Rule 173 of the GFR requires that the bidding document should contain, amongst other things, the criteria for eligibility and qualifications to be met by the bidders such as minimum level of experience, past performance, technical capability, manufacturing facilities and financial position, etc. 

Rule 173 of the GFR further provides that the bids received should be evaluated in terms of the conditions already incorporated in the bidding documents. No new condition which was not incorporated in the bidding documents should be brought in for evaluation of the bids. Determination of a bid's compliance should be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. 

Rules 173 of the GFR prescribes that the contract should ordinarily be awarded to the lowest evaluated bidder whose bid has been found to be responsive and who is eligible and qualified to perform the contract satisfactorily as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the corresponding bidding document.

Rule 163 also allows for a two-bid system for purchasing high value plant, machinery etc. of a complex and technical nature: 

1. Technical bid consisting of all technical details along with commercial terms and conditions; and 
2. Financial bid indicating item-wise price for the items mentioned in the technical bid. 

In the first instance, the technical bids are to be opened by the purchasing Ministry or Department and evaluated by a competent committee or authority. Thereafter, the financial bids of only the technically acceptable offers are opened for further evaluation and ranking before awarding the contract. 

Rule 164 of the GFR lays down that Ministry/Department may procure the subject matter of procurement by the method of two-stage bidding, if: 

1. It is not feasible to formulate detailed specifications or identify specific characteristics for the subject matter of procurement, without receiving inputs regarding its technical aspects from bidders; or
2. The character of the subject matter of procurement is subject to rapid technological advances or market fluctuations or both; or 
3. Ministry/Department seeks to enter into a contract for the purpose of research, experiment, study or development, except where the contract includes the production of items in quantities sufficient to establish their commercial viability or to recover research and development costs; or
4. The bidder is expected to carry out a detailed survey or investigation and undertake a comprehensive assessment of risks, costs and obligations associated with the particular procurement. 

Rule 164 prescribes that the procedure for two-stage bidding shall include the following: 

1. In the first stage of the bidding process, the Ministry/Department shall invite bids through advertised tender containing the technical aspects and contractual terms and conditions of the proposed procurement without a bid price; 
2. All first stage bids, which are otherwise eligible, shall be evaluated though an appropriate committee constituted by the Ministry/ Department; 
3. The committee may hold discussions with the bidders and if any such discussion is held, equal opportunity shall be given to all bidders to participate in the discussions; 
4. In revising the relevant terms and conditions of the procurement, the procuring entity shall not modify the fundamental nature of the procurement itself, but may add, amend or omit any specification of the subject matter of procurement or criterion for evaluation; 
5. In the second stage of the bidding process, the procuring entity shall invite bids from all those bidders whose bids at the first stage were not rejected, to present final bid with bid prices in response to a revised set of terms and conditions of the procurement.

In the matter of Patel Engineering Limited vs. Union of India and Anr., (2012) 11 SCC 257, the Supreme Court observed that the State or its instrumentalities can decline to enter into a contractual relationship with a person or a class of persons on account of the undesirability thereof – the decision is called blacklisting. The only legal limitation upon the exercise of such an authority is that State is to act fairly and rationally without in any way being arbitrary – such a decision can be taken for some legitimate purpose. What is the legitimate purpose that is sought to be achieved by the State in a given case can vary depending upon various factors. 

In the matter of Raghunath Thankur vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (1989) 1 SCC 229, the Supreme Court of India observed that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned. Therefore, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order of blacklisting should have right of being heard and make representations against such order. 

Further, in the matter of Kulja Industries Ltd. vs. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731, the Supreme Court of India has held that any blacklisting cannot be permanent – the period thereof invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed.

While the GFR does not specifically address this issue, Bidders may be debarred if they contravene the code of integrity set out in Rule 175 of the GFR. The code of integrity, inter alia, prohibits any conflict of interest.

The GFR is silent on this issue. However, it is common practice for bidders to form consortia for the purposes of a particular procurement.

The GFR are silent on this issue. However, it is not uncommon for bidding documents to permit a change in the membership of a consortium subject to certain conditions which may, inter alia, include prior approval of the procuring entity.

While the GFR does not specifically address this issue, bidders may be debarred if they contravene the code of integrity set out in Rule 175 of the GFR. The code of integrity, inter alia, prohibits any conflict of interest. 

In this regard, it is noteworthy that the High Court of Delhi has, in the matter of Shapoorji Pallonji Roads Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., 207(2014) DLT 385, held that conflict of interest provisions ensure that the competitive bidding inter se is not subverted or diluted by associations or relationship being formed between bidders which could affect their decision during the participation in the competitive bidding process.

The GFR do not stipulate any special regulation or special requirements for a foreign company to particulate in a procurement procedure.