Clarification on RFP for Technical Feasibility and Financial Viability of the project “Appointment of Technical Consultant for a Feasibility Study of Pinjore to Nalagarh NH-21A Project” RFP No. NHD-1 /2008-09

Sr.N / Clause and Description as in RFP / Clarification Sought / Reply by the department
1.  1 / 2.2.2 (D) – Length of professional experience and experience on eligible assignments.
Kindly clarify “Length of professional experience” does this mean no of years after graduation in the respective disciplines
Remarks:- Can it be read as Relevant professional Experience / Please also refer to Para 7 of page 62
2.  2 / 2.2.2 (D) The experience on eligible assignments for environmental expert says” worked as a sole expert for two eligible assignments”
a)Kindly clarify the stature of the Client for the sole expert e.g. Owner, Consultant, contractor, sub-Consultant, Sub-Contractor or local village bodies.
b)Similarly clarify the educational qualification of Financial Analyst. / a)Please refer to Para 3.14 of Request for proposal Page 29
b)Please refer to Para 2.2.2 (D) of request for proposal.
3.  3 / Secondary data collection requirements.
Abstract of Pavement layers Existing.
Mainly whether Bituminous type i.e. Pre mix Carpet or bituminous concrete.
State Highway Major District road, village road or missing link.
If Constructed than is it under PMGSY or by State PWD funding Available bituminous carriageway width.
Any previous reports. / The data sought for in clarification is to be collected during feasibility study by the consultant
4.  4 / 3.1.1 & 3.1.3- In the first stage, the Technical proposal will be evaluated on the basis of applicant’s experience its understanding of the TOR proposed methodology and work plan and the experience of Key personnel.
Criteria for Evaluation
Evaluation is also based on understanding of the TOR, but no marks have been allocated under this parameter ( 3 .1.3 ) / Please also refer to Appendix-I form 7 at page 138
5.  5 / 3.1.3,3 (a to b ) the criteria gives a understanding that a graduates total ten years relevant experience should have been the team leader for two eligible assignments ( as per 2.2.2 (d) )
a)But at 3.1.3 (a) it does not specify the no of min. eligible assignments
b) What will be the marks for fulfilling the requirement of min two eligible assignments. / a) Please also refer to the Para 2.2.1 of request of proposal for conditions of eligibility
b) Please also refer to Para 3.13 ( last paragraph)
6.  6 / Eligible Assignments : clause 3.1.4 (i) and (ii)
Please clarify :
a)The Percentage above construction cost to arrive at the Capital cost
b)Refer clause 3.1.4 . Does the eligibility criteria mean feasibility studies and construction supervision of Highway Project / a) As per para 3.1.4 (i) & (ii) it is estimated capital cost ( excluding land)
b) Please refer to first paragraphs of Para 3.1.4
7.  7 / 3.2.1 S No. 1.0 Classified Traffic Volume ……. And one station for every 20 Km of project highway.
Terms of Reference.
The exact location will be decided based on homogeneous sections in terms of land use which will be determined at the time of inception report. This includes refining all the engineering and traffic surveys in the inception Report. / Please also refer to clause 4A, Inception report.
8.  8 / 3.2.3 ( B) The Consultant shall also provide sensitivity analysis due to change in assumption of traffic projection.
a)Sensitivity analysis shall be provided as parameter given in HDM IV-A World Bank recognized economic analysis software.
b)Please clarify if marks will be deducted if the sensitivity analysis is not proposed to be done by HDM-IV / a) Sensitivity analysis shall be as per latest HDM-IV or equivalent software conforming to best international practice
b) Scoring criteria shall be as per Para 3.1.3 of request for proposal Page-28
9.  9 / 3.3.2 (A) Divide the project highway as per terrain classification.
The project highway is divided primary on homogeneous sections of sub- grade & soil properties as pavement design will be based on that. / No change in para 3.3.2 (A) of TOR
10.  10 / 3.3.2 ( D) Identify stretches which require raising.
Raising of embankment will be decided on a decision based on streamlining the flooding water in the drainage works and the adjacent land use and comparative cost evaluation / No change .
11.  11 / 3.3.2 (e) – (1) Identify stretches which do not meet the criteria for ruling design speed.
