WBTA Project - Report On Establish Performance Evaluation, Monitoring

January 2016
Final Report on Identification of Set

of Proposed Indicators
Consultancy Services to Establish Performance

Evaluation, Monitoring and Rating System for NHAI
DISCLAIMER
This document is strictly private and confidential and has been prepared by Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu India LLP (“DTTILLP”) specifically for National Highways Authority of India and the
World Bank for the purposes specified herein. The information and observations contained in this
document are intended solely for the use and reliance of NHAI and the World Bank, and are not to be
used, circulated, quoted or otherwise referred to for any other purpose or relied upon without the
express prior written permission of DTTILLP in each instance.
Deloitte has not verified independently all of the information contained in this report and the work
performed by Deloitte is not in the nature of audit or investigation.
This document is limited to the matters expressly set forth herein and no comment is implied or may
be inferred beyond matters expressly stated herein.
It is hereby clarified that in no event DTTILLP shall be responsible for any unauthorised use of this
document, or be liable for any loss or damage, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, that may be
suffered or incurred by any party.
Final Report on Identification of Set of Proposed Indicators January 2016
Consultancy Services to Establish Performance Evaluation, Monitoring and Rating System for NHAI
Contents
1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 6
2 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10
3 Proposed Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework .......................................... 12

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Structure of Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework .................................................. 12
3.3 Guidelines for Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework ............................................... 18
4 Identification of Set of Performance Indicators ....................................................... 22

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Key Performance Indicators For Vendors Directly Engaged by NHAI ................................ 24
4.3 Key Performance Indicators for Vendors Indirectly Engaged by NHAI............................. 160
5 Way Forward ............................................................................................................ 175
Annexures ....................................................................................................................... 176

Annexure 1: Scoring Calculation for Technical Design Consultants ....................................... 176
Annexure 2: Scoring Calculation for Technical Supervision Consultants ............................... 178
Annexure 3: Scoring Calculation for Safety Consultants ......................................................... 180
Annexure 4: Scoring Calculation for Toll Collection Agency ................................................... 182
Annexure 5: Scoring Calculation for Financial and Legal Consultants .................................... 184
Annexure 6: Scoring Calculation for Concessionaire (BOT- Toll) ........................................... 186
Annexure 7: Scoring Calculation for Concessionaire (BOT- Annuity) ..................................... 189
Annexure 8: Scoring Calculation for Concessionaire (OMT) ................................................... 192
Annexure 9: Scoring Calculation for EPC Contracto ............................................................... 195
Annexure 10: Scoring Calculation for Item Rate Contractor .................................................... 197
Annexure 11: Scoring Calculation for O&M Contractor ........................................................... 199
Annexure 12: Scoring Calculation for EPC Subcontractor ...................................................... 201
Annexure 13: Scoring Calculation for O&M Subcontractor ...................................................... 203
Page 3
Acronyms
AE Authority’s Engineer
AT Arbitration Tribunal
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards
BOQ Bill of Quantities
BOT Build Operate Transfer
CMC Contract Management Cell
COD Commercial Operations Date
CP Conditions Precedent
CR Communication and Responsiveness
DBFOT Design Build Finance Operate Transfer
DPR Detailed Project Report
DRB Dispute Resolution Board
DSCR Debt Service Coverage Ratio
EPC Engineering Procurement Construction
EPF Employees’ Provident Fund
ESI Employees’ State Insurance
GAD General Arrangement Drawing
HQ Head Quarters, NHAI
HSMU Highway Safety Management Unit
IE Independent Engineer
IMC Inter-Ministerial Committee
IMS Incident Management System
IRC Indian Roads Congress
ISAC Independent Settlement Advisory Committee
JV Joint Venture
KPI Key Performance Indicators
LA Land Acquisition
L&A Legal and Arbitration Cell
MCA/CA Model Concession Agreement
MoRTH Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
MOST Ministry of Surface Transport
NA Not Applicable
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NHAI National Highways Authority of India
NHDP National Highways Development Project
O&M Operation & Maintenance
OMT Operation Maintenance Transfer
PC Project Cost
PIU Project Implementation Unit
PM Project Management
Page 4
PMC Project Management Company

