iii. Alternatively, that the entire procurement proceedings herein, be annulled and the procuring entity be ordered to re-tender for the procurement afresh in full compliance with the law. iv. Olive Telecommunications PVT Limited, be debarred from participating in any re-evaluation or re-tender relating to this procurement. v. The Procuring Entity be ordered to pay the costs of this Administrative Review. d. The prayers sought are different and competing. It defeats logic for the Board to allow both applications, seeking different prayers which cannot co-exist, as granted. 6. The Board acted unreasonably in finding that the Applicant did not meet the experience criteria required under the Tender document. a. The Board did not consider any of the information submitted by the consortium partners. b. All the information regarding the consortium partners was contained in the Applicant’s Bid Document which was before the Board. c. Instead, the Board erred in calculating the length of experience of the applicant using the date of the ISO certificate. d. If the board had considered the information regarding the experience of the consortium, it would have found that the Applicant met and surpassed the experience criteria. 7. The Board made an error of fact and of law in failing to distinguish between value added services and additional services. a. In particular, the Board failed to consider that other bidders had all made quotes for additional services. b. The Board, in treating the additional services quote made by the Applicant as unjustifiable, yet additional services had been offered and quoted for by the other qualified bidders, treated the Applicant in a way that was discriminatory and showed bias. c. The Board also failed to consider that provision of additional services was an integral part of the competitive negotiation stage. d. The Board failed to consider that being a part of this stage, it was a lawful process in which all qualified bidders participated, that none of them objected to it and that because it was a legally sanctioned specially permitted procedure, it was not liable to challenge under the review process under the law. 8. The Board took into account irrelevant considerations in deciding whether the Applicant was an OEM; a. The principal complaint before the Board was that the Applicant was not an OEM. b. In finding that the Applicant was not an OEM, the Board relied upon a definition that was not offered by the Procuring Entity, whereas the Board had stated that the ‘best way of determining this matter is by ascertaining whether the procuring entity had attempted to set out any definition of what an OEM is in any of its documents’. c. The Board then disregarded the definition it found in the Procuring Entity’s documents, under which the Applicant qualified as an OEM, and instead reverted to a definition given by the 2ndApplicant, which definition was not even contained in the Request for Review. d. The Board in any event did not have any definition under which the requirement of a factory was a necessary pre-requisite to being an OEM, yet insisted that a factory was a necessity nevertheless.