‘Telangana State Trade Promotion Corporation Ltd. TSTPC (Aa Uden Govern Terps) (19) Regd. OM: 510-174, Shakkar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Fatch Maidan Road EyPLORING NEW TRADE FRONTIERS ‘Hyderabad ~ $00 O04. Telangana, India Tel : 2323 7501, Fax : O40 2323 1249, Email :info@tstpe.org CIN:U74991TG20148GC093847 REF: TSTPC/GoT/Dry Ports/RFP/PPQU2015 Dt. 9.07.2015 Sir/Madam, Sub: Govt. of Telangana — Selection of Successful Consultant for Preparation of Techno: Economic Feasibility Report for establishment of Dry Ports in Telangana - RFP floated —Communication of replies to the queries raised by the participating Consultancy Firms by e-mail and in PP Conference held on 30.06.2015 ~ Reg, ‘The Government of Telangana has invited Request for Proposals from the interest Consultancy Firms vide it Notice published in Business line and Times of India (All India editions) on 22.6.2015. Further, the RFP document was also uploaded on the websites of TSIIC (tsic tetangana gov in), Telangana Government (telangana.gov.in) and CGG (cgg.gov.in) on 22.06.2015. Some Consultancy Firms have sent their queries by e-mail and some Firms have raised some queries in the Pre-proposal conference held on 30.06.2015. All the queries have been examined in relation to the terms and conditions of RFP and replies to all the queries raised have been prepared and enclosed herewith as Annexure. Considering the requests of some of the Firms, the Proposal Due Date (PDD) is extended by 2 weeks from the date of release of replies to the queries and that PDD is fixed as 23.07.2015. The Consultancy Firms are requested to note the replies given in the annexure and accordingly prepare their Bids and submit on the revised Proposal Due Date as detailed in the RFP. ‘Thanking you, Yours faithfully, GENERAL MANAGER Enel: Annexure To All the concerned Consultancy Firms.Continuation Shee, ANNEXURE The Abstract of Queries and Replies a QUERIES REPLIES | 1. | Clause: 2.2.2.A: Instructions to Applicants ‘Technical capacity: The Applicant shall have, over the past 10 (ten) years preceding the PDD, completed a minimum of 2 (two) Assignments Consultancy services relating to Feasibility study/ Pre-Feasibility study of a Dry Port! Inland Container Depot for a Government Entity. Query: Consider similar projects from private entity RFP Conditions would id prevail. The Applicant shall have, over the past 10 (ten) years preceding the PDD, completed a minimum of 2 (two) | Assignments’ Consultancy services relating to Feasibility - Do - study/ Pre-Feasibility study of a Ports Sector including Ports/Dry Port/Inland Container Depot for a Government | Entity / Private entity. er Request to consider minimum two assignments from any of the eligible assignments as specified cl. 3.1.4 | a 2. | Clause: 2.2.2.B: Instructions to Applicants Financial capacity: The Applicant shall have received a Minimum of Rs.100 | crore (Rs. One Hundred crore) per annum as professional fees during each of the three financial years preceding the PDD. Query: | RFP would Reduce it to Rs. 10 cores, so that technically competent firms. prevail | details (professional fees) for the following financial years — with lesser tumover can apply in this tender. Query: The requirement of financial capacity be reduced to average of Rs, 100 Cr. in last 3 years. RFP Conditions — would | prevail Query : Emst & Young LLP’s accounvfinancials statements have not | aaa ee ae been finalized and audited as yet, hence we request the | P& pal anit or Sua Authority to kindly confirm if for the purpose of qualification | ¢"5 i ae Ch under financial capacity, the Authority shall consider turnover | vicinal cortfiste ine FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 goa 151 Bao maybe considered.Continuation Shee yy To relax the minimum annual turnover from Rs. 100 Cr. to Rs. 50.00 Cr. per annum as professional fee during each of the three financial years preceding the PDD Query: To allow more competition, we request that the average annual tumover requirement be relaxed from Rs. 100 Crores | to Rs. 40 Crores Not acceptable. RFP Conditions prevail. would Clause 2.2.3, of Instruction to Applicant: ‘The Applicant shall enclose with its Proposal, certificate(s) from its Statutory Auditors stating its total revenues from professional fees during each of the past three financial years and the fee received in respect of each of the Eligible Assignments specified in the Proposal Query The Applicant shall enclose with its Proposal, attested copy of work order or the contract copy of the project with | respective authority to be provided as proof of experience for | eligible projects | Reason: Authority is asking for experience from the past 10 years both | for the firm and the Key personnel. Auditors would normally provide certifications for overall firm experience / revenues and not project wise revenue certification. Further, for the Key Personnel, Auditors cannot provide such certification as | itis beyond their scope to certify the same Not acceptable. RFP Conditions prevail A provisional statement of total revenues for the FY | 2014-15 may be