Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited · Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited ... 2nd Pre-Bid...
Transcript of Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited · Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited ... 2nd Pre-Bid...
Page 1 of 24
Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited Address -: First floor Palika Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal – 462016 Madhya Pradesh (India)
(Ph:-0755-2552730) Email id: [email protected]
No: /MRTS/2016/ 3872 Dated:20 /12/2016
Minutes of the 2nd
Pre-Bid Meeting/Conference regarding selection of General Consultant for M.P. Metro Rail Projects
RFP No. 01/GC/MPMRCL/2016 Dated 06/05/2016
2nd
Pre-Bid meeting regarding selection of General Consultant for M.P. Metro rail projects was organized at Directorate of Urban
Administration and Development at 11:00 AM on 29th
November 2016 in the presence of Managing Director, MPMRCL, members of
tender committee of MPMRCL and representatives of various consultancy firms. List of participants is enclosed as Annexure-I. After
due deliberations, the reply on clarifications sought towards RFQ cum RFP regarding selection of General Consultant for M.P. Metro
Rail Projects are furnished here under :
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
1. Section 1 : Letter
of Invitation
Point No. 3
Page No. 7
and
Section2 : Part II
Selection
Procedure-
Datasheet,
Clause 4,
Method of
Selection
Page no.36
Method of selection:
Quality and Cost Based
Selection (QCBS)-70:30
Since this project is based on
Bilateral/Multilateral funding and as per
International funded projects, Quality is of
paramount importance, the method of
selection should be revised to at least
80:20 instead of 70:30 so that the quality of
the project may be maintained. This may
please be accepted.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 2 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
2. Section 1 : Letter
of Invitation
Clause No. 7,
Page No. 8
Schedule of important
dates for this selection
process
Extension of Time :
The proposal submission date is mentioned
as 5th
January 2017 online and 6th
January 2017 physical copy.
We have experienced that during Christmas
celebration most of the experts especially
other than India tend to go on a long
vacation and do not respond to the mails or
any communication which hampers in
compiling their CVs and other details which
are integral part of the submission
document.
We therefore request you to extend the date
of submission from six weeks further as for
such a magnitude of CVs and taking consent
will take time. Hence it is requested that the
due date may be revised to 16th
February
2017 online and 17th
February 2017
physical copy.
Addendum is being issued
separately
3. Section-2
(Part –I),Selection
procedure- ITC,
Clause 3.1,
Page No. 13
Introduction to bidder for
e -tendering.
Please confirm whether we have to submit
the financial proposal also physically along
with the technical proposal.
Financial Proposal will be
submitted online only whereas
technical proposal will be
submitted online as well as
physically.
4. Section 2
Part I- ITC,
clause 3.1
Page No. 15,
EMD for INR 40 million
(rupees forty million
only) comprising of INR
10 Million in the form of
We request that the EMD be accepted in the
form of a Bank Guarantee as this is standard
practice. Furthermore request for the
reduction of the EMD from INR 40 million
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 3 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Section 2 : Part
II- Datasheet
Clause No. 14
Page No. 37
DD and balance in the
form of BG, and all
relevant
enclosures….envelop
stated above.
to INR 20 million
5. Section 2, Part 1.
Clause 8.6
Page No.22 and
Section 7: SCC
Clause No. 10
and
Page No. 203 of
SCC
Clause 4.6 of
GCC, Page No.
194 and
Sr. No. 7
Addendum-III
Replacement of key
experts…….imposed for
each week.
We consider this clause as punitive and
counterproductive to the delivery of the assignment.
This clause seems to be of a regulatory nature rather
than a facilitating nature. Consultants have only a
certain level of control on the choice of staff whether
to continue in a particular job or not. Thus penalizing
the consultant for the leaving of a staff (which legally
is not in the consultant’s control) does not seem to be
in line with international guidelines such as provided
for by the World Bank / ADB. These risks will
ultimately be passed on to the client.