PPP Public Private Partnership
PPR Preliminary Project Report
QS Quality of Services
RFP Request for Proposal
RFQ Request for Qualification
RO Regional Office, NHAI
ROW Right of Way
SAC Safety Considerations
SC Supervision Consultant
SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
TA Technical Assistance
TL Timelines
ToR Terms of Reference
TPC Total Project Cost
VPEF Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework
VRRC Vendor Rating Review Committee
Y1,Y2,Y3 Year 1, Year 2, Year 3
Page 5
1 Executive Summary
Over the years as the coverage of NHDP increased and the portfolio of implementation changed from
Item Rate contracts to PPP projects, the scope of NHAI has not only increased tremendously but its role
has also been significantly widened. The ever increasing scope and magnitude has warranted NHAI to
adopt an outsourcing focused model thereby engaging various parties including concessionaires,
contractors and consultants. Therefore, the performance of NHAI is significantly intertwined with the
performance of its vendors and thus it is important to ensure an objective assessment of vendor’s
performance, by applying established evaluation criteria – the proposed Vendor Performance
Evaluation Framework (VPEF).
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP (“Deloitte”) has been appointed by NHAI to provide consulting
services to “Establish Performance Evaluation, Monitoring and Rating System for NHAI” as part of the
World Bank’s Technical Assistance (TA). Deloitte commenced work on the engagement on 13th January
2014 and submitted the “Draft Inception Report” on 3rd February 2014. A presentation to the
NHAI/World Bank on the Draft Inception Report was made on 7th March 2014 and with incorporation of
comments the Final Inception Report was submitted on 21 st March 2014. The Draft Report on
“Background Analysis and Need Assessment Report” was submitted on 21 April 2014 as part of our
2nd deliverable for the study.
The first two deliverables covered our understanding of the engagement; identified categories of
outsourced agencies and their roles and responsibilities, identified prevailing procurement mechanism
and the contract modalities, examined the existing debarment framework, recognized good practices
and principles of performance tracking and outlined our key observations for designing and
implementing a robust evaluation & rating framework and thereby preparing the ground work for the
Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework (VPEF). In continuation, this report is the 3rd deliverable
of this assignment and pertains to “Identification of Set of Proposed Indicators”.
A Draft Interim Note on “Identification of Set of Proposed Indicators” was circulated to NHAI through
email communication on 4th June 2014 and followed by hard copy submission on 20th June 2014 to
receive comment from the Technical Divisions of NHAI to be incorporated in this Draft Deliverable. The
objective of this Deliverable 3 is to collate the findings from Deliverable 1 & 2, recommend a suitable
Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework and evolve a detailed list of Rating Disciplines and Key
Performance Indicators for each vendor class to lay down the contours and rating guidelines of the
framework. The Draft of Deliverable 3 was submitted to NHAI on 21st July 2014. Post its submission,
several rounds of discussions with the Contract Management Cell of NHAI were held and relevant
changes were made in the report.
Deloitte also made a combined presentation to NHAI/World Bank officials on 1st September 2014 on
Deliverable 2 & 3. A revised Draft of Deliverable 3 was submitted to NHAI and World Bank on 2nd
September 2014 for further review and comments to enable finalization of VPEF and Key Performance
Indicators before it is taken up for design and development.
A presentation on Deliverable 3 was made to Member-PPP on 3rd September 2014. During the
presentation, it was decided by Member (PPP) that four committees of 3 General Managers each would
be formed to review the draft report. Each committee was given the mandate of providing comments on
Key Performance Indicators for the assigned group of vendors. The Vendors allocated to each of the
committees were grouped based on similarity of scope of work for those vendors. The comments/inputs
Page 6
received from the NHAI Committees and Regional Offices have been deliberated and relevant changes
(wherever required) have been incorporated in this Final Draft of Deliverable 3 which was submitted
to NHAI on 3rd December 2014. Subsequently, a presentation was made to Member (PPP) on 29th
June 2015 and to Member (Projects) on 3rd December 2015 and 18th January 2016. The
comments/inputs received from Member and CMC have been incorporated in this Final Deliverable for
“Identification of Set of Proposed Indicators”
The purpose of developing this Framework is to draw lessons from the project’s experience, to be used
in improving the implementation process of ongoing projects and delivery of new projects.
Implementation of ongoing projects can be improved by regularly monitoring compliance of the
performance with the contract terms, identifying defects and deficiencies in construction/
implementation/ execution and suggesting ways to resolve the same and ensuring that all project
deliverables/execution meet the required timelines and be quality compliant. Additionally, if desired by
NHAI, this tool can also be used as an evaluation criterion during the vendor selection process for new
contracts and take immediate actions against non-performing vendors and other related matters. This
process establishes a standardized process within NHAI to identify, document, communicate and
compare the performance of consultants, contractors and concessionaires within their sub-segments.
Given the background, the first step towards developing the vendor evaluation framework is to identify
a list of key vendors appointed by NHAI at various stages of project implementation. These vendors are
classified in two categories; vendors directly engaged by NHAI at different junctures of project lifecycle
and vendors indirectly engaged – through its vendors referred as sub-contractors or sub-consultants.
This report discusses in detail, the Key Performance Indicators for various categories of vendors of NHAI
spanning across the entire value chain of a Highway Project – engaged directly by NHAI and those
engaged by NHAI’s PPP Concessionaires whose performance evaluation and rating would also be
important to ensure successful project execution.
KPIs have been elaborated for different category of vendors engaged by NHAI which includes the
following:
Contract Vendor Class Project Phase Types of Vendors represented
Types
Service 1 Technical- Initiation & Pre- DPR/ PPR/ Feasibility Consultant
Design Construction
2 Technical- Pre- Construction & Authority Engineer (EPC);
Supervision Construction Independent Engineer (BOT-Toll,
Annuity); Supervision Consultant (Item
Rate)
Operation & Independent Engineer (BOT-
Maintenance Toll/Annuity); Independent Engineer
(OMT)
3 Technical- Pre- Construction, Safety Consultant (BOT-Toll, Annuity,
Safety Construction, Operation OMT)
Inspection & Maintenance
4 Financial & Initiation & Pre- Financial & Legal Consultant- PPP &
Legal Construction Non PPP
Consultant Construction and O&M Arbitrators and Legal Consultants
Phase
5 Other Service Operation & Toll Collection Agency
Agents Maintenance
Work 6 Concessionaire Pre- Construction, Concessionaire BOT (Toll/Annuity)
- DBFOT Construction and O&M
Page 7
Contract Vendor Class Project Phase Types of Vendors represented