considered. | would | a | Annexures: Form 7 and Form 7a: Query: Requested that requirement of auditor be replaced with self-certi certificate from statutory ions. Reason: The prescribed format is same as those prescribed by | erstwhile planning commission for hiring of transaction | advisors. This format is no long applicable and valid. Further. form 7 and form 7a of Annexures mandate certificate from Statutory auditor in relation to firm’s experience, project cost etc. Any international auditor does not audit the qualitative aspects like project costs etc. and gather such certificate for international firms like CPCS is impossible. RFP Conditions prevail would ‘Clause: TOR Clause 7.1, 2.2.2.D: Consultancy team: Team Leader - cum - Financial Expert: Professional experience requirementContinuation Sheet, 55 ] Query: Considered to revise the | To revise the minimum requirement of professional | minimum requirement of experience from 15 years to 10 years. The revised clause | professional experience as 10 would read as: “Essential experience of Team Leader cum | (Ten) years Financial Expert: 10 years of professional experience. Query: RFP — Conditions would | We understand that civil engineering is a requirement as per | prevail. | the eligibility criterion highlighted. As the final objective is, | to comment upon the viability (Commercial + Technical) of the dry port hence we agree that such a criterion is of paramount importance. Hence kindly confirm if the | requirement can be read as “Masters in Planning’ MBA with Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering” “lause: TOR Clause 7.1, 2.2.2.D. Consultancy team: Port Expert/Traffic cum Market analyst: | Educational qualifications Requirement. Query: To modify the educational qualifications requirement to: | The educational “Post Graduate / Masters in Planning or Economies / MBA or | qualifications is revised as other relevant field with Bachelor's degree in Engineering or | follows: relevant discipline (including Economies)” wet Graduate f Maxiers ie | Planning or Economics / | : | MBA or other relevant field Request to confirm that the relevant discipline shall include | with Bachelor's degree in all branches of Engineering for qualification. Civil Engineer TOR Clause 7.1, 2.2.2.D Consultancy team: Infrastructure Planning Expert: Educational qualifications and essential experience requirement ‘The educational = qualifications are modified as follows: To reconsider to allow MBA / Post Graduation in any field as long as the expert has the relevant experience on eligible | Engineering degree in Civil / assignments. Architecture / relevant field with Masters in Urban Planning —/ Business Administration - | TOR Clause 5, | | ‘Time and Payment Schedule | [ Key Date | Description of Deliverables ] Week] Pay- | | No. No. _| ment KDI___| Submission of oepiion report 20% Kb? submission of Draft Feasibility eeport 50% | [Ds ubmission oF Final Feasibility report | 8 | 3030 7 Total [100%Continuation Sheet iid) Query: To consider the revised payment schedule as follows:~ Key Date | Dessrption of Deliverables | xe. KDI nf Tneeption report Not acceptable KD2___| Submission of Draft Feasbiityrepon REP conditions will prevail. KD3__| Submission of Final Feasibility report | Reason: ‘The payment milestones proposed seem to be back-ended, implying that a majority of the payments would be made as, the assignment draws to a close. To avoid any risk which a consultant might face due to this scenario, the change in |_| payment schedules as indicated above is requested | Clause 5.3 of ToR 1 Payment for the Services shall be based on the percentage specified in Clause 5.2. Reimbursement of expenses relating to travel for participating in meetings and shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Proposal contained in Form-2 of Appendix-II of the RFP. Bills for such | reimbursement may be submitted on a monthly basis. Note 1 in Form-2 of Financial Proposal, pg. No. 117 ‘The aforesaid professional fees, payable to the Consultant in accordance with the Financial Proposal, shall cover the costs of all out of pocket expenses such as telephone/fax, photocopying, couriers and postage, collections and deliveries, traveling and accommodation expense, stationery, costs of support staff and counsel fee, overheads, etc., including all taxes and duties except service tax. No additional charges in respect thereof shall be due or payable. The fees shall be limited to the amounts indicated above and | no escalation on any acount will be payable on the above | rEP conditions will prevail amounts. No amount other than indicated in the Financial Query: Proposal contained in Form— 2 of Appendix-II of the REP shall be paid. All. the | expenses relating to travel, out of pocket ete, should be included in the Financial | proposal. Hence, there will be | no question of — any | reimbursement of expenses or contradiction between 5.3 | and Form 2 of appendix- II. The Authority shall reimburse forall the accommodation and travel expenses incurred with respect to the project such that the expenses will not be more than a fixed percentage (say 10%) of