With so many projects in India running concurrently
it is inevitable that staff will move between
companies and projects. The client is contracting the
consultant for the delivery of a service and not for
manpower supply. The consultants are bound to
deliver a particular service even if the staff has left
and this risk is acceptable to consultants.
We request for a total deletion of these penalties.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
6. Section 2 , Part-1
selection
procedure-ITC
clause 10.2
Page No.23
Amendment of RFP and
Applicability of the
provisions
Since plenty of new clauses has been added
under addendum-3, it is kindly requested to
please provide the fresh RFP to the
consultants.
Agreed, amended RFP is
being issued. Bidders shall
have to submit bid as per
amended RFP only.
Page 4 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
7. Section 2:Part I
Clause 12 (v)
Page No. 26
CV’s of the key experts
signed by the Key
Experts themselves and
by the authorized
representative submitting
the proposal
Please confirm that an electronic/ scanned
signature from the expert will be acceptable.
Partially agreed, Addendum is
being issued separately
8. Section 2:Part I
Selection
Procedure-ITC
Clause No 13 (b)
(13.4)
Page No. 28
Payment under the
contract shall be made in
INR only.
It is an international competitive bidding;
We would like to draw your attention
toward various GC projects currency
conditions. Please see attached pages from
Chennai GC, Ahmedabad GC, Mumbai
Line 3 GC, Nagpur GC, Lucknow GC,
Mumbai line 7 & 2B GC where multiple
currencies was allowed.
We request you to consider price in multiple
currency like USD/EURO/INR.
So we propose “Payments under the
Contract shall be made in the
currency or currencies in which the
Financial Proposal of the selected
Consultant is Expressed
Provision of RFP shall prevail
9. Section 2 : (Part-
I): Selection
procedures-ITC
Clause No. 23 of
Page No. 34,
Section 2 : (Part-
II): Data sheet
Bid capacity Please make sure “ all clauses related to Bid
Capacity in the RFQ cum RFP( Data sheet
Clause No. 24 of page No. 42, Clause No.
23 of Page No. 34 and clause No. 5.2 of
Page No. 60) should be deleted.
Agreed all, related clause will
be deleted as applicable.
Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 5 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Clause No. 24 of
Page No. 42
Section 3:
Shortlisting of
Consultant
Clause No. 5 on
Page No. 58
Clause 5.2
Page No. 60
10. Section – 2 Part-II
Clause No. 9,
Page No. 37 and
Clause No. 15,
Page No. 38
Refer – Sr. No.
11 of
Addendum III
&
Annexure 10 of
Addendum -III
Minimum number of man
months for expert:
There seems to be the printing error in the
column 1 of the table which shows 684 man
months for International/Local Key Experts.
684 man months are for international
positions only.
Pl confirm.
Also with reference to the Annexure 10
under the Addendum III the Project
Director/Project Leader/Project Coordinator
has been shown as International/Local type.
As per our understanding the position is
under the international type only.Pl
Confirm.
There is no printing error,
positions mentioned could be
either Foreign or Local.
However Addendum is being
issued separately
11. Section 2 Part-II,
Selection
procedure-data
Apostle Certificate Should Bid be submitted with Apostle
certificates
Yes, Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 6 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
sheet
Clause No 11,
Page No. 37
12. Section – 2 Part-II
Clause No. 19 (i)
Page No. 40 ,
Attachment-1 for
Datasheet,
Page No. 43-50
And Annexure-2
of
Addendum III
Total points for the key
experts
Sum of points indicated for the experts is 23
instead of 24
Agreed.
Addendum is being issued
separately
13. Attachment1:Data
Sheet,
Annexure-2
Clause 19 (ii),
Page No. 41
Revised
Annexure 2
Addendum-III
Adequacy of the
proposed methodology
and work plan
Please specify the sub-criteria and point
system for the evaluation of this criterion
Methodology – 10 points
Work plan – 8 points
Organization staffing -2 points
Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 7 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
14. Section 2,
Selection
Procedure
Clause 19(iii),
Page No. 41
Revised
Annexure 2
Addendum-III
Familiarity with the
language and country
10%
We request that this criteria be changed to
Familiarity with developing countries.
