Jammu, Oct 17 (KNS): The tendering process for the construction of the Rs 113.42-crore PM Unity (Ekta) Mall at the Railhead Complex in Jammu has come under scrutiny after disqualified bidders alleged irregularities in the technical evaluation and questioned the opening of financial bids despite a reported court stay.

The tender was floated by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads and Buildings), Jammu Zone, under e-NIT No. 16 of 2026-27 dated August 18, 2026.

According to the aggrieved bidders, seven firms participated in the bidding process, including four companies from Jammu and Kashmir and three from outside the Union Territory, including Chhattisgarh and Gurugram.

They alleged that only one local firm qualified in the technical evaluation, while the remaining local bidders were disqualified on grounds they termed unjustified.

The complainants claimed that certain deficiencies in documents could have been addressed through clarifications or submission of additional documents, wherever permitted under the tender conditions, instead of disqualifying the firms.

They also alleged that the department had not provided bidders the same opportunity to rectify deficiencies that they claimed was available in other tendering processes.

The bidders said the disqualifications had reduced competition for the major public works contract and called for the technical evaluation to be examined to determine whether the tender conditions had been applied uniformly.Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel

The matter subsequently reached the court, with three aggrieved bidders reportedly filing a writ petition. According to the complainants, the opening of financial bids, scheduled for October 10, was stayed by the court.

However, they alleged that the financial bids were opened on October 15 despite the stay, raising questions about the handling of the tender process.

The bidders further claimed that the lowest financial offer was around three per cent below the estimated project cost, while the disqualified firms had quoted rates more than 20 per cent below the estimate.

They argued that their exclusion had prevented their financial offers from being considered and sought scrutiny of the evaluation process.

The complainants also questioned the department’s response to their objections, alleging that their concerns had not been adequately addressed and that they were not given sufficient time to pursue further legal remedies.

They maintained that deficiencies in affidavits and other documents should have been dealt with through clarifications wherever permissible under the applicable procurement rules.

The allegations have raised questions over the technical evaluation and subsequent opening of financial bids for the project. The claims could not be independently verified from the information available, and the department’s response to the allegations was not available at the time of filing this report. (KNS)