Jammu, Oct 16: Allegations of procedural irregularities and restricted competition have surfaced in the tendering process for the construction of the PM Unity (Ekta) Mall at the Railhead Complex in Jammu, a project estimated to cost Rs 113.42 Cr.
The tender, floated by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Jammu Zone, under e-NIT No. 16 of 2026-27 dated August 18, 2026, has come under scrutiny after aggrieved bidders questioned their disqualification during the technical evaluation stage.
According to the bidders, four local companies from Jammu and Kashmir participated in the tendering process, alongside three firms from outside the Union Territory, including companies from Chhattisgarh and Gurugram.
The complainants alleged that only one local bidder was declared technically qualified, while the remaining local participants were disqualified on grounds they described as unjustified and unrelated to the financial implications of the project.
They claimed that the department could have sought clarifications or supplementary documents to address minor deficiencies, wherever permissible under the applicable tender conditions, instead of disqualifying the bidders.
They also alleged that opportunities to submit non-essential documents, which they claimed were available in other tendering processes, were not extended in this case.
The aggrieved bidders said the disqualifications had narrowed competition and raised concerns about transparency and fairness in the award of a major public works contract. They called for the technical evaluation process to be examined to establish whether the prescribed tender conditions had been applied uniformly to all participants.
The dispute escalated after three aggrieved bidders reportedly approached the court through a writ petition. The opening of financial bids, scheduled for October 10, was stated to have been stayed by the court.
However, the complainants alleged that the financial bids were subsequently opened on October 15, despite the pending dispute. They claimed that the lowest bid was around three per cent below the estimated cost of the project.
According to the bidders, the disqualified participants had quoted rates more than 20 per cent below the estimated cost. They argued that their exclusion had prevented their financial offers from being considered, potentially affecting competition in the tendering process.
The complainants also questioned the department’s response to their objections, alleging that it did not adequately address their concerns and that the financial bids were opened without allowing them sufficient time to seek further legal recourse.
They further raised concerns regarding adherence to transparency and vigilance principles in public procurement, arguing that minor deficiencies in affidavits and other documents should, wherever permitted under applicable rules, be addressed through clarifications rather than outright disqualification.