Also, given the large number of metro
projects being implemented in India and
limited expertise available globally and in
India, it is more and more difficult to find
staff with experience in India without
affecting ongoing projects and clients within
India.
Further, other developing countries are
comparable to India and modification of this
criteria will not affect even in the least the
quality of staff being provided for the
project, or the project implementation. Good
experts generally are able to perform in any
condition and country, even if they have no
prior experience in this region.
Partially agreed. Addendum is
being issued separately
15. Section 2,
Selection
Procedure
Clause 19 (iii),
Page No. 41
Revised
Annexure 2
Addendum-III
Experience in India 10% We would further request that the 10%
marks allotted for experience in India that
the following conditions are applied:
In case of foreign experts, this requirement
may be removed and the marks
redistributed, as this will help increase the
pool of the number of expatriates available
globally. The number of foreign experts
with Indian experience is severely limited
and with the large number of concurrent
projects, this will be counter-productive as
there is bound to be a shortage of qualified
staff.
Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 8 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
16. Attachment1:For
Data sheet Clause
19(i)
Page No. 43
And Annexure- 2
of Addendum- III
Marking for experience It should be
>10 projects : 30 marks
6-9 projects : 20 marks
< 5 projects : 10 marks
Provision of RFP shall prevail
17. Attachment1:For
Data sheet Clause
19(i)
Page No. 43
And Annexure- 2
of Addendum- III
Experience of
International/Indian
projects of comparable
size, complexity and
technical specialty
Eligible projects are the
relevant eligible
assignment* projects of
Metro/ LRT in which fee
excluding indirect taxes
valued at not less than Rs
900 million (Rs 90 crore)
have been received by the
member(s) of the bidding
consortium in the
previous 10 years i.e.
from year 2006 to 2015
up to Dec 2015
We understand that only completed projects
with fee received of more than Rs 90 crores
will be considered under eligible
assignments.
In order to differentiate the level of bidder’s
capacity in implementing the GC Projects It
is kindly requested to please consider only
the completed projects which are under
revenue operation for a period of min. one
year prior to 31st Mar 2016.
Same practice has been followed by other
GC RFPs in India.Pl confirm.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
18. Attachment1:For
Data sheet Clause
19(i)
Experience of Projects On 19(i) previous clause ( “ The Bidder
having done and claim highest numbers of
eligible projects for carrying out consulting
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 9 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Page No. 43
Annexure-2
Addendum III
services similar to the ones requested under
this assignments will be awarded full points
) “ seems to more clear to differentiate the
levels of bidders capacity than the revised
19(i) clause in the addendum – III (“if a
bidder has more than 5 eligible projects, it
can be awarded full points)
19. Attachment1:For
Data sheet Clause
19(i)
Page No. 43
&
Annexure-2
Addendum III
Section 2, Data Sheet,
Clause 19(i)
Weightage for Eligible
Assignments : 30%
Weightage for Approach
& Methodology : 20%
Weightage for
Competency of Key
Experts:50%
Sir, as you would appreciate, the success of
projects of this nature would depend mostly
on the qualification and experience of the
team involved in, rather than the number of
such assignments carried out by a
firm/consortium in the past by deploying a
totally different team of experts in the
projects carried out 10 years back.
Hence we propose weightages for various
items may please be modified as below in
line with other GC-RFP documents of other
metros such as Mumbai (MMRDA) &
Nagpur as detailed below.