Types
7 Concessionaire Operation & Concessionaire (OMT)
- O&M Maintenance
8 Contractor- Pre- Construction & EPC Contractor
Design & Build Construction*
9 Contractor- Pre- Construction & Item Rate Contractor
Build Construction*
10 Contractor- Operation & O&M Agency
O&M Maintenance*
* include Defect liability period
In addition, based on the discussions during the Inception Report presentation to World Bank and NHAI,
the KPIs for the following Sub-contractors of PPP Concessionaires have also been presented in this
report:
 Contractor-Design & Build appointed at construction stage - EPC Sub-Contractors
 Contractor-O&M appointed at operation and maintenance stage – O&M Sub-Contractors
The GM committee entrusted with the responsibility of reviewing the proposed KPIs for the EPC sub-
contractors engaged by the Concessionaire is of the view that NHAI should only rate those vendors for
whom they are the principal employer. The Consultant is of the same opinion and we request the
Competent Authority in NHAI to take a decision in this favour.
Given this background, the overall performance of each category of vendors of NHAI can be broadly
evaluated based on six Key Rating Disciplines classified as Quality of Services, Timelines, Project Cost,
Project Management, Safety Considerations and Communication and Responsiveness. The
performance monitoring framework proposes to have a different set of Rating Disciplines for each vendor
category applicable and relevant under its range according to its scope of work, activities and output of
the project. The sum of the weightings for all the Rating Disciplines for a specific vendor will add up to
100%, where weightage for every rating discipline will be assigned on the basis of the overall importance
that can be accorded to the specific Rating Discipline.
Further, this evaluation framework attempts to interlink Key Performance Indicators with separate Rating
Disciplines. A key component for a successful performance monitoring tool is a well-defined set of
Performance Indicators against which the contractors/concessionaires/consultants needs to be
evaluated. The role and responsibility including activities/tasks, issues and concerns of the vendor
categories are different and hence the overall importance/weightage of a particular type of Performance
Indicator would be different across different vendor group categories. Further, the key elements defining
a given Performance Indicators would also be different across different vendor group categories.
While developing these Performance Indicators we have given special emphasis on defining each
Performance Indicator quantitatively rather than qualitatively to represent more accurate linkage
between the performance delivery and the final performance score. However, certain subjective
elements are unavoidable, and the rating methodology for such KPIs has been defined such as to avoid
individual interpretation and human influences. Further, the Key Performance Indicators have been
identified keeping in view that the; Indicators are comparable across various contract types and provide
comparison of performances over a period of time to highlight the scale of improvement over period of
time, Indicators have reasonable collection cost i.e. costs associated with collecting information need to
be balanced against the benefits of collecting that information and Indicators are easily verified by third
parties so as to avoid any misappropriation of data and performance reporting. In addition, Key
Performance Indicators identified for each vendor class, ensures an objective assessment of vendor’s
performance, by applying established evaluation criteria aligned with NHAI’s business goals. Given this,
every Performance Indicator have been allocated sub-weights depending upon its level of importance
Page 8
and defined as “High” “Medium” and “Low”. The KPIs defined “High” are relatively more important for a
particular rating discipline while those defined “Low” are of relatively lesser importance in comparison to
others. For calculation of vendor rating, sub-weights will be converted into arithmetical values of 3, 2
and 1 respectively in the system. 3 would represent “High” and 2 represent “Medium” and 1 representing
“Low”. On the other hand the Performance scores for each KPIs are to be allotted on a scale of 1 to 5,
where ‘5’ is regarded as the most desired performance by the vendors, however ‘1’ is regarded as the
least desired outcome.
The evaluation exercise will be carried out based on the information gathered during the course of the
contract/concession annually and at the end of a contract/concession period. In assessing the
performance of the vendor on various Key Performance Indicators the vendor would be assessed based
on the various documentations available including; reports, work plans and schedules, forecasts,
invoices, correspondences electronic or non-electronic, notes, other stakeholders concerns, minutes,
site instructions, site photos and any contract or project related data and physical inspections of works.