Kindly specify the Design Parameters of the ruling design speed in Km/ Hrs / Please also refer to para 1.2 of the Terms of Reference.
12.  12 / The Alignment and routes are identified by the Client.
Kindly clarify if the Consultant has to do a route Viability also. / Please also refer to Para 4 A & 4 B of TOR
13.  13 / Sub-Consultants form 15
The Table gives the eligibility required “Value of service performed”
a)Please clarify the quantification of the value of services in turnover in rupees.
b) Similarly the legal riders in terms of award of arbitration cases or penalty by a regulatory body as applicable to the Consulting Firm is also applicable to the Sub- Consulting Firm. / a) The clause 1.7.1 shall be referred. Page-3
b) Please refer to Para 2.14.7 and 2..24.3 of the request for proposal
14.  14 / It is noted that the project Highway has a very large number of Major and Minor bridges. We feel that a hydrologist must be added to the list of Key Personnel . / Please also refer to the Para 7 of the Terms of Reference.
15.  15 / The RFP document does not indicate any age bar for the key professionals . This may kindly be confirmed . / Please refer addendum/ Corrigendum item No. 6
16.  16 / Can be get an indicative borehole depth to enable bidders for quoting on uniform basis / Please refer to para 3.3.6 ( d ) of Schedule-I TOR
17.  17 / The in put requirements for key personnel are not provided. The same may kindly be specified to enable the bidders to quote uniformly . / Please refer Para 2.1.4 of instruction to applicants for key personnel at project site. The man days of personnel away from project site are to be specified in Appendix-I Form-13
18.  18 / Appendix –II financial proposal Page 152. Item C indicated requirement of key persons for 2 days each . Is it sufficient May kindly review this aspect . Also no formats are provided for working out other costs which may please be provided. / Please refer Note Sr.No. 10 of item C regarding post report Consultations and Note 2 for working out other cost.
19.  19 / Para 2.20.1 indicates that Bid security shall be returnable not later than 30 days from the PDD whereas the validity of proposals is required 90 days from the PDD. This seems to be mis- match . Client may review it. / Please refer to corrigendum/addendum item No. 2
20.  20 / Para 2.14.6 page 18 indicates that CVs of all professional staff are to be submitted. Does it mean all sub –professional staff are also be included May be clarified please. / As per Para 2.14.6, “other competent and experienced professional personnel in the relevant area of expertise must be added as required for successful completion of this Consultancy” . Also refer Para-7 Schedule 1: of TOR at page 62 .
21.  21 / There is no provision for Social Expert & Materials Engineer Client may please review. / Please refer to clause 7 Consultancy Team in Schedule 1 : Terms of reference , page 62
22.  22 / Will client consider Transport Economist instead of Financial analyst as in other projects. / No change.
23.  23 / The Client may allow minimum 15 days time for submission of proposal from the date the clarifications to queries are up loaded on the wed site / provided to be bidders. / Please refer to Corrigendum / addendum .
24.  24 / An index map of the project Highway which is normally included in such type of RFP is missing kindly supply it. / Index map is as per item No. 5 addendum/ corrigendum
25.  25 / Some portion of the project road from Pinjore side falls in the State of Haryana. A nodal officer in Haryana may be designated for helping in preparation of land plan including existing ROW and the proposed additional land required in Haryana territory. / Pleased refer clause 1.10.2 of schedule -2 form of Agreement. Page-81
26.  26 / The basis of adopting unit rate for preparing cost estimate is not defined . Generally , it is on the basis of MORT&H Data book with the prevalent rates of materials and labour . Kindly confirm. / Please refer to 3.14 of TOR
27.  27 / Para 4A of RFP provides viability gap funding to the extent of 20% of the project cost which is considered low. Therefore, restructuring of the proposed 4 lane requirement if found feasible may also be included in addition to other measures stated in the Para for making the project viable. / Please refer to Para 3.15 of schedule -1 of TOR
28.  28 / The time period for submitting the feasibility study report is 18 weeks from the commencement of the project slated for May 2009. This shall be immediately followed by Monsoon period which is normally of about 2 months be excluded from the proposed completion period of 18 weeks / No change .