Nagpur Mumbai For
Bhopal &
Indore
Weightage
for
Eligible
Assignmen
ts
1200
(15%)
1050
(15%)
15%
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 10 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Weightage
for
Approach
&
Methodolo
gy
2400
(30%)
2100
(30%)
25%
Weightage
for
Competen
cy of Key
Experts
3600+
800 =
4400
(55%)
3150+
700=
3850
(55%)
60%
Total 8000
(100%)
7000 100%
20. Attachment1:For
Data sheet Clause
19(iii)(1)
Page No. 43
&
Annexure-2
Addendum III
Section 2, Data Sheet,
Attachment 1 : For
Data Sheet, Clause
19(iii).1
General Qualification –
30%
For Post graduate (or
higher) in engineering/
Master of Business
Administration after
engineering graduation,
in respective field for all
engineering positions and
Post-graduation or
acceptable professional
qualification or Master of
Business Administration
Since the GC scope involves lot of planning
also, the Post-Graduation in planning after
Graduation in Engineering may also be
included and the clause may please be
modified as below:
For Post graduate (or higher) in engineering/
planning/ Master of Business
Administration after graduation in
engineering in respective field for all
engineering positions; and Post-graduation
or acceptable professional qualification or
Master of Business Administration after
graduation in respective field for all non-
engineering positions will be assigned full
points.
Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 11 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
after graduation in
respective field for all
non-engineering
positions will be assigned
full points
21. Attachment1:For
Data sheet Clause
19(iii)(2)
Page No. 43
Annexure-2
Addendum III
Section 2, Data Sheet,
Attachment 1 : For
Data Sheet, Clause
19(iii).2) Adequacy for
the assignment – 50%
Working in the same rank
or equivalent (type of
work) in the task
assigned for minimum 5
years, full points will be
assigned
Working in the same rank
or equivalent (type of
work) in the task
assigned for minimum 3
years up to 5 years, 50%
of full points will be
assigned
The referred clause stipulates same rank or
equivalent. But in the industry different
designations are being used for a same
nature of job with same seniority level.
Hence we request you to consider the total
experience and its relevance to the present
job, rather than the designation/rank in
previous assignments while evaluating the
expert’s eligibility/capability.
Further, we suggest that for non-core expert
positions such as Safety Engineer, Safety
Inspector, Chief Environment Expert,
Environment Engineer, Utility Engineer,
Multimodal Transport Planner, Chief
Geotechnical Expert, Head Strategic /
Financial Expert, Real Estate / PPP Expert,
Transport Economist, etc., the experience
from their relevant filed would be sufficient,
and experience from metro rail sector is not
mandatory.
Please consider.
Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 12 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Working in the same rank
or equivalent (type of
work) in the task
assigned but less than 3
years, no points will be
assigned
22. Key Experts CVs
Page No. 45
Annexure-2
Addendum-III
CVs for Head Office It may please be clarified that for the head
office, i.e. positions K-44, K-45, K-46, K-
47, K-48, K-49 and K-50 the CVs may be
submitted in the proposal. This may please
be confirmed.
Yes, CVs for all Key
(Including positions K-44, K-
45, K-46, K-47, K-48, K-49
and K-50) Non-key and
supporting staff have to be
submitted along with the
proposal.
23. Section 2: (Part-
II) Selection
Procedure - Data
Sheet
Page No. 49
Data Sheet: Age Limit
Criteria: As such there is no age
limit for proposed Key
Experts. However, 25%
of the Points shall be
reduced for any
proposed Key Expert as
mentioned below;
―Project Director/
Project Leader/Project
Coordinator‖ and Dy.
Project Director/ Project
Leader‖ as listed at Sr.
No. K-1 and K-2 above
respectively, aged more
than 70 Years as on
It is kindly requested to keep the age limit
for all the key staff for the evaluation
purpose as 70 Years as on date of
submission of the proposal.
The projects under multilateral funding
institutions don’t have any age limit criteria
provided the candidate is medically fit to
take the assignment.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 13 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
date of submission of
proposal. All the other Key
Experts aged more than
65 Years as on date of
submission of proposal.
