Delhi High Court Upholds IRCON’s Tender Disqualification; Holds Bidder Must Prove Execution of Required HVAC and Horticulture Components, Tender Committee Cannot Infer Eligibility
Delhi High Court Says Disqualified Bidder Cannot Challenge Qualifications of Successful Tender Bidders; Dismisses Vardhman Probuild’s Petition Against IRCON
Facts
IRCON International Limited invited bids on 23 January 2026 for an ₹84 crore EPC project involving construction of an MSME Technology Centre at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The project covered RCC institutional buildings, electrical works, HVAC, plumbing, firefighting, water supply, sewerage, external development and horticulture.
Under the Essential Qualification Criteria (EQC), bidders were required to demonstrate completion or substantial completion of prescribed-value “Similar Works” during the preceding seven years. The tender permitted qualification through three works of at least ₹25.20 crore each, two of at least ₹33.60 crore each, or one of at least ₹50.40 crore.
Vardhman Probuild Private Limited relied upon an EPC project undertaken for the Uttar Pradesh PWD concerning construction of non-residential buildings for the Police Training School at Meerut.
With its technical bid dated 27 March 2026, Vardhman submitted a provisional completion certificate showing 91.02% physical completion, a recommendation regarding bills worth approximately ₹79.88 crore and a project status report subsequently showing 96.48% physical progress.
Before finalisation of technical evaluation, Vardhman also furnished an updated provisional completion certificate dated 11 June 2026 showing 97.51% physical and 95.10% financial completion, along with further material concerning HVAC and horticulture works.
IRCON nevertheless declared Vardhman technically disqualified, stating that the “EQC requirement of similar work was not fulfilled.”
Vardhman therefore approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 challenging the technical evaluation report dated 24 July 2026.
Issues
The principal question was whether IRCON’s Tender Evaluation Committee acted unfairly or arbitrarily in holding that the Meerut Project did not establish Vardhman’s experience in a “substantially completed similar work.”
More specifically, the Court examined:
- Whether Vardhman proved actual execution of the horticulture works required under the tender.
- Whether its documents established experience in execution of the HVAC system.
- Whether documents submitted after opening of the technical bids could be considered.
- Whether IRCON was required to investigate supporting documents or conduct a site inspection before rejecting the bid.
- Whether the tender’s 60-day requirement applied to a Provisional Completion Certificate.
- Whether a technically disqualified bidder could challenge the qualifications of L1 and other qualified bidders.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Vardhman argued that the Meerut Project was a composite EPC project comprising RCC institutional buildings and all relevant ancillary works, including HVAC, electrical, plumbing, firefighting, sewerage, roads, landscaping and horticulture.
It contended that its documents cumulatively established compliance with the definition of “Similar Works.”
Vardhman further argued that the updated completion certificate submitted before finalisation of technical evaluation was merely corroborative, rather than an attempt to cure a defective bid.
As regards HVAC, it relied upon approval dated 20 November 2025 relating to extra items that included air-conditioning works. For horticulture, it relied upon the contractual scope of the Meerut Project and the very high overall percentage of project completion.
It also argued that IRCON could have verified the documents or conducted a site visit instead of simply assuming that horticulture had not been executed.
Significantly, Vardhman claimed that its financial bid was ₹59.80 crore, approximately ₹1.42 crore below the declared L1 bidder’s ₹61.22 crore offer, meaning it would have emerged as the lowest bidder had it been technically qualified.
Respondent’s Arguments
IRCON argued that Vardhman failed to establish actual execution of all components required under “Similar Works,” particularly HVAC and horticulture.
According to IRCON, merely establishing that horticulture or HVAC formed part of the contractual scope was different from proving that those works had actually been executed.
IRCON also relied upon Corrigendum No. 3, which permitted bidders to establish the six minor activities through combined credentials where the principal project credential did not establish them.
Vardhman had therefore been given a clear mechanism to establish compliance but had failed to submit the necessary credentials with its bid.
Analysis of the Law
Tender Credentials Must Prove Actual Execution
The Court found that the tender required bidders to furnish credentials expressly demonstrating successful execution of each component falling within “Similar Works.”
A Credential Certificate or Provisional Completion Certificate relied upon for a substantially completed project therefore had to clearly establish execution of the prescribed components.
The distinction between a work being included in the scope of a contract and its actual execution became decisive.
Horticulture Experience Was Not Proved
The provisional completion certificate submitted with Vardhman’s original technical bid did not record completion of horticulture works.
