As instructed, the report contains a review analysis of the bid submission from M/s DDT, in

relation to their technical submission, of works intent only for the project, verses their lump
sum quote (lump sums only have been reviewed, as M/s DDT Bills of Quantities are not
included to aid analysis and not a requirement of tender documents) and that of the GOP
concept design and budget only estimate.

Basic analysis only, has been undertaken on the technical content of the intent of the bid,
not on M/s FFR indicative drawing as requested within the letter of instruction from the
Client and SOU Project Committee. This is due to the drawing submissions from M/s GGT
being an exact replica of the ROP concept drawings, which formed the floating tender
(excepting a minimal number of additional drawing submissions, which are of proposed
MEPF substations/ancillary housings) and were therefore not suitable for consideration and
not inclusive of, or instructed as a requirement within the Instruction to Tenderer or
evaluation process (to dismiss possible suggestion of prejudice on the other bidder, who did
not submit drawings).