24. Section 2,
Selection
Procedure
Clause 19 (iii)2 of
Attachment -1 for
data Sheet
Page no. 50
Revised
Annexure 2
Addendum-III
Relevant eligible
assignments for experts
In addition to accepting prior experience of
GC / PMC, it is requested that experts with
experience on metro/MRT and LRT projects
working for contractors may also be
considered. This will enhance the pool of
experts available. Due to the large number
of concurrent projects, insisting on GC /
PMC experience will be counter-productive
Provision of RFP shall prevail
25. Section 2,
Selection
Procedure
Clause 19 (iii) 2,
Page No. 50
Revised
Annexure 2
Addendum-III
Adequacy for the
assignment (50%)
- Working in the
same rank or
equivalent (type
of work) …..
We request that the criteria may be relaxed
as under :
1a) working in the same rank or equivalent (type
of work) in the task assignment for more than
three years – 30%
2a)working in the same rank or equivalent (type
of work) in the task assignment for minimum 2
years – 15%
3a) Working in the same rank or equivalent (type
of work) in the task assignment for 9 months – one
year.
This will enhance the pool of engineer and
experts available for this project. Due to the
large number of concurrent projects, insisting on
GC / PMC experience will be counter-
productive
Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 14 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
26. Section -3
Clause 4.1
Page No. 56
Non Substantial partners. Is there any restrictions on positions and
numbers of staff to be proposed by the non-
substantial partners?
Pl confirm.
JV/Consortium with partner
having less than 10% share/
participation is not allowed.
In a JV/Consortium if any
partner is having share/
participation less than 10%
then in that case that JV/
Consortium shall be
disqualified.
Addendum in this regard is
being issued separately
27. Section -3
Clause 4.1
Page No. 56
Inclusion of Indian firm
as JV/Consortium partner
Kindly consider to make it mandatory to
include at least one Indian firm having
Requisite Qualifications in each consortium.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
28. Section 3: Short
listing of
Consultant Clause
4.1 Page No. 56
And
Sr. No. 17 of
Addendum III
Number of partners Number of partners be allowed as four if not
five
Provision of RFP shall prevail
29. Section 3: Short
listing of
Consultant
Clause No. 4.1
Page No. 56 and
Addendum III
Non Substantial Member Whether “a non substantial member can
submit CVs for evaluation “ or not
JV/Consortium with partner
having less than 10% share/
participation is not allowed.
In a JV/Consortium if any
partner is having share/
participation less than 10%
then in that case that JV/
Consortium shall be
disqualified.
Page 15 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Addendum is being issued
separately
30. Section 3: Short
listing of
Consultant
Clause No. 4.1
Page No. 56
Clause 4.1: The
Applicants may be a single
entity or a JV/consortium,
joining together to assist
MPMRCL in
implementing the project.
In case of group of entities
the number of substantial
JV / consortium partners
shall not be more than
total 3 (partners having
less than 10% participation
will be termed as non-
substantial member and
will not be considered for
evaluation which means
that their financial
soundness and work
experience shall not be
considered for evaluation
of JV/ Consortium). The
JV/ consortium as a whole
must satisfy both
Technical and Financial
eligibility criteria but the
substantial partners will be
jointly and severally
responsible. The eligibility
Sir, the modified clause is not clear on the
number of non-substantial partners in
JV/Consortium, kindly clarify.
In view of the volume of work involved and
to carry out the work in a most cost effective
manner, lot of inputs/resources from a
capable non-substantial partner, preferably
an Indian firm engaged in and having
experience of metro design, PMC/GEC
would be best suitable. Hence participation
percentage of such Non-Substantial partner
in a consortium may be enhanced up to
20%. Further, in order to ensure capable
firms as non-substantial partners on board,
we suggest you to prescribe qualification
criteria (both technical & financial) for non-
substantial partners also. May please
consider.
JV/Consortium with partner
having less than 10% share/
participation is not allowed.
In a JV/Consortium if any
partner is having share/
participation less than 10%
then in that case that JV/
Consortium shall be
disqualified.