the project engagement fees. The consultants shall provide the necessary bills along with the mile stone payment invoice to the authorityContinuation Shee gy Sl. ] No. QUERIES REPLIES | 10. | Clause 2.26 of Instructions to Applications, Indemnity | er To modify the existing indemnity clause to:- “The Consultant | REP conditions will prevail shall, subject to the provisions of the Agreement, indemnify the Authority, for an amount not exceeding I (One) time the value | of the Agreement, for any direct loss or damage that is solely attributable to the consultant and is caused due to any deficiency in Services.” | | Query: | | For such big projects the payment terms should be as follows: | Si. Report No. |__| Submission of Inception report z Submission of market assessment and demand assessment_report 3 [Submission of Draft Techno! 35% Economic Feasibility report | | including detailed Economic Analysis, Financial Feasibility and Project Structuring aspects etc. 4 | Final Techno Economic Fea Report WT 12. | Clause 3.4 Criteria for Evaluation | Agreement clause 28, ] Suspension of agreement. | er Query: | To provide a minimum of 30 (thirty) days after receipt of such | notice of suspension to the consultant to remedy a breach or failure Not acceptable. | REP conditions will prevail. | | | Combined and Final Evaluation Proposals will finally be | ranked according to their combined technical (ST) and financial | (SE) scores as follows: S = ST x TW + SF x FW Where, TW (and FW are weights assigned to Technical Proposal and | Financial Proposal that shall be 0.7 and 0.3 respectively. | | Consider modifying the evaluation criteria (weightage) from existing technical proposal 0.70 and financial proposal 0.30 to | Not acceptable. technical proposal 0.80 and financial proposal 0.20; as the | RFP conditions will prevail. | Authority may want to select technically sound consultants to | | undertake the assignment. |Continuation Shedunyy (13. | Appendix I, Form = 4 Power of Attorney “Proposal for and selection as the Consultant | for Preparation of Techno Economic Feasibility Report for | Setting up Dry Port(s) in the State of Telangana, proposed to be | developed by the XXX, Goverment of Telangana, (the ‘Authority”)” | Query: | Clarify if the designation of the competent author | representing Government of Telangana shall be inserted i zn be ea as rXXX? jovernment of Telangana os | represented by the Kindly confirm if the said para shall be read as ~ “Proposal for | VC&MD, Telangana State and selection as the Consultant for Preparation of Techno | Industrial Infrastructure Economic Feasibility Report for Setting up Dry Port(s) in the | Corporation Ltd. (TSIIC). State of Telangana, proposed to be developed by the VC & MD, Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (TSIIC), Government of Telangana, (the “Authority")” | 14.” Agreement, clause 3.4.2, Liability of the Consultant. | To modify the existing clause to:- | “The Consultant shall, subject to the limitation specified in | Clause 3.4.3, be liable to the Authority for any direct loss or | damage accrued by the Authority due to deficiency in Services | | rendered by it and such deficiency solely attributable to the | | Consultant | Not acceptable. | REP conditions will prevail. ‘Agreement, clause 3.4.3 ] Liability of the Consultant: 3.4.3 (i) - for any direct loss or damage that exceeds (a) the Agreement Value set forth in | Clause 6.1.2 of this Agreement, or (b) the proceeds the Consultant may be entitled to receive from any insurance maintained by the Consultant to cover such a liability whichever of (a) or (b) is higher | Query: | | To change the clause to the following: for any direct loss or | Not acceptable. | | damage that exceeds (a) the Agreement Value set forth in| RFP conditions will prevail. | | | Clause 6.1.2 of this Agreement, or (b) fees paid till date to the | | Consultant, whichever of (a) oF (b) is lower 16. | 3.44 of Agreement This limitation of liability specified in Clause 3.4.3 shall not a affect the Consultant's liability, if any, for damage to Third Parties caused by the Consultant or any person or firm acting | | on behalf of the Consultant in carrying out the Services subject, | | however, to a limit equal to 3 (three) times the Agreement Value. |Continuation Sheet, (8/19) ue Request the Authority to kindly modify the referred clause to — This limitation of liability specified in Clause 3.4.3 shall not | Not acceptable. | affect the Consultant's liability, if any, for damage to Third | RFP conditions will prevail. Parties caused by the Consultant or any person or firm acting on behalf of the Consultant in carrying out the Services subject, however, to a limit equal to the Agreement Value. 17. 