29.  29 / The RFP does not propose any payment on submission of inception Report. This report involves complete detailed reconnaissance of the project road as well as preliminary financial strategy in term of Cls 4-A of RFP . therefore part payment on its submission deserves consideration. / No change.
30.  30 / Cls. 5.1 page 34 – For attending the pre-proposal meeting, purchase of RFP document is written mandatory but Cls. 1.4, page-2 states that the applicants who have downloaded the RFP document from the official website of the Authority need not to deposit the aforesaid fee. Please clarify. / Please refer to Addendum corrigendum item No. 1
31.  32 / It is our experience that lot of time, energy and money is required for the preparation of the ‘Land Plan Schedules and Utility relocation ( Report KD3)’ and also ;Environmental and Social impact Assessment Report ( Report KD5). We propose to change the payment term of the two to 15% each respectively and reduce the payment of DFR ( Report KD6) and FFR ( Report KD7) to 20% and 15% respectively. / No change.
32.  33 / It is also requested to release the payment as per the payment schedule against the invoice submitted. In case of any delay in payment by MoSRT&H 75% of the claimed amount may please be released as in advance payment to that the Consultant must not face the cash flow problem. / Please refer to clause 6.3, mode of billing & payment of schedule of agreement.
33.  34 / It may please be clarified whether getting the three clearance from viz. Forest, MoEF and State pollution control board is the responsibility of the consultant or the scope is limited to only preparation of the report and filling of the case to the respective department. / Please refer Para 6.3 & Para 3.12 of TOR .
34.  35 / Cls. 3.3.6 (d) page 48-49 indicative quantities of depth of boring in soft soil and rock may please be provided to develop a uniform and rational financial proposal by the consultants as bridges to be proposed for reconstruction also require sub-soil investigation and which cannot be assessed in reconnaissance survey, whether ROB locations are also included. / Please refer clause 3.3.6 of TOR. There is 1 no. railway crossing on this highway stretch. Page-48
35.  36 / Please indicate is it required to take trial bore hole or test pit at river bridge locations . This shall be done at all minor and major and minor bridge locations or only at major bridge.
36.  37 / Cls. 3.5, page 49-50 Normally ROBs are to be provided at all level crossing falling along the alignment. Indicative GADs are to be prepared in consultation with railway authorities. Does it mean that consultant is to get the GADs approved from Railway Deptt. / Please refer to Para 3.5 of TOR Page 49
37.  38 / Cls. 3 (b) (i) page 101- Rather withholding the payment of the next stage, it is requested to release 75% of the payment to avoid any cash flow problem to the consultant. / No change.
38.  39 / Cls. 7.2.2 , page 102-103 Ld clause is too stringent It is proposed to convert the penalty to 0.2% per day or part thereof subject to the maximum ceiling limit to 5% / No change in the clause.
39.  40 / Cls. 3.3.2, page 44,45,46,47- the Cls. 3.3.2 (g) & Cls. 3.3.2 (i) are contradictory . For submitting the horizontal & vertical profile & as per Cls. 3.3.2 (g) ,(h) (i) Cls. 3.3.2(i) is not applicable. / No change
40.  41 / Cls. 3.3.2 (i) page 46 – Taking a cross section at 1 Km. distance may not result in adequate date for calculation of profile- Correction and earth work quantities. Please confirm the interval from cross section. / No change
41.  42 / Section-3, page 28- Criteria for evaluation is not rational but mathematical. Good consultant are likely not top get the projects with their qualified team. Firm showing good numbers of projects ( true or false ) in the CVs may win the Project Requested to evaluate the proposals in the same manner as NHAI does. / No change.
42.  43 / Cls. 3.2.1 page 41 – Traffic volume surveys to be conducted at Toll Plaza locations and every 20 M along the corridor. These have to be conducted twice in four month. Please indicate the interval to be adopted for toll plaza. Can be scope for traffic counts be reduced considering the traffic homogeneity along the corridors. / No Change .
43.  44 / Cls. 3.2, page 41 – Scope for Traffic survey does not indicate to conduct of OD surveys, Please confirm. / Clause 3.2 Page- 41 shall prevail.