Addendum is being issued
separately
Page 16 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
criteria are as under:
31. Section 3: Short
listing of
Consultant
Clause 4.3
Page No. 57
Work Experience In case, the consortium is comprised of 2-3
JV firms and if one (1) of the JV partner
shows only one (1) assignment in its Home
Country and the other two (2) partners have
assignments in the Home & Foreign
countries , will be acceptable, Kindly Clarify
No, it is further clarified that
the same JV partner should
have required experience of
foreign country also if he has
required experience of home
country.
Addendum is being issued
separately
32. Section-4 :
Technical
Proposal TECH-5
: Team
Composition Page
No. 104
And Annexure -5
(Tech-5) of
Addendum III
TECH-5 Team
Composition
Task Assignments and
Summary of CV
Information
Under the revised format of Team
Composition (Task Assignments and
Summary of CV Information), 2 new
columns have been added;
1. Name of the Project (country)
2. Project Duration
Since both these details are already provided
in the CV format It doesn’t have any
relevancy adding the same information
again under the Tech-5 Team Composition
format.
Pl Confirm.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
33. Section 4:
Technical
Proposal Standard
Forms
Page No. 105
Refer Annexure-4
Format of Curriculum
Vitae (Sl. No 5B)
Experience of working in
India in relevant eligible
assignment
We understand that the experience of
working in India will be applicable for
international positions only.
Pl Confirm.
No, it will be considered as
Local Experience.
Addendum for amended
Tech – 6 is being issued
separately.
Page 17 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Tech-6 of
Addendum III
34. Section 4,
Technical
Proposal standard
forms,
Section 5:
Financial forms,
Tech-7 Expert
schedule. Note 3,
Appendix to FIN-
1 to FIN-3,
Clause 5 (i)
Page No.121
One (1) month equals
twenty four (24) working
days ……
The purpose of the Form
FIN-3 …..(one day being
equivalent to 1/30th
of a
month)
We understand that working days will be 24
day/month and 5.5 day/week. Please
confirm the rest day (Sunday) and public
holiday of MPMRCL are applicable to GC
and are paid holidays.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
35. Section 6, Terms
of Reference
Clause 1.8,
Page No.126,
Clause 4.14,
Page No. 142
Arranging training of
O&M staff of MPMRCL
Please confirm that training costs for
training of MPMRCL personnel are not to
be included in the financial offer and that
these will be paid separately. If training cost
are to be included in the financial offer
maximum man days for training should be
conveyed.
Addendum is being issued
separately
36. Section 6, Terms
of Reference
Clause 4.1, 4.3 to
4.6, 4.9,4.10
Page No. 127-
137
Effective Date (ED) + 01
months ….
As the mobilization of the team and setting
up of GC operation requires 2 to 3 months,
the time lines for delivery of this activities
are optimistic. Time line of minimum 9 – 12
months is required for inception to tender
design and award. Request to revise the time
line for delivery of these activities.
Days indicated towards
deliverables are indicative and
will be decided / finalized by
the client as per presentation
on approach and methodology
with specific reference to time
line suggested by the bidder,
during negotiation and in
unavoidable cases during on
Page 18 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
board interaction, if required.
37. Section 6-Terms
of Reference,
Clause 4.10,
Page No. 137
and
Clause 4.16.1,
Page No. 147
(last two bullet
points)
Preparation of various
plans.
And
Obligation of GC
These activities are normally to be carried
out by the contractors. Kindly confirm that
GC will only oversee contractors carrying
out of the above mentioned tasks.
Addendum is being issued
separately.
38. Section 6, Terms
of Reference
Clause 16.2,
Page No.153
Consultant will
implement the 5D BIM
for the project as per
direction of the client
BIM is a highly specialized field of project
management, data storage and asset
management. For example it is critical that
contractors are BIM compliant from the
planning and designing stage itself. Please
confirm that additional expert and support
position man months will be provided and
paid for separately, based on mutual
discussion and additional scope definition.