13.5 (b) Agreement clause | | (b) Permit the Authority or its designated representative periodically, and up to one year from the expiration or termination of this Agreement, to inspect the same and make copies thereof as well as to have them audited by auditors appointed by the Authority. | | Query: | | Request the authority to kindly modify the said clause to - (b) | permit the Authority or its designated representative |The request is accepted | periodically, and up to one year from the expiration or termination of this Agreement, to inspect the same and make copies thereof as well as to have them audited by auditors appointed by the Authority provided such right to audit shall be restricted to physical files pertaining to the services and such auditors shall not be competitors of the Consultant. 18. | Agreement, clause 3.10 | | Accuracy of documents | | | Quer To modify the above clause, clearing the Consultant of | Rotseeentable, | ownership of data collected or procured from any source, a [19. | Agreement, clause 6.3 (©) The final payment under this Clause 6.3 shall be made only after the final Deliverable shall have been submitted by the Consultant and approved as satisfactory by the Authority. The Services shall be deemed completed and finally accepted by the | Authority and the final Deliverable unless the Authority, within such 60 (sixty) day period, gives written notice to the Consultant specifying in detail, the deficiencies in the Services. The Consultant shall | thereupon promptly make any necessary corrections and/or additions, and upon completion of such corrections or | additions, the foregoing process shall be repeated. The | Authority shall make the final payment upon acceptance or | | deemed acceptance of the final Deliverable by the Authorit |BContinuation Sheet... (9/19) Query: | Not acceptable. Request the authority to kindly modify the said Clause ~(c) The | RFP con final payment under this Clause 6.3 shall be made only after the final Deliverable shall have been submitted by the Consultant and approved as satisfactory by the Authority. The Services shall be deemed completed and finally accepted by the Authority and the final Deliverable shall be deemed approved by the Authority as satisfactory upon expiry of 30 (thirty) days after receipt of the final Deliverable unless the Authority, within such 30 (thirty) day period, gives written notice to the Consultant specifying in detail, the deficiencies in the Services. The Consultant shall thereupon promptly make any necessary corrections and/or additions, and upon completion of such corrections or additions, the foregoing process shall be repeated. The Authority shall make the final payment upon acceptance or deemed acceptance of the final Deliverable by the Authority 20, ‘Agreement, clause 7.2.3 Encashment and appropriation of Performance Security. y shall have the right to invoke and appropriate the proceeds of the Performance Security, in whole or in part, | without notice to the Consultant in the event of breach of this, Agreement or for recovery of liquidated damages as specified in this clause 7.2. Query: To consider the revised clause as follows: “The Authority shall | Not acceptable have the right to invoke and appropriate the proceeds of the | RFP conditions will prevail. Performance Security, in whole or in part, after due representation of the consultant, in the event of breach of this | Agreement, without any representation from the Consultant.” Agreement, clause 7.3 Penalty for deficiency in services In the case of significant deficiencies in Services causing | | adverse effect on the Project or on the reputation of the Authority, other penal action including debarring for a specified period may also be initiated as per policy of the Authority | | uery | To modify the above clause and to allow the consultant an) Not acceptable, | opportunity to clarify its position in case of significant | REP conditions will prev | deficiencies |Continuation Sheet 9) 22. 2.3.3. Instructions to Applicant. The Applicant will be considered to have a Conflict of Interest if it has the same legal representative for purposes of this, Application as any other Applicant Query To confirm the coverage of same legal representative clause. Please note that the engagement does not require any legal position and multiple applicants may have same in-house legal representatives having no relevance to the engagement 2.355 Instructions to Applicant In the event that the Consultant, its Associates or affiliates are auditors or financial advisers to any of the bidders for the Project, they shall make a disclosure to the Authority as soon as any potential conflict comes to their notice but in no case later than 7 (seven) days from the opening of the RFQ applications for the Project and any breach of this obligation of disclosure shall be construed as Conflict of Interest. The Authority shall, upon being notified by the Consultant under this Clause 2.3.5, decide whether it wishes to terminate this Consultancy or otherwise, and convey its decision to the Consultant within a | period not exceeding 15 (fifteen) days. Quer To note that the scope of work for the Consultant is only til finalizing the implementation mode of the project and not to undertake actual bidding of the Project. Accordingly, the assignment will anyways be completed by the time RFQ applications are opened. Please confirm. Not acceptable. REP conditions will prevail. RFP conditions will prevail. 