(1989)1989August 5 [STYLIANIDES.J.] IN THE MATTER 0ΓARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION EVGENIOUANDPIERIDESOVERSEAS LTD.. Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOF CYPRUS,THROUGHTHECOUNCILOF MINISTERSAND OTHERS, Respondents. (Case No. 37/83) Tenders — Non-compliance with anessential termof the invitation of tenders orthetenderdocuments—Rendersatenderinvalid. Theoutcomeof this recourse, wherebytheawardoftenders forthe supply and installation of Aviation Ground Lighting equipment at Paphos International Airport wasawarded tothe interestedparty, was whether on thetrue construction of the invitation for tenders and the tender documents thetenderoftheinterestedpartycontravened ornot an essential condition thereof. 5 10 TheCourtinterpreted thesaiddocumentsandreachedtheconclusion that the tenderofthe interestedparty was avalid one. Recoursedismissed. No order as to costs. 15 Casesreferredto: Medcon ConstructionsandOthers v. RepublicandOthers(I96S)3CL.R. 535, 20 Papadopouios v.Republic
(1985)3CL.R. 154, 908 3C.L.R. Evg. &Pier.Overs.Ltdv.Republic &Others J.& A. Phiiippouv.TheRepublic of Cyprus (19S9) 3CL.R. S
- K. &M. Transport&Co.Lid.andOihersv. F.tcna Fortigon Altokmnon (EFA)andOthers (19S7) 3CL.R.
- 5 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecision ottherespondentswherebythe tender for the supply and installation of Aviation Ground 10 Lighting (AGL) equipment at Paphos International Airport to the interested party. G.Triantafyllides. for the Applicants. 15 S. Georghiades.Senior counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents. STYLIANIDES.J.readthefollowingjudgment.Bymeansof this recourse theapplicantschallengethevalidityofthe decision 20 of the Respondents, whereby Tender 37/82 for the supply and installation of Aviation Ground Lighting (AGL) equipment at Paphos International Airport wasawarded to A.& B.TechnoElectrical Supplies Ltd.(the"Interested Party"). 25 30- Thesolegroundonwhichapplicantsrelyisthatthe successful tender was not valid, being contrary to clause 10 of "Instructions toTenderers",in that it was an alternative tender and no specified tender hadbeen submitted. The facts in brevity are:- TheDirector oftheDepartment ofElectrical and Mechanical Services (the "Department") invited tenders for the supply and installation of Aviation Ground Lighting (AGL) Equipment at 35 Paphos Airport. The invitation was published in the Official Gazette, Notification 1320,Gazette No. 1784of the 18th June. 1982,andthe local press. Fivetenderswerereceived attheoffices oftheTender Board 40 within the appointed time. The "Tender Documents" contained eight sections. 909 Stylianides,J. Evg.&Pier. Overs. Ltdv.Republic & Others
(1989)Paragraph 10ofSectionA-"InstructionstoTenderers"reads:"10.Alltenderersmustbasetheirquotationsonthespecified equipment,andmaysubmit inaddition tothetenderforthe works specified, an alternative tender incorporating a 5 different design or alternative materials and methods of manufacture. Suchalternativetendersmustbefully detailed and priced and full documentation indicating the exact manner in which the alternatives depart from the specification shallbesubmitted." .. 10 In Schedule No. 2: "Recommended Material. Items of Equipment"itisstated:"Thereferencehereintoparticularmanufacturers shallbe 15 read as an indication of type and quality only. Should tenderers propose alternative equipment in addition to the specified they shall enter in Schedule