Therefore clause of 5D BIM to be removed.
Agreed, Addendum is being
issued separately
39. Attachment III(B)
Qualification and
Experience
Required for Key
and Non-Key
Page No. 169
Qualification and
Experience Requirements
It is requested for the Key and Non-Key
Experts, where the post graduate experience
is marked as +15 years may please be
amended to +12 years and the assignment
relevant experience may be relaxed from 5+
years to 2 Metro/LRT/MRT and rail
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 19 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
& Annexure-11
of
Addendum-III
projects.
Request that requirements for Post-
Graduation in Engineering/MBA be
removed as this will severely limit the
number of qualified personnel available for
this assignment.
We would request changes as per attachment
1 to these queries.
This may please be considered and
amended.
40. Attachment III(B)
Qualification and
Experience
Required for Key
and Non-Key
Page No. 169
& Annexure-11
of
Addendum-III
Assignment relevant
experience
Most of the positions under the category E-1
, E2 & F are support positions and we
request relaxation on Assignment relevant
experience as it will be difficult to find
candidates with Metro / LRT /MRT
experience. For this hence only experience
relevant to the duties may please be
considered.
Partially agreed, Addendum is
being issued separately
41. SECTION 7
(Part-II): Contract
Conditions- GCC
Clause No. 1.1.20.
Page No. 183
High Speed Rail (HSR) Please consider that eligible projects are the
relevant eligible assignment projects
including not only Metro/LRT but also HSR
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 20 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
42. Section 7(Part II)
Clause 2.3.2,
Page No. 185
Availability of Key
experts
We request to consider 60 days for effective
date for substantial mobilization of key
experts.
Partially agreed, Addendum is
being issued separately
43. Section 7(Part II)
Clause 2.9.1 (g),
Page No. 188
If the Client, in its sole
discretion and for any
reason whatsoever,
decides to terminate this
contract.
We believe this is an unreasonable condition
and is against the principle of good faith.
Request you to please delete this.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
44. Section 7(Part II)
Clause 2.9.2,
Page No. 188
By the Consultant Please include the following
“If employer fails to pay any money due to
the consultant pursuant to this contract and
not subject to dispute pursuant of clause
2.9.6 here of within forty five days(45) after
receiving the written notice from consultant
that such payments are overdue”
Provision of RFP shall prevail
45. Section 7(Part II)
Clause 6.5 (C),
Page No. 197
The Client will pay the
Consultant’s invoices
within Forty Five (45) days
after receipt by the client of
such itemized invoices
Request to consider release of payment to
consultant within 30 days of receipt of
invoice.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
46. Section 7 (Part II)
: Contract
Conditions –
GCC, Clause No.
6.6
Page No. 198
And
Variation clause +/- 15%. The variation allowed is +/- 15 %. How
variation beyond +/- 15 % would be
handled within contract period
In general, variation beyond
+/- 15 % will not be allowed,
but in case of unavoidable
situation appropriate action
after due approval of
MD/Board as the case may be,
Page 21 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
Sr. No. 41 of
Addendum III
will be taken.
47. Section 7(Part II)
Clause 9.2,
Page No. 199
Liquidated Damages for
Delay
We find this clause unreasonable and
unusual for a contract of this type and this is
not found in other similar Indian or
International contracts. This is a man-month
based contract and all deliverables depend
on more than one external stakeholder,
which are not directly under the control of
the GC.
Addendum is being issued
separately
48. Section 7(Part III)
Clause 3.5 (d),
Page No. 203
Project specific
Professional Liability
Insurance
Please confirm that PII’s can be
provided by each company separately to
the extent of their share in the
consortium fee.
Request to reduce the validity to one
year beyond the date of completion.
No, Addendum is being issued
separately
49. Section 7(Part III)
Clause 6.2,
Page No. 204
Adjustment of
Remuneration
Please provide the formula for foreign
currency
Provision of RFP shall prevail
50. Section -7, Part-
III, SCC Clause-
16, 6.5 (a) of GCC
, Advance Payment
Page No. 205
The amount of the
advance payment is: Not
more than the amount
equivalent to 5 % of the
contract amount in INR.
Request to increase advance payment
amount from 5 % to 10 % of contract value.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
51. General Query Payments to the
consultants/JV/
Consortium
Please confirm that all members of the JV
will be paid separately into their bank
accounts as specified in the contract. We
confirm that the lead member will be
responsible for collating, checking and
submitting the overall invoice.
Provision of RFP shall prevail
Page 22 of 24
S.No Section/Clause/
Page No.
RFP Excerpt/ Title Clarifications Sought MPMRCL’s Reply
52. General Query International positions Pl define the term “International Positions”.
Whether the international position means the
person with developed country origin.
Also the evaluation criteria for international
and local experts are same then what is the
difference between the International/Local
Key Experts. Pl elaborate.
It is kindly requested to please provide us
the threshold limit for the international
position in terms of international experience
if required.
Experience of foreign projects
outside India will be treated as
Foreign Experience,
irrespective of their origin.
It is further clarified that
Foreign Expert does not mean
the person with Foreign origin
any person of Indian Origin
with experiences of other
country will also be consider as
Foreign Expert and any person
of origin other than India and
having experience of India will
be considered as Local Expert.
53. General Query Funding of GC Funding of GC? State Will Fund the GC
S.S Rajpoot) (Manju Sharma) (Jitendra Dubey)
(Arun Paliwal)
Director (Technical),
MPUDC
Additional Commissioner,
UAD
E-in-C and Director (Technical),
MPMRCL
Joint Director (F),
UAD
(Vijendra Nanavati) (Manish Gangarekar)
(Kamal Nagar)
Technical Advisor,
MPMRCL
GM,
MPMRCL
OSD (Transport),
UAD
Page 23 of 24
Annexure -I
Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited
List of Participants
Representatives: Consulting Firms/Organizations
S. No. Name Organization
1 Mr. Umesh Kumbhalkaa L.N Malviya Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
2 Mr. Milind Nirmal DB Engg. & Consulting
3 Mr. B.B. Sankaram Aarvee Associates Pvt. Ltd.
4 Mr. Parvendra Chauhan EGIS
5 Mr. Pankaj Sharma RAMBOLL
6 Mr. Heo Jung KRNA ( Korea Rail Network Authority)
7 Mr. Varun Sharma PWC
8 Mr. Vibhu Kapila GEODATA
9 Mr. Hardeep Singh HOWE Engg. Projects India Pvt. Ltd.
10 Mr. Kazi Amid Bari SMEG India
11 Mr. H.K Sharma REPL
12 Mr. Ashish Dasgupta AYESA
Page 24 of 24
13 Mr. Samit Saproo AYESA
14 Mr. Devesh Goyal AECOM
15 Mr. Nerajan Sen Gupta SYSTRA
Representative: Urban Administration and Development & Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited.
1 Mr. S.S. Rajpoot Director Technical, MPUDC
2 Dr. Manju Sharma Additional Commissioner, UAD
3 Mr. J. K. Dubey E-in-C/Director Technical, MPMRCL
4 Mr. Manish Gangarekar GM, MPMRCL
5 Mr. Kamal Nagar OSD (Transport), UAD
6 Mr. Arun Paliwal Joint Director (Finance), UAD
7 Mr. Anoop Vijay Chartered Accountant, MPMRCL
8 Mr. Sandeep Jain Company Secretary, MPMRCL
9 Mr. Shafeeq Ahmed Jr. Manager, CMAMP
Advisors: Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Co Limited.
1 Mr. Chetan Bakshi Technical Advisor, MPMRCL
2 Mr. Vijendra Nanavati Technical Advisor, MPMRCL