Way Forward: The Key Performance Indicators constructed in this report have been finalized after
incorporation of the comments/inputs given by the four committees constituted for this very purpose by
Member-PPP and Contract Management Cell. It may be appreciated that a system is only as good as it
users and NHAI’s ability to institutionalize the system would be a crucial element towards successful
implementation. Therefore, once the contours, guidelines, and performance matrix of the Evaluation
Framework are finalized and approved by NHAI, we propose to conduct two workshops at HQ/ROs of
NHAI where the stakeholders would be invited to participate in the workshops. The agenda of these
workshops would be to demonstrate the proposed performance evaluation and rating framework and
KPIs in order to disseminate implementation knowledge and generate high acceptance levels from the
stakeholders.
On receipt of approval of this Final Report by NHAI and World Bank, we would prepare report on
“Design System Architecture and Implementation Strategy”. This would include the final contours
of the proposed system and the implementation strategy, development of information flow, roles and
responsibilities matrix of the different levels of users and quality control measures, evaluation of the
above mentioned international and domestic organizations for their implementation models and
strategies and development of IT system architecture including institutional arrangements, budgetary
requirements and implementation plan.
Page 9
2 Introduction
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP (“Deloitte”) has been appointed by NHAI to provide consulting
services to “Establish Performance Evaluation, Monitoring and Rating System for NHAI” as part of the
World Bank’s Technical Assistance (TA). Deloitte commenced work on the engagement on 13th January
2014 and submitted the “Draft Inception Report” as part of our first deliverable on 3rd February 2014.
A presentation on the Inception Report was made to the NHAI on 7th March 2014, subsequent to which
changes in the report suggested by NHAI were incorporated and the Final Inception Report was
submitted on 21st March 2014. The Inception Report covered our understanding of the engagement,
updated the approach & methodology, reviewed some of the international & national best practices used
for vendor performance evaluation & rating framework and outlined our key observations for designing
and implementing a robust evaluation & rating framework.
As part of our 2nd deliverable, “Draft Report on the Background Analysis and Need Assessment”
was submitted to NHAI on 21st April 2014. A presentation on the current project status and the proposed
Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework (VPEF) was made to World Bank/NHAI during the mid-
term review meeting held on 23rd April 2014 at Hotel Taj Man Singh. This report constitute a diagnostic
review of NHAI which involved classification of vendors by project lifecycle, outlined the current vendor
procurement and contract management framework, described internal policy guidelines for project
monitoring & vendor performance evaluation outlining debarment of vendors. This report also
summarized some of the internationally followed best practices for vendor evaluation, to form the basis
for our recommended Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework (VPEF) and established the need
and outline of the framework.
As per the Terms of Reference, this report constitutes the 3rd Deliverable i.e. “Report on Identification
of Set of Proposed Indicators”. This report constitutes the structure and the guidelines for
implementation of the “Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework”, identification of Rating Disciplines
and allocation of weights to these disciplines for each vendor class, construction of Key Performance
Indicators through detailed review of the contractual provisions and defining the scoring guidelines and
overall rating methodology for different sets of vendors. The Final Draft of Deliverable 3 was submitted
to NHAI on 3rd December 2014 after incorporation of inputs/comments received from four General
Manager’s committees formed for the purpose reviewing the draft report. Subsequently, a
presentation was also made to Member (PPP) on 29th June 2015 and to Member (Projects) on 3rd
December 2015 and 18th January 2016.
Subsequent to this deliverable, “System Architecture and Design Stage”, would involve carrying out
detailed case studies for review of similar vendor performance evaluation and rating framework and
follow up with 2 stakeholder workshops to share with NHAI stakeholders the recommend performance
evaluation and rating framework for the vendors, obtain their views/suggestions and refine the
framework in consultation with NHAI’s Core Group. The finalized version would be used for designing
the system architecture followed with system development.
Activities Deliverables/Action Reports Status