- the type and manufacturer proposedforeachitemsubmittingatthesame timefull technical detailsoftheoffered equipment." 20 Belowfollows alistoftwenty itemsofequipment andthere isacolumn"Manufacturer andtype",wheremanufacturersand typesforeachitemarerecorded. 25 ScheduleNo.3: "Alternative Materials"reads:"The Tenderer shall enter below the manufacturer and typeof anyequipment offered asan alternative totheitem listedinScheduleNo.2." 30 Thetenderssubmittedbythefivefirmswereevaluatedbyan 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- 35 Hinds manufacturers", and, therefore, in his opinion none "specified tender"wassubmittedbytheinterestedparty. Inthe Appendix to his Report, listing prices,equipment andtimeof completion hewrote for theinterested-party:-i!NoOffer"V-He noted only the aforesaid paniculars. completion-time and 40 equipment used. 910 3 C.L.R. Evg. & Pier. Overs. Ltd v. Republic &Others Stylianides, J. 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 5 overall tender. A Technical Committee reported on the matter on 25th November, 1982, andconsidered thisas avalidtender. 10 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 theawardtothelowesttenderer-Messrs. CY.P.E.S.Co. 15 The Ministerial Committeemet on 15th December,
- 1 consider pertinent to quote theminutes of that meeting:20 "Αεροναυτιλιακός φωτισμός εδάφους (Aviation Ground Lighting) τουαεροδρομίου Πάφου. 30 Διεξήχθημακράσυζήτησηκαιανταλλαγήαπόψεωνπά νω στις εκθέσεις του Διευθυντή της Ηλεκτρομηχανολογιχής Υπηρεσίας, της Τεχνικής Επιτροπής και του Προέ δρου Συμβουλίου Προσφορών που πραγματεύονται το πιο πάνωθέμα. Στησυνέχεια έγινε μακράενημέρωση πά νωσετεχνικάθέματααπότουςτεχνικούςτηςΗλεκτρομη χανολογικής Υπηρεσίας, ζητήθηκανδιευκρινίσεις και δόθηκαν απαντήσειςσεόλαταερωτήματα που εγέρθηκαν. 35 Με βάση την γνωμάτευση της Νομικής Υπηρεσίας με αρ. Φακ. Γ.Ε. 50/39/18 ημερ. 14.12.82 αποφασίζεται να απορριφθείη προσφοράτωνκ.κ.CYPES γιατίείναιαντίθετήμετουςόρουςτων προσφορών. 25 40 Μετάαπό συζήτησηη Επιτροπή κατάληξεστο συμπέρα σμαότιηεπόμενηπροσφοράτωνκ.κ.Α.&Β.Technoelectrical Supplies πληοοίτιςτεχνικέςποοδιαγραφές. Συζητήθηκεεπίσηςπολύ εκτεταμένακατάπόσο ηπρο σφορά αυτήπρέπει να θεωρηθεί σαν διαζευκτικήκαινα 911 Stvlinnides, J. Evg. &Pier. Overs. Ltd v. Republic &Others
(1989)απορριφθεί γιατίδεν υποβλήθηκε επιπρόσθεταάλληςπρο σφοράς σύμφωνα με τον όρο V.10 των προσφορών. Μετά απόανταλλαγήαπόψεων αποφασίζεται αποδοχή της προσφοράς των κ.κ. Α. & Β. Technoelectricai Supplies 5 για το σύστημα ΡΑΡ1 στο συνολικό κόστος των £280,642.800 υπό τον όρο ότι η προσφορά των όεν είναι αντίθετη με τις οδηγίες προς τους προσφοροδότες V.10." Thereafter legal opinion was obtained from the Deputy 10 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". 15 The decision of the 15th December, 19S2. aforesaid, was implemented. It is well settled that non-compliance with an essential term of the Invitation of Tenders, or the Tender Documents renders 20 a tender invalid - (see, inter alia, Medcon Construction and Others v. Republic (Minister of Finance and Others)
(1968)3 CL.R. 535; Papadopoulos v. Republic
(1985)3 CL.R. 154; J.& A. Philippou v. The Republic of Cvprus (19S9)3CL.R. 829). 25 The Greek Council of State in Case No.531/49.