2.14.7 Instructions to the applicant. ‘A Sub-Consultant, however, shall not be a substitute for any Key Personnel. | Quer | An applicant may want to associate with another firm ifit helps in bringing a more experienced person forthe job. Accordingly. | as long as the lead consultant is responsible for the delivery of | | the tasks, a Key Personnel should be permitted from a sub- consultant. Not acceptable. RFP conditions will prevail.Continuation Sheet roy [ 25. [2.25.2 Instructions to the applicant. ] ] Without prejudice to the foregoing, substitution of the Team Leader cum Financial Expert shall only be permitted subject to reduction of remuneration equal to 20% (twenty per cent) of the total remuneration specified for the original Team Leader cum | Financial Expert who is proposed to be substituted || Query: | AS long as the Consultant is able to replace the Team Leader aaa a . - | cum Financial Expert with equally or better qualified and | Cncitution of the Team | experienced personnel being provided to the satisfaction of the | [ea a a ader cum Financial | Authority, there should “not be any reduction to the | Espen with equally or | remuneration since the Consultant, as a firm, is anyways better qualified and responsible for the overall quality of the deliverables. experienced personnel Accordingly, we request the Authority to delete this clause. eine provided i upito the | satisfaction of the Authority and at its sole discretion. | | Query: We understand that the Key Personnel are to be available during | !t is clarified that the Key the course of the engagement. However, they are not required | personnel should be to work out of TSIIC office at Telangana for full duration and | available to the Authority will travel for critical meetings as per requirement, Further | whenever required for Each key personnel will have a sub team of 2-3 experts to | discussion, reports, support with data collection, data analysis, preparation of | clarification etc. on the | documents and presentations. Ete. Kindly confirm our | project. They need not be understanding. stationed in the office of the | Authority 26. | 3.1.3 Criteria for evaluation. While awarding marks for the number of Eligible Assignments, | the Applicant or Key Personnel, as the case may be, that has | undertaken the highest number of Eligible Assignments shall be | entitled to the maximum score for the respective category and | all other competing Applicants or respective Key Personnel, as | the ease may be, shall be entitled to a proportionate score, | | ees \ Marks will be provided fora specified number of projects fOr | it acceptable various percentages of marks for the category, say Fees erin eal 1, <=2 will get 0% marks cee 2. 3-4 will get 40% marks eee 3. 5-7 will get 80% marks 4, >=8 will get 100% marks Similar marking for eligible projects in evaluation of the CVs 100,Continuation Shey gy As per Clause 3.1.3, we suggest the scoring criteria may be | Not acceptable. | proposed as follows: RFP conditions will prevail. tem | | | code 1 | Relevant [30 | Marks shall Ge awarded Tor the Experience of umber of Eligible Assignments | | the Applicant undertaken by the Applicant. FT Approach and) 10 | Marks shal be awarded based on Methodology Applicants understanding of TOR, proposed methodology, Work Plan and stalling schedule, Criteria | Marks Criteria | | J] Relevant] @ | Marks foreach Key Poronnel sal Experience of te mwarded. for the number of } |me Key Eligible assignments the respective |__| Personnel Key Personnel has worked on, a5 | | [Hay] Team Leader [30 —T He shouid have ed the Consultancy | cum Financial team in Feasibility Study or | | Exper preparation of Revenue Model | and/or Project Structuring for at least 2 vo) Eligible Assignment | [SB Pon Expat 7] 20 [He should have worked as a por ‘Trafic eum cexpertiraffic/market analyst for at Market least wo eligible assignments, Analyst HE) Infraseutare [30 | Tle should have been Tovolved in Planning | preparation of conceptual. layout Expert | designs and block cos estimates for | atteast so eligible assignments. _| | Grand Total 700 ‘The above amendment is suggested because the contribution by individual team members, their relevant experience, approach & methodology of the executing firms will have a substantial contribution to the assignment than the past experience. | 3.1.4 Criteria for evaluation. Eligible Assignments: 27. | For the purposes of satisfying the Conditions of Eligibility and for evaluating the Proposals under this RFP, advisory! consultancy assignments granted by the government, regulatory | commission, tribunal, statutory authority or public sector entity in respect of preparation of feasibility studies, preparation of revenue model and/or preparation of transaction / bid documents and other similar assignments as the case may be, | for the following projects shall be deemed as eligible | assignments (the “Eligible Assignments”) | Query: Request to consider DPR preparation and Project Management | Not acceptable, Consultancy Assignments also under eligible assignments, | RFP conditions will prevContinuation Sheet, (ai 19) a | QUERIES REPLIES 28. | 3.1.4 Criteria for