Preparation of detailed work program, 1. Inception Report Submitted
schedule and proposed methodology
Page 10
Activities Deliverables/Action Reports Status

Needs assessment and Background 2. Report on the background analysis and Submitted
Analysis need assessment
Identification of Set of Proposed 3. Report on Identification of set of This
Indicators proposed indicators Report
System Architecture and Design 4. Stakeholder Workshops – 2 in numbers Scheduled
at NHAI HQ/RO unit as per ToR
5. Case Study Report and
Finalization
6. Report on Proposed System Architecture
of KPIs
and Implementation Strategy
Development of the system and 7. Operational version of the system Scheduled
support in making the system including pilot testing as per ToR
operational 8. Guidelines and User manual
Training on the performance 9. Training Needs Assessment and Scheduled

evaluation, monitoring and rating Training Plan as per ToR
system and rollout of system 10. Training
11. Launch Workshop with Stakeholders- 4
in numbers at NHAI HQ/RO units
Support NHAI in problem solving and 12. Support NHAI in problem solving and for Scheduled
for any day to day system queries any day to day system queries from as per ToR
from users while system is in use. users while system is in use.
Page 11
3 Proposed Vendor Performance

Evaluation Framework
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of developing a Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework (VPEF) is to draw lessons
from the project’s experience, to be used in improving the implementation of ongoing projects and delivery
of new projects. Implementation of ongoing projects can be improved by regularly monitoring compliance
of the performance with the contract terms, identifying defects and deficiencies in construction /
implementation / execution and suggesting ways to resolve the same and ensuring that all project
deliverables meet the required timelines and be quality compliant. Additionally, this evaluation tool can
also be used as a selection criterion during the vendor selection process for new contracts and take
immediate actions against non-performing vendors and other related matters. This process establishes
a standardized process within NHAI to identify, document communicate and compare the performance
of consultants, contractors and concessionaires within their sub-segments.
The past few years of experience have indicated that there are several concerns and issues of quality
deficiencies and inadequate responsiveness to NHAI’s requirements shown by vendors. At the same time
there have been several instances of vendor’s performances which have exceeded NHAI’s expectations.
The variety and number of such vendors as well as their influence on overall output from NHAI makes
management and performance evaluation and monitoring of the vendors a key requirement of the overall
strategy.
3.2 Structure of Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework

Given this background, the purpose of this section is to clearly spell out the Vendor Performance
Evaluation Framework (VPEF) comprising the performance tracking, documenting and monitoring
system. Aligning the above objectives and NHAI’s business goals, the Vendor Performance Evaluation
Framework has been structured as follows:
Page 12
3.2.1 Defining Categories of Outsourced Vendors

It is quite evident that the scope of NHAI has not only increased tremendously since its inception but its
role has also been significantly widened. The ever increasing scope and magnitude has warranted NHAI
to adopt an outsourcing focused model thereby engaging various parties including concessionaires,
contractors and consultants. Therefore, the performance of NHAI is significantly intertwined with the
performance of its vendors and thus to assess the performance of vendors it is important to identify a list
of key vendors appointed at various stages of project implementation: Initiation stage, Pre-Construction
stage, Construction stage, and Post-Construction stage.
The following external vendors directly or indirectly engaged by NHAI are classified to perform a large
number of activities under all the above four stages of the project lifecycle. These external agencies are
broadly classified as follows:
Vendor Class Project Phase Types of Vendors Represented
Vendors Directly Engaged by NHAI
Service Contracts
Initiation & Pre-
Technical- Design DPR/ PPR/ Feasibility Consultant
Construction
Authority Engineer (EPC); Independent Engineer
Pre- Construction &
(BOT-Toll, Annuity); Supervision Consultant (Item
Construction
Technical- Supervision Rate)
Independent Engineer (BOT-
Operation & Maintenance
Toll/Annuity); Independent Engineer (OMT)
Construction, Operation & Safety Consultant (BOT-Toll, Annuity, OMT,
Technical- Safety Inspection
Maintenance EPC)
Financial & Legal Consultant- PPP & Non PPP
Pre- Construction
Financial & Legal Consultant
Construction, Operation &
Legal Consultants, Arbitrators
Maintenance
Other Service Agents Operation & Maintenance Toll Collection Agency
Work Contracts
Construction & Operation &
Concessionaire- DBFOT Concessionaire BOT (Toll/Annuity)
Maintenance
Concessionaire- O&M Operation & Maintenance Concessionaire (OMT)
Contractor- Design & Build Construction* EPC Contractor
Contractor- Build Construction* Item Rate Contractor

Contractor- O&M Operation & Maintenance* O&M Agency
Vendors Indirectly Engaged by NHAI: Contractors Engaged by DBFOT Concessionaires
Contractor- Design & Build Construction* EPC Contractors
Contractor- O&M Operation & Maintenance* O&M Contractors
* includes defect liability period
Each of the vendor class defined above is assessed on six critical Rating Disciplines as explained in the
subsequent section.
3.2.2 Defining Rating Disciplines – Parameters for Measuring Performance

Contracts/Concession Agreements acting as the governing agreement between the contracting parties
addresses the roles and responsibility of each party to the contract, and thus clearly forms the basis for
Page 13
performance evaluation for each vendor class. The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines
six key Rating Disciplines, with each vendor class having a different set of Rating Disciplines applicable
and relevant under its range according to its scope of work, activities and output of the project. The Rating
Disciplines are defined as follows:
1. Quality of Services (QS)

This category covers the issues involved in managing the quality of works and services provided in order
to assure that the final outcome meet the specified standards and accuracy and the extent of
inaccuracies, defects, and rework requirements are minimum. Detailed aspects under this Rating
Discipline include attributes of Quality Assurance Plans for the execution for works, Quality assurance
implementation plan, extent of quality compliance, and quality of project documentations and innovations.
2. Timelines (TL)
This category covers the issues involved in managing the delivery of the works and services, timely report
submissions, achievement of milestones, events and outcomes as per the agreed timelines. Detailed
aspects under this Rating Discipline include meeting targeted timelines as specified in the schedule,
doing it right for the first time, updating work schedules regularly, and timely completion of additional
work.
3. Project Cost (PC)

