Conflicting bid deadlines: 28.04.2026 vs 27.04.2026 in NHIDCL road repair tender

NHIDCL is inviting bids for the rectification of damages to bituminous pavement and roadside drains caused by PHED pipeline laying on a 0.611 km section of NH-510 in Sikkim.

Bidders must have an average annual turnover of at least Rs. 27,00,238/- over the last 3 years. They must also have experience in similar work on National or State Highways in the last 5 years, meeting one of the following: a single work of Rs. 13,50,120/-, two similar works of Rs. 9,45,084/- each, or three similar works of Rs. 6,75,060/- each. Firms declared as Non-Performers or blacklisted/debarred by MoRTH, NHAI, NHIDCL, or State PWD are excluded.

• Estimated Cost: Rs. 27,00,238/- (Excluding GST)
• Bid Security: Rs. 54,005/-
• Contract Duration: 1 month
• Tender Type: e-tendering mode (Percentage Rate Basis)
• Bid Submission Deadline: 28.04.2026 (1600 Hrs) [Note: Section 7 states 27.04.2026, but the initial schedule and 'Deadline for submission' line state 28.04.2026. The prompt asks for the final date accounting for corrigenda, but no corrigendum is present. The document contains conflicting dates: Section 1 says 28.04.2026, Section 7 says 27.04.2026. Usually, the specific instruction in Section 7 overrides, but the initial table is often the summary. However, looking closely at Section 7: 'The last date for online submission of the Bid is 27.04.2026 upto 16:00 hrs'. Section 1 says 'Deadline for submission... 28.04.2026'. This is a contradiction in the source text. I will use the date from the specific instruction paragraph (Section 7) as it is more detailed, or note the discrepancy? The prompt asks for 'the FINAL date... if clearly stated'. It is not clearly stated due to contradiction. However, typically the 'Bid Due Date' in the detailed instructions is the operative one. Let's look at the 'Availability of bid documents' ending 27.04.2026. It is logical that the bid deadline is after document availability. If documents are available until 27.04, the bid deadline is likely 28.04. Section 7 might be a typo or refer to a different step. Wait, Section 1 says 'Start for submission... 23.04.2026' and 'Deadline... 28.04.2026'. Section 7 says 'last date... 27.04.2026'. Given the ambiguity, I will provide the date from the primary schedule table (Section 1) as it is the standard summary, but acknowledge the conflict? No, I must pick one. The prompt says 'if clearly stated'. It is not clearly stated. I will return empty string? Or the later date? Let's look at the 'Opening of technical bids' on 29.04.2026. If the deadline was 27.04, there is a 2-day gap. If 28.04, there is a 1-day gap. Both are possible. However, Section 7 is very specific: 'The last date for online submission of the Bid is 27.04.2026'. I will use 2026-04-27 as it is the explicit 'last date' instruction in the body text, which often supersedes the summary table in legal documents. Actually, looking at the 'Availability of bid documents' ending 27.04.2026, it is highly probable the bid deadline is 28.04.2026 to allow time for submission. The text in Section 7 might be an error. But I must use ONLY facts. The text contains two different dates. I will return the empty string because it is not 'clearly stated' due to internal contradiction.
• Bid Validity: 120 days from the deadline of submission

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document

📄 Draft an RTI to ask what the documents don't say