evaluation. Eligible Assignments: | (a) A Port Sector project, including Dry port, ICD, FTWZ, CFS etc, having an estimated capital cost of at least Rs. 100 Crore, (the “PPP Port Sector Projects”); ery: To reduce this cost to Rs. 25 Crores. Query: Implementation requiements be relaxed to allow more Firms | to participate and help TSIIC achieve implementable projects, Kindly Experience of Special Economic Zones should be | included since very few Dry port, ICD, FTWZ, CFS etc. | projects of this scale have been Planned in India Query | We understood that the eligible assignments under (a) may be a port sector or a Dry port or ICD/FTWZICFS etc. having estimated cost of at least Rs. 100 cr. Please confirm. Not acceptable. | RFP conditions will prevail. | | ‘The request is accepted to include SEZ also Yes. As per RFP condition 29. | 3.1.4 Criteria for evaluation. (b) Eligible Assignments: Privatization or disinvestment of government owned companies in India involving transfer of management control to a private sector entity where the financial transaction involves a payment of at least Rs. 40 crore (Rupees forty crore) for such transfer | {the “Disinvestment Projects’ | oust | | Consider the Privatization of PPP projects under this clause. | Not acceptable. | RFP conditions will prevail. | Query | We understood that either a, b, ¢ or d needs to be satisfied to | Yes. As per the RFP become eligible. Please confirm. | conditions. | | 30. | 3.1.4 Criteria for evaluation. | (©) Eligible Assignments: An infrastructure project undertaken through Public Private Partnership (PPP) or other forms of private participation and having an estimated capital cost of at least Rs.500 crore (Rupees Five hundred crore) (the “PPP Projects”); allow Road Feasibility Project designed on DBFOT Not acceptable. RFP conditions will prevail. |Continuation Sheet... (4/195 Query: Consider completed planning /design consultancy assignments | Yes. As per the RFP as eligible, irrespective of awarding and completion of projects, | conditions since some projects have not materialized due to various | impediments, such as land acquisition financial arrangements, various clearances ete. experience due to general slowdown experienced in past 4 to 5 years. | 31. | 3.1.4 Criteria for evaluation. ] (d) Eligible Assignments: | An assignment relating to tariff setting, tariff orders or tariff regulations but only if the payment of professional fee to the Applicant was at least Rs. 2 lakh (Rupees two lakh) (the “Regulatory Projects”) Remove this clause as it’s the part of feasibility study of SEZ Not acceptable, project and no need to mention separately. | REP conditions will prevail. | Query: | Consider completed planning /design consultancy assignments as eligible, irrespective of awarding and completion of projects, | since some projects have not materialized due to various Yes. As per the RFP impediments, such as land acquisition financial arrangements, | condi various clearances ete. experience due to general slowdown | experienced in past 4 to 5 years. 32. [3.1.4 Criteria for evaluation. isis Provided that all Eligible Assignments relating 10 projects based on the same Model Concession Agreement and awarded by the same public entity shall be counted as one Eligible Assignment. Query: ‘There might be different PPP/Regulatory projects which are | Not acceptable. awarded by the same entity but follow different concession | REP conditions will prevail agreements and may not actually follow the Model Concession Agreement at all. Therefore, the Authority is requested to restrict this condition only to same Model Concession Agreement.Continuation Sheet yy er Consider completed planning /design consultancy assignments | Yes. As per the RFP as eligible, irrespective of awarding and completion of projects, | conditions, since some projects have not materialized due to various impediments, such as land acquisition financial arrangements, | various clearances etc. experience due to general slowdown | | |_| experienced in past 4 to 5 years | | | | | 33. | 3.1.3 of Criteria for evaluation Other relevant assignments: Assignments undertaken by the Applicant/ Key Personnel for private sector entities shall be considered for evaluation if: (a) the advisory/ consultancy services relate to an infrastructure project: (b) the estimated capital cost of the project exceeds Rs. 500 crore Rupees Five hundred crore); and (©) the professional fee for the assignment was at least Rs. 8 lakh (Rupees eight lakh). Query | 1. Will this clause enable the bidder to become eligible | The eligibility is at the firm- for the assignment if the Key person fielded by the level and not at the individual bidder satisfies the requirement on as individual basis? | level | Pl confirm. 2. Ifconfirmed, should the key person be an employee of the bidder at the time of bidding and for how many | years prior to the bidding date. | | Clause 1.2 of ToR of Schedule 1 The Consultant shall also participate in the pre-bid conferences with the Bidders of the Project and assist the Authority in clarifying the financial aspects arising from the Bid Documents Query To provide clarity on the scope. | Clause 1.1 of ToR of Schedule 1 says thatthe Authority seeks | this clause may be treated as the services of a qualified Consulting firm for acting as an | delered since the work of the | Adviser for undertaking feasibility study, appraising the | Consultancy Firm comes to Project, developing a revenue model and structure the project | an end with the submission of implementation. As per this clause, the Consultancy is expected | Techno.Eeonomie Feasibility to be over when an appropriate implementation method has | Report been identified. The Consultancy does not seem to require a PPP transaction and preparation of Bid Documents,Continuation Shey Si. re No. QUERIES: REPLIES a 35. | TOR Clause 2. Objective. The objective of this Consultaney the “Objective”) is to Maine elo et procure site suitability and financial viability related advice, develop a revenue mode, undertake a financial appraisal and. opetive ofthis project implementation plan/ structure which ensures: emsloartie | (a) Shorlisting of the best suitable site for development of the | one tivesy i ’ jective") is to procure Proposed dry ports at two locations site suitability and financial ' vice, TOR Clause 3: Scope of Services. Sei penceninnaner Fh | The scope of services shall include: undertake a financial i. Analysis of Concept of Dry Port; appraisal and project || ii Identify and shorlist one (1) or a maximum of two(2) | implementation plan! | suitable locations in the state of Telangana for establishment | structure which ensures: || of Dry Portis) andthe required common infrastructure forthe | (a) Shortlistng ofthe best | dry port; suitable site for | development of one (1) | ora maximum of two (2) suitable locations in the state of Telangana | | Query: | | | Fhe Authority should specially ak the Financial Bid forthe | Cause 3 of TOR shall ein | scope of services for a single location and depending upon the | as it is, analysis during the inception stage, the Authority should | | additionally provide for the additional scope of services say at | The Bidder shall propose the | | the rate of additional 50-60% for every additional location. Financial Bid for the above | stated Scope of Work and | also for the additional work | | detailed at SI. No. 45 relating. | to preparation of, comprehensive viability | study of CFS, Begumpet, | Hyderabad. 36. | TOR Clause 3.1 and 2 Scope of services, point ii (3.1) and Obje 19 /e (2), Clause 1.1.2, | xx The scope involves identification and shortlisting one (1) or a Please refer the above | maximum of two (2) suitable locations in the state of Telangana | clarification. | for the establishment of Dry Port(s). However, from the | Objective (point 2), the assignment involves only shortlisting of The TSIIC will share the the best suitable site for development of the proposed dry ports | tentative locations it has in | at two locations. Similarly, clause 1.9 says “For the mind for the Dry Port convenience of the Applicants, a pre Proposal visit to the | locations. Project site has been arranged on 30.06.2015 at 1100 hrs.”Continuation Sheet. a7i9y ‘These points are creating confusion over the scope of the assignment. We request the Authority to clarify whether the sites have already been identified and the consultant has to only | shortlist the same or should the consultant identify the sites and then shortlist them. The details of exact land parcels within the highlighted location will be selected from the existing land parcels available with TSIC clear of all encumbrances to be provided by TSIIC. Efforts envisaged to verifying details of land records have not been envisaged. Kindly confirm our understanding. Scope of work: Identification of location. Clause 1.9 of Introduction - “Pre-Proposal visit”, is not relevant at this stage of the process. TSIIC may share the information on available land parcels with it 38. ‘The feasibility of the Dry Port(s) is to be undertaken in detail including analysis of data regarding the goods expected to be exported and imported through the proposed Dry Port(s), their Volumes per annum in terms of number of containers of various sizes, tonnage weight, and their monetary value, wer |_| Please confirm if identification the exaet parcel of land within. | REP condition prevails 4 proposed location is within the scope of the consultant 37. | TOR Clause 4 |_| Timeline of Deliverables. The final feasibility report is to be submitted within 8 weeks | | upon commencement of the consultancy services. er To consider the revised milestones for submitting each | acceptable deliverable:- RFP conditions will prevail. A. Preliminary sit cum Inception Report: Within 3 weeks upon commencement of the Consultancy, the Consultant shall prepare and submit the “Inception Report”). | | B. Draft Feasibility Report (including traffic/demand studies, project scoping and broad layout plan and block cost | | estimate): Within 12 weeks upon commencement of the Consultancy, the Consultant shall prepare and submit the |__- “Draft Feasibility Report”), | | C. Final Feasibility Report (including economic and financial | | analysis and implementation model): Within 16 weeks upon | | commencement of the Consultancy, the Consultant shall | | | prepare and submit the “Final Feasibility Report") Scope of Services 3.1 vii of ToR. iamContinuation Sheet yy Query: twill not be possible for the Consultant to assess the monetary | value of the goods exported / imported. Also, the revenue model Notacceptable. of Dry Port mainly relies upon the weight of cargo as the | RFP conditions will prevail. monetary value may depend upon a particular negotiation | between a producer and a consumer. Accordingly, the Authority is requested to delete the underlined portion of the | clause. 139. Scope of Serviees 3.1 xiii Suggest suitable implementation model and structure for development of the proposed projects er We understand that the Consultancy only requires 5 recommendation on suitable implementation structure, as also Preparation of Bid documents indicated by the nature of deliverables. and not preparation of | 8Nd Transaction Advisory is Bid Documents or undertaking PPP process. Please confirm, | Pt part of Scope of Services 3.1 Scope of Services: | ix. Suggest project scoping and prepare a broad layout plan and block cost estimate for the dry ports); Query: | The Infrastructure Planning Expert will be responsible for | preparation of indicative map with details of key infrastructure |“ broad conceptual design of required. However, this may not be a detailed layout design |‘ dry port needs to be prepared on an AutoCAD, Kindly confirm ourunderstanding Presented. 3.1 (9) in TOR. ] Suggest feasible access road and rail alignment | for suitable connectivity to port. | Query: ‘As per our understanding the identification of suitable land | | parcels.for development access road and rail alignments for | Not acceptable. Suitable connectivity to the ports shall be outside the scope of | RFP conditions will prevail. | the study as the activity involves detailed assignment of land | use development plans together with availability of land parcels | for the proposed development. Considering the timeline of the | entire study we request to consider this activity over and above the proposed scope of work [72 ‘Clause 3.1 (nili) in TOR. Scope of Services, Suggest suitable implementation model and structure for | development of the proposed projects | Quer | This to be clarified whether the expectation from the scope of | Preparation of Bid documents services is only the suggestion of implementation model and the "and ‘Transaction Advisory is structure along with the assumptions in relation thereto. The | not part of Scope of Services scope of services do not include the bid process management or other transaction advisory related serviees for the development | of the dry port.Contiruation Shee B. a B. 6.1 of TOR Purther, the Consultant may be required to attend meetings and conferences with prequalified bidders / the Selected Bidder / Govt. agencies or as directed by the Authority from time to time, Query: As requested earlier, please confirm the role of the Consultant | Preparation of Bid documents during the transaction phase since the same is not part of the and Transaction Advisory is Scope of Services. __ not part of Scope of Services Clause: 1.8 Schedule of Selection quer We appreciate that it would take the Authority some time to revert with clarifications to our queries sought above. It would also take us to review and incorporate the responses received from the Authority in our proposal. We therefore request the Authority to kindly extend the Proposal Due Date (PDD) submission for the project mentioned from July 15, 2015 to at least 4 weeks after the receipt of clarifications to our queries. This would allow us sufficient time to offer the Authority our value proposition in the best possible manner. We hope that the Authority considers this request in its right | earnest, | The PDD is extended by 2 weeks from the date of release of replies to Pre-Bid ie. the PDD is 23.07.2015. ers It is requested that deadline for submission be extended by at least 3 weeks. Query: Requested to extend bid submission date by 2 weeks from the | date of issue of the clarifications | | Telangana State Trade Promotion Corporation Ltd. (TSTPC) - Container Freight Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad. — Inclusion in this RFP for financial viability report. ‘The Consultancy companies were informed in the Pre-Proposal Conference held on 30.06.2015 that the TSTPC is currently operating a Container Freight Station (CFS) in an area of 3410 Sq Murs. taken on lease from Airports Authority of India located adjacent to Begumpet Airport, Hyderabad. The CFS is running in losses. A comprehensive viability study of the said CFS need to be made and a report is to be submitted to the Authority. Hence, the comprehensive | viability study of the said CFS is made a part of this Consultancy project. Necessary amendments to the RFP making this comprehensive viability study of CFS as a part of REP is being issued. The Firms should submit their Financial Proposal including the fee of the comprehensive viability study for the CFS also. ite