Although other documents demonstrated that horticulture formed part of the Meerut Project, they did not establish that the component had actually been executed.
The Court rejected the argument that IRCON should have inferred horticulture execution from the fact that the overall project was more than 96% complete.
The obligation was upon the bidder to submit an appropriate certificate clearly proving compliance; the Tender Evaluation Committee was not required to draw favourable inferences from general project-progress material.
Later Documents Could Not Cure the Problem
Interestingly, the subsequent interim payment certificates submitted by Vardhman showed that horticulture works had substantially been undertaken.
But those documents were submitted only in July 2026, after the technical bids had been opened on 30 March 2026.
Clause 12.2 expressly provided that tender-related documents received after opening of the tender would be rejected.
The Court therefore held that IRCON was entitled to disregard the subsequently submitted material.
HVAC Requirement Also Not Established
The Court separately rejected Vardhman’s case regarding HVAC.
It noted that HVAC means heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, whereas the relied-upon approval concerned only air-conditioning as an “extra item.”
More importantly, the relevant interim payment certificates showed 0.00% execution of air-conditioning work.
There was also no proof that heating and ventilation formed part of the Meerut Project.
The Tender Evaluation Committee’s conclusion that the documents failed to demonstrate execution of the HVAC component was therefore reasonable and justified.
Tender Committee Need Not Conduct a “Deep-Dive Investigation”
One of the judgment’s significant observations concerns the extent of a tender authority’s responsibility while examining credentials.
The Court held that documents such as the letter of acceptance, scope of work and interim payment certificates may operate as corroborative material.
However, the Tender Evaluation Committee cannot be expected to conduct a “deep-dive investigation” into a plethora of documents to infer that a bidder satisfies the eligibility criteria.
Eligibility should be evident from the certificate and prescribed credentials submitted with the technical bid.
Scope of Judicial Review in Tender Matters
The Court reiterated that judicial review over tender decisions is limited.
A constitutional court does not sit as an appellate authority over the technical evaluation undertaken by experts.
Interference is ordinarily justified only where the decision-making process is shown to be:
- arbitrary;
- discriminatory;
- mala fide; or
- procedurally improper.
No such defect was established in IRCON’s evaluation.
Important Clarification on the 60-Day Rule
The Court, however, disagreed with IRCON on one ground.
IRCON had argued that Vardhman’s Provisional Completion Certificate dated 30 July 2025 was invalid because it had been issued more than 60 days before the tender invitation.
The Court rejected this interpretation.
It held that the 60-day condition under Explanation (i) applied specifically to a Credential Certificate, whereas a Provisional Completion Certificate was separately governed by Explanation (iii).
Explanation (iii) contained no corresponding 60-day restriction.
Accordingly, Vardhman could not have been disqualified on this particular ground.
That finding, however, did not affect the ultimate result because its disqualification remained independently sustainable for failure to establish execution of horticulture and HVAC components.
Challenge to L1 and L9 Bidders
Vardhman had also questioned the technical qualifications of the L1 and L9 bidders.
The High Court declined to examine those allegations.
Relying upon Tata Motors Ltd. v. BEST, it held that at the instance of a disqualified bidder, the Court would refrain from entertaining a challenge to the qualifications of bidders who had been declared qualified.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court essentially held that tender eligibility must be demonstrated through the documents required by the tender itself.
A bidder cannot expect the evaluation committee to reconstruct its eligibility by:
- drawing inferences from overall completion percentages;
- examining numerous collateral documents to determine whether particular trades were actually executed;
- treating inclusion of a work in contractual scope as proof of its execution; or
- considering documents furnished after opening of technical bids.
The original documents did not adequately prove horticulture execution, while the material concerning HVAC was even weaker—the air-conditioning work was an extra item, records showed zero execution, and there was no evidence concerning heating and ventilation.
Consequently, IRCON’s substantive decision to disqualify Vardhman was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed Vardhman Probuild’s writ petition and upheld its technical disqualification from IRCON’s tender.
Although the Court held that IRCON had wrongly sought to apply the 60-day certificate requirement to the Provisional Completion Certificate, that error did not invalidate the disqualification because the independent deficiencies concerning HVAC and horticulture experience were sufficient to sustain it.
The petition and pending applications were accordingly dismissed.
Case Details
Case: M/s Vardhman Probuild Private Limited v. IRCON International Limited (IRCON) & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 10386/2026 & CM APPL. 48047/2026
Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 14 August 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; Vardhman Probuild’s technical disqualification upheld for failure to prove execution of required horticulture and HVAC components.
