Sub: Deciding the level of Tender Committee

Sub: Deciding the level of Tender Committee = for Stores Tenders.

(A)

1. In terms of Board’s letter No.85/F(S)/1/PW/1 dated 28.2.90 the level of TC to consider the tendered offers will be decided based on the lowest acceptable offer as per the technical note (Para-V, Page-28, Rules for entering with Supply Contracts, April, 2000).

2. In terms of Board’s letter No.73/RS(G)/779/30 Pt.II d= ated 17.1.95 (Page-109, Rules for entering with Supply Contracts, April, 2000), Railways (RDSO/CLW/ICF etc) approved sources have following categories:-

(i) = Pt. II sources – where ordering quantity shall not be more than 15% of to= tal quantity.

(ii) Pt.I sources – also known as regular/approved sources, where ordering quan= tity up to 85% to 100% depending on circumstances.

3. Board’s or= der is silent as to whether lowest acceptable offer as per technical note will = be Part I source or Part II source to decide level of TC.

The undersigned is of view = that lowest technically acceptable offer has necessarily to be a Part I source since full procurement is possible from Part. I source only. In the true sense of the _expression technically acceptable lo= west offer mean a regular approved source, which has a proven capacity and capability for tender committee to award 100% of tendered quantity. Pt.II sources being development sources can and shoul= d not be considered as the lowest acceptable offer for deciding on the level of tender committee..

Comments/views are invited and sought from the officers particularly from those dealing with Stores Tenders.

(B)

1. Further, in term= s of Board’s letter No.85/F(S)1/PW-7/1 dated 19= .11.97 TC for stores purchases are constituted. For value of tender from Rs. 1 crore to 3 crores also known as HLTC-II level the constitution i= s as under: -

Tender Accepting Authority (TAA) = &nb= sp; SAG (Co-ord)

TC Members - &= nbsp; Stores -= &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; SAG

= &nb= sp; Cons= umer Department - = SAG &= nbsp;

= &nb= sp; Fina= nce - = ; &n= bsp; = ; SAG

In a hypothetical case with tendered quantity 1000 units the following offers are received

Sl No.=	Name of the fi= rm	Status	Value of offer=
I	Abacus Co.	Part II	Rs.200 lakh
Ii	Baccus Co	Part I	Rs.305 lakhs
Iii	Caacus Co.	Part I	Rs.310 lakh

2. Here a differenc= e of opinion has arisen about the level of TC.

(a) One school of thought = is of the view that that HLTC-II TC will deliberate the offer of M/s.Abacus, being less than Rs.300 lakh and give its recommendation which shall be within 15% of the total quantity i.e. for 150 units maximum at a total value of Rs.30 l= akh and thereafter will remit the case to HLTC-I whose power is for contracts f= rom Rs.3 crores to Rs.8 crores= . For further deliberation and disposal.

HLTC-II remits the case to HLTC-I on the analogy that it cannot discuss on offer wh= ose total tender value (Rate quoted into tendered quantity) is of more than Rs.= 300 lakh.

(b) Second school of thoug= ht is that in the instant case -

M/s.Abacus Co. will get 15% of tendered quantity at a t= otal cost of Rs.30 lakh.

Remaining 85% will go to –

M/s. Baccus Co. at a cost of Rs= . 259.25 being Part I, L-1

Total 289.25

Since Rs.289.25 is less than.300 lakh, TC will be HLTC-II and TAA = will be SAG (Co-ord)

3. &nb= sp; Undersigned agrees with the first school of thoughts. Any offer above Rs.300 lakhs cannot be discussed by HLTC-= II. As Tender value is the criteria and not the purchase /contracted value.

Second school of thought is about considering purchase value and not the tender value as a criterion to decide the= level of tender committee.

Here also views/remarks are invited from officers dealing with stores tender cases &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; = &nb= sp; Signed

Place: Chittaranjan &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; (B.N.Majumdar)

Dated: 30.03.2006 = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = FA&CAO/P = &nb= sp;