:-
"Επειδή η διακήρυξις δημοπρασίας είναι πράξις κανονιστικού χαρακτήρος, κατ' ακολουθίαν η παράβασις ουσιώδους όρου αυτής συνιστά παράβασιν νόμου."
In K. & M. Transport & Co. Ltd. and Others v. EteriaFortigonAftokiniton (EFA) and Others (1987) 3 C.L.R. 1939, the Full Bench said at p. 1943:-
"The principle emerging from the caselaw is that strict adherence to the terms of a condition of the tender is directly dependent on the materiality of the term; a term is essential if consequential for the decision or its observance is necessary for the sustenance of the efficacy of the administrative process."
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the tender of the interested party is alternative and not specified, as it does not comply with the requirement of column 3 - "Manufacturer and type" of Schedule No. 2 for Recommended Materials. He submitted that it is in accord with Schedule No. 3, which was "offered as an alternative to the items listed in Schedule No. 2". He referred in support of this proposition to the Report of the Officer of the Department of 12th August, 1982, referred to above.
Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the "Manufacturer and type" in Schedule No. 2 were, as expressly stated therein, only an indication of type and quality; that the equipment manufactured by Crouse-Hinds, offered by the interested party, is of the type and quality of Schedule No.2 and, therefore, the tender challenged was a specified and not an alternative one. In consequence, the term in clause 10 of the "Instructions to Tenderers" was not contravened. He referred to the Report of the Director of the Department of 12th November, 1982.
The question posed has to be determined on the true construction of the Documents of Tender. All the relevant parts have to be read together.
Section E: "Particular Specification" provides:- "300. This specification shall be read in. conjunction with the conditions of contract, General Specification, Tender Drawings, Appendices and Schedules included in these Tender Documents for the supply and installation of the AGL system at Paphos International Airport."
"303 (1) This section of the specification covers the requirements for the following AGL light fitting (ref. drawing Nos. EMS/P-ATRIE-120, 121, 122)
All AGL light fittings shall fully comply primarily with the requirements and recommendations for a Precision Approach Category I Runway as indicated in the Seventh Edition-June 1976 (latest if any) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Aerodromes Annex 14. The light fittings shall meet the Photometric requirements shown in the tables 5.1 and 5.3 titled "Light Characteristics for Precision Approach Runways" and "Light Characteristics for Taxiways intended for use with Runways other than Precision Approach Runways Category III" respectively of the above ICAO publication. Specifications offered by the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.) of British Standards (B.S.) shall only complement the ICAO recommendations."
"303. (ii) This light fitting shall be a high intensity bidirectional runway edge light fitting with an omnidirectional component for circling guidance and shall be offered with white/white and white/yellow colour filters as
A) elevated light fitting mounted on a base block and shall comply with the FAA L-862 specification (AC 150/5345- 48)"
B) inset light fitting suitable for a shallow inset base and shall comply with the FAA L-850C specification (AC 150/5345-46)".
In the following paragraphs it, is provided that all AGL fittings, the Constant Current Regulators (CCRs), Isolating transformers, mounting assemblies, etc. shall comply with the relevant FAA specification, which is expressed in various Advisory Circulars (A.C.).
I have already quoted the material part of Schedule No. 2: "Recommended Materials" and Schedule No. 3: "Alternative Materials" and clause 10 of the "Instructions to Tenderers". The aforesaid are the relative parts of the documentation.
Having regard to the wording of Schedule: No 2, and particularly the phrase that "the reference herein to particular manufacturers Shall be read as an indication of type and quality only", the relevant parts of Particular Specification and the fact that the tender of the interested party satisfied fully all the requirements of Section E and the type and quality required by Schedule No. 2, I have reached the conclusion that the attacked tender does not contravene the provision of paragraph 10 of the "Instructions to Tenderers". It is not a requirement of the Schedule, or of the Invitation of Tenders, or the Tender Documents for a. specified tender to offer- equipment -.of the particular manufacturers set out indicatively only in Schedule No. 2. If it satisfies the prerequisite of the Specification in Section E and is of the quality and type of Schedule No. 2, then it is not an alternative tender.
The reasonable construction to be placed on Schedule No.2, having regard to its wording and the documents that follow it, is that it does not compel and does not require the tenderers to offer goods of a specific manufacturer, but equipment of the same quality and type.
For the foregoing, this recourse fails and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Recourse dismissed. No order as
to costs.