CCI Closes Case Against Maharashtra PWD Over 2022-23 Rate Schedule Specifications Favouring Techfab

The Competition Commission of India has closed a case against the Maharashtra Public Works Department and Techfab India Infrastructure LLP, holding that no prima facie case of anti-competitive conduct was made out.

A coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, Member Sweta Kakkad and Member Deepak Anurag was considering an information filed by Rashi Anand Suri. She alleged that Maharashtra PWD's Schedule of Rates for 2022-23 contained specifications favouring Techfab and excluding competing manufacturers.

“The Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act is made out against OP-1 and OP-2 in the instant matter,” the commission held.

The Informant specifically challenged entries 1752 to 1778. She alleged that the technical descriptions detailed proprietary characteristics and configurations of Techfab's products and, in some cases, specifically named the company.

According to her, these brand-specific requirements meant that other manufacturers were excluded even before the bidding process began.

She alleged that the specifications restricted market access and eliminated competition. She also alleged that Techfab was using its alleged dominant position to secure exclusive access to public contracts.

The Informant sought a probe by the Director General, removal of the allegedly anti-competitive specifications and other directions, including penalties.

The commission noted that no particular tender had been identified in which bids were invited, evaluated or awarded pursuant to the disputed entries in the Schedule of Rates.

“There is no material placed on record demonstrating that any particular tender was issued pursuant to the impugned entries in SoR wherein contract was awarded in a manner resulting in appreciable adverse effect on competition,” it observed.

On the bid-rigging allegation, the commission found no material showing any agreement, arrangement or concerted practice between Maharashtra PWD and Techfab or among the bidders.

It also observed that technical specifications, eligibility conditions, and procurement requirements primarily fall within the domain of the procuring entity. The procurer is generally best placed to determine what meets its requirements, subject to applicable laws and regulations.

The commission found no material showing an exclusive arrangement, refusal to deal or any other vertical restraint between Maharashtra PWD and Techfab.

It also found that the informant had not provided evidence establishing Techfab's dominance or any abuse of that dominance in a specific relevant market.

The commission accordingly closed the Information under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.