This category covers the issues involved in managing the costs of the works by keeping the cost within
budget through planning and control in order to ensure that the contract is completed within the estimated
costs or extra costs or variations are minimized and or reasonable. Detailed aspects under this Rating
Discipline include range of budget variance-variations, pricing of contract addendum, demonstrable use
of advance payment and cost efficiency.
4. Project Management (PM)

This category covers the issues directly related to the execution of the project. Detailed aspects include
problem resolution and customer satisfaction, appreciation of government requirements and
management of other contractors or consultants.
5. Safety Considerations (SAC)

This category covers the issues involved in health of workers and other stakeholders and the
implementation of safety consciousness and precautions for the general safety of the site, engineering
provisions for reducing road accidents and increasing safety of the road users. Detailed aspects include
safety management plan, availability of statistics on accidents/unusual occurrences, submission of
weekly/monthly safety reports, and adequacy of safety equipment’s like work signage etc.
6. Communication and Responsiveness (CR)

This category covers whether the service provider is responsive, flexible, and is effectively communicating
and coordinating with NHAI and other relevant authorities. It also involves managing communication
between parties and other stakeholders and sub-contractors. Detailed aspects include communication
management plan, response to instructions or enquiries and knowledge and understanding of NHAI
project procedures.
Page 14
3.2.3 Allocation of Weightage to Rating Discipline

The sum of the weightage for all the Rating Disciplines for a specific vendor will add up to 100%, where
weightage for every rating discipline (for different vendors) will be assigned on the basis of the overall
perception of the risk of non-performance of the specific Rating Discipline. The allocation of weightage
for each vendor class for each rating discipline is outlined in the following table:
Quality of Services (QS), Timelines (TL), Project Management (PM), Communication & Responsiveness (CR), Safety
Rating Disciplines and Allocation of Weights
Vendors QS TL PM CR SAC PC
Engaged by NHAI
DPR/ PPR/ Feasibility Consultant 40% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Authority Engineer (EPC)/ Supervision Consultant (Item Rate)

40% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10%
/ Independent Engineer (BOT-Toll/Annuity)
Safety Consultant (BOT-Toll/Annuity, OMT, EPC) 60% 15% 15% 10%
Financial/Legal Consultants 60% 15% 15% 10%
Toll Collection Agency 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%
Concessionaire (BOT- Toll/Annuity) 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%
OMT Concessionaire 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%
EPC Contractor 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%
Item Rate Contractor 60% 15% 10% 5% 5% 5%
O&M Agency 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

Engaged by the DBFOT Concessionaires
EPC Sub-Contractor engaged by DBFOT Concessionaire 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%
O&M Contractor engaged by DBFOT Concessionaire 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

Considerations (SAC), Project Cost (PC)
3.2.4 Performance Indicators – Defining Key Elements for Each Discipline

This evaluation framework attempts to interlink and quantify both Rating Discipline and Performance
Indicators. A key component for a successful performance monitoring tool is a well-defined set of
performance parameters against which the contractors/concessionaires/consultants needs to be
evaluated. The role and responsibility including activities/tasks, issues and concerns of the vendor
categories are different and hence the overall importance of a particular type of Performance Indicator
would be different across different vendor group categories. Further, the key elements defining a given
Performance Indicators would also be different across different vendor group categories.
The following flowchart depicts some of the key Performance Indicators identified for various Rating
Disciplines.
Page 15
3.2.5 Allocation of Sub-Weighs to Performance Indicators

Every Performance Indicator have been allocated sub-weights depending upon its level of importance
and defined as “High” “Medium” and “Low”. The KPIs defined “High” are relatively more important for a
particular rating discipline while those defined “Low” are of relatively lesser importance in comparison to
others. For calculation of vendor rating, sub-weights will be converted into arithmetical values of 3, 2 and
1 respectively in the system. 3 would represent “High” and 2 represent “Medium” and 1 represent “Low”.
In case any specific Performance Indicator is not valid for a specific project, we would not assign any
weight for the same and thus it will not get incorporated in the rating model.
3.2.6 Allocation of Scores to Performance Indicators

Performance Indicator is assigned a score on a scale of 1 to 5, with ‘5’ being the most desired outcome
from NHAI’s perspective and ‘1’ being the least desired outcome. The total number of elements defining
performance for each parameter can be modