You are on page 1of 3

Dated: 24th June, 2016

To
Shri K. V. Singh
General Manager (T), MP
National Highways Authority of India
G- 5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi

Sub.: Clarification for issues raised against Evaluation of Our Bid for Balance work of 2
Lane with Paved Shoulder of Bhopal-Sanchi Section from Km. 0.00 to Km. 53.775 of
NH-86 (Extn.) on EPC mode under NHDP Pahse-III in the State of Madhya Pradesh
Ref.: Your Letter No.-NHAI/EPC/Bhopal-Sanchi/11012/14/2016/84539 Dated 22.6.2016

Dear Sir,

In above reference we are submitting our point wise reply against the issues raised by you
as under:-
1. In reply to point no. 1 (i) As desired the ID No of Class III Digital Certificate is as
belows:-
Class III DSC ID No. -
2. In reply to point no. 1 (ii) In this regard we have to say that there is no any litigation/
arbitration against the company due to non-performance or contractual non-compliance
on past projects as well as on recent projects. We have not hidden any material
information about the same.
So, we also substitute the word recent past as for Last 2 years including rcent year till
the date of BID submission. Please consider accordingly.
3. In reply to point no. 1 (iii) we have to say that we mentioned the word on any contract
because we have not failed to perform any contractual obligation on State Highways,
National Highways, and Expressway, ISC & EI works or any other type of work for civil
construction. Hence, therefore please consider the word on any contract as for work
of Expressway, National Highways, ISC & EI works
4. In reply to point no. 1 (iv) we have to say that we have not failed to perform/execute
any work nor any work has been terminated by the Ministry of Road Transport &
Highways or its implementing agencies, that is public entity, for breach of contract on
account of non-performance or non compliance of contractual obligations.
Please consider Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and its implementing
agencies in place of Public Entity of India.
5. In reply to point no. 2 Our statutory auditor used the word in terms of the respective
clauses of RFQ/RFP because in the format provided in RFP for certificate of statutory
auditor clause mentioned is 2.2.26 (i) (d) (that refer for receipt of payment under category
1 and 2) instead of clause no. 2.2.2.5 and 2.2.26 (ii) (that refer for eligible experience
category and receipt of payment under category 3 and 4)
So, therefore our Statutory Auditor used the words as per respective clause of
REP/RFQ to avoid any misjudgement of clause reference.
We have enclosed herewith Statutory Auditor certificate regarding to replace existing
words with respective clauses no as required.
6. In reply to point no. 3 regarding projects code h,i,j,n and q claimed under category-3
we have to say that we claimed the said project under category-3 because the said work
belong to State Highway & National Highway and nature of work
strengthening/upgradation/ reconstruction of roads viz. SH/NH/MDR. It is hereby further
clarified that most of the time strengthening of road is carried out by executing works of
GSB, WBM/WMM and BM/DBM abd SDBC/BC details of which are mentioned in
certificate.Such work falls under the category of reconstruction or upgradation of road.
Therefore it is a appropriate case of projects under category-3 of RFQ, consequently
claimed as eligible projects under the same category.
Please consider it as eligible projects under category-3 on account of scope of work and
the amount received against the work perform.
7. In reply to point no. 4 regarding meeting the criteria w.r.t. Clause 2.2.2.2 (ii) i.e. similar
work of 50% of estimated project cost (Rs. 113.75 crore) under Category 1 and/or 3. The
Eligible Projects attached in details of Eligible Projects as Project Code k having
project cost Rs. 140.20 crore covered under Catagary 3 specified in Clause 2.2.2.5 (IV)
(iii) Widening/ reconstruction / up-gradation work of roads in Municipal corporation
limits, construction of Bypasses. Please consider the project code k as Eligible Project as
it is meeting the criteria enumerated in RFQ.
1. In reply to point no. 5 regarding certificate for value of B please read the word
during the next 2016-17 Year as during the next Financial Year including successor
year i.e. during the next two years. We consider it as our mistake and regretted.
To compute the available BID Capacity considering Existing Commitments /
Ongoing works to compute the value of B. In this connection we have to say that we
have given complete details about the Name of works, Agreement No., Name of client
and Value remaining to complete against the payment received from the client for the
mentioned projects including stipulated date of completion. We are also submitting
additional information in this regard.
We request you that it is also not possible to reach the concerned client/ Executive
Engineer to get countersigned certificates in such a short duration of time. It is also
humbly submitted that in normal practice of the industry engaged in the business of civil
construction that the bidder himself certifies the value of remaining works. If any
clarification required it can be obtained from the concerning department or addional time
is provided to us to attain alike certificates if necessarily required.
2. In reply to point no. 6 regarding amendment required in Bank Guarantee furnished
against tender security. We hereby enclosed herewith letter of amendment to Bank
Guarantee issued by the bank as requested.

Please consider above point wise reply and evaluate our. If any further
information/clarifications required by you please do communicate with us. We will provide the
required information/clarifications to you at the earliest.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
For Raj Shyama Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
(Tapesh Tyagi)
Director/Authorized Signatory