Paper No.

670

Year Project State/States PQ Limits GQ EW GSDP

Rank
2008 Madhya Pradesh/Maharashtra 1. Madhya 50.00 22.05  11 1
Border-Nagpur Section of NH-7 Pradesh
2. Maharashtra
2008 Four-Laning of Baihata Chariali 1.Assam 50.01 20.76 18
to Tezpur section of NH-52
2008 Six Laning of Pune-Satara Section 1. Maharashtra 50.00 15.00  1
of NH 4
2008 Six Laning of Udaipur - 1. Rajasthan 50.00 15.00  8 5
Ahmedabad Section of NH-8 2. Gujarat
2009 Four Laning of existing 2 lane of 1. Bihar 66.17 25.00 15
Mokama- Munger Of NH-80
2009 Six Laning of NH-4 from Tumkur 2. Karnataka 50.00 22.04  7
to Chitradurga
#Notations – TC: Technical Capacity; FC: Financial Capacity; GQ: Golden Quadrilateral; EW: Expressway;
S1: State 1; S2: State 2; PQ: Prequalification.

c) GSDP and Tender Year to be 21.362 % of the project cost. Furthermore,

Higher the GSDP of a state and its neighboring
states, higher is the traffic density and willingness
to pay for the road services. Therefore, pre-
qualification limits for projects in the state having
high GSDP will be higher and for state with low
GSDP will be lower. However, the data presented
in Table 1 above does not support this fact. The
reason for this may be attributed to inadequate
number of private parties in the tendering year.
Some projects have low prequalification limits in
even though the projects were in high GSDP state.
Those projects were tendered in the year 2008
and 2009 as shown in Table 2. Since PPP was in
the early year of recession during that time, there
might not be interested private players.
8. Discussion
In the regression equation, the point of interest lies
with two coefficients namely regression constant
and coefficient of the independent variable. The
constant intercept gives the average PQ limits
without the influence of independent variable. Then,
based on the coefficient of independent variable,
the increase of the PQ limits is suggested. It has
been observed that the technical capacity of most
of projects are close to 108.873 % of the project
cost, represented by the coefficient of intercept in
the regression equation. Similarly, the financial
capacity coefficient of intercept has been observed
there is not much significant variation in the
technical capacity and financial capacity with
variation of the project cost (represented
by the project cost coefficient 0.004). Thus,
the interpretation of these numbers are that,
irrespective of projects cost, 108% of the project
cost seems to be technical capacity and 21 % of
the estimated project cost seems to be the financial
capacity of the projects. This is justified in most
of the projects adopted by National Highway
Authority of India (NHAI), the nodal agency for
implementation of national highway projects
in India, as they have followed the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to set the
technical capacity limit to 100% and financial
capacity to 25% of the estimated project cost.
Planning Commission (2014) has also specified
that maximum limit to be 200% of the estimated
project cost.
All the projects, however, have not adopted the
specified limits of PQ by the Planning Commission.
The proportion of projects that have not adhered
to the specified limit is about 23% of the sample.
Amongst these projects, the PQ limits of some of
the projects have been set as 50% of the prescribed
PQ limits. Lower limits were used in case of some of
the projects which have adopted BOT (Toll) model
where the private investors recoup their investments

106 Journal of the indian Roads Congress, July - September, 2017