(1949), vol. 2, p. 13,said at p. 14:"Επειδήηδιακήρυξιςτωνπάσηςφύσεωςδημοσίουσυμ- 30 φέροντος δημοπρασιών, αποτελεί πράξιν κανονιστικού περιεχομένου, ηπαράβασιςτων όρων τηςοποίας, ιδίατιον εξ αυτοόν υπό χαρακτήρα ουσιώδη τεθειμένοτν, συνεπάγε ται ακυρότητατης δημοπρασίας,..." 35 In Case No.668/74,the same Greek Council of State said:"1. - Η όιακήρυξις της δημοπρασίας συνιστά το νομικόν αυτής πλαίσιον, δεσμεύουσα τόσον την επί του διαγωνι σμούδημοσίαναρχήνόσονκαιτουςδιαγωνιζομένους,ηδε 40 παράβασις των ουσιωδών διατάξεων της, ήτοι των αποβλεπουσών εις την ουσιώδη εξυπηρέτησιν του διάτηςδη912 3C.L.R. I>g &Pier. Overs. Ltd \. Republic &Others Stjliamdes, J. μοπρασίας επιδιωκομένουσκοπού,άγειεις ακυρότητατου αποτελεσίΐατος της δημοπρασίας και των σχετικών εγκρι τικών πράξεων " 5 10 In Case No 1S28/67 the Greek Council ol State said at p 20S2"Επειδή ηόιακηρυξιςδημοπρασίας είναι πράξις κανο νιστικού χαρακτηρος,κατ" α/ολουθιαν η παοαβσσις ουσιο')ύους όρου αυτήςσυνιστά παραβασιν νομού " In Κ, & Μ. Transport & Co. Ltd. and Others v. Eteria Fortigon Aftokiniton (EFA) and Others
(1987)3 CLR
- the Full Bench said at p 1943- 15 20 25 30 35 40 "The principle emerging irom the caselaw is that strict adherence totheterms of acondition ol thetender is directly dependent on the matenahtv of the term, a term is essential il consequential ior the decision or its observance is necessary tor the sustenance of the eiticacy of the administrative process" Learned counsel lor the applicants argued that the tender of the interested party is alternative and not specified, as it does noi comply wiih the requirement ol column 3 -"Manufacturer and type" of Schedule No 2 for Recommended Materials. He submitted that it is in accord with Schedule No
- which was "offered as an alternative to the items listed in Schedule No 2". He referred in support of this proposition to the Report ol 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 thetype andquality 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 913 Stylianides,J. Evg. & Pier.Overs. Ltd v.Republic & Others
(1989)The question posed has to be determined on the true construction oftheDocumentsofTender. Alltherelevant parts have to be read together. Section E: "Particular Specification" provides:- "300. This 5 specification shallbereadinconjunction withthe conditions of contract, General Specification, Tender Drawings, Appendices and Schedules included in these Tender Documentsfor thesupplyandinstallation oftheAGLsystem atPaphos International Airport." 10 "303 (
- i)This section of the specification covers the requirements forthefollowing AGLlightfitting (ref. drawing Nos. EMS/P-AIR/E-120, 121,122) 15 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 Intemational Civil 20 Aviation Organization (ICAO).Aerodromes Annex 14. The light fittings shall meet thePhotometric requirements shown in the tables 5.1 and 5.3 titled "Light Characteristics for Precision Approach Runways"and"Light Characteristics for Taxiwavs intendedforusewithRunwaysotherthan Precision 25 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 onlvcomplement the ICAO recommendations." 30 "303. (
- ii)This light fitting shall be a high intensity bidirectional runway edgelightfitting with an omnidirectional component for circling guidance and shall be offered with white/white andwhite/yellow colour filters as 35 A) elevated light fitting mounted on a base block and shall complywith the FAA L-862specification (AC 150/534548)" B) insetlightfitting suitableforashallowinsetbaseandshall 40 comply with the FAA L-850C specification (AC 150/5345-46)". 914 3 C.LJR. Evg. &Pier.Overs.Ltd v. Republic &Others Stylianides,J. 5 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"andclause 10of the"InstructionstoTenderers". The 10 „ 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 readas an indication of type and quality 15 only",therelevant pans of ParticularSpecification andthe fact that the tender of the interested party satisfied fully all the requirements of Section Εandthetype andquality required by Schedule No.2,1 have reachedtheconclusion thattheattacked tender doesnotcontravenetheprovision of paragraph 10ofthe 20 "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 25 Section Ε andis of thequality andtype of Schedule No.2, then it is not an alternative tender. The reasonable constructiontobe placed on Schedule No.2, having regard toits wording andthedocumentsthatfollow it,is 30 that it does not compel and does not require the tenderers to offer goods of a specific manufacturer, but equipment of the same quality andtype. Fortheforegoing, thisrecoursefails andis hereby dismissed. 35 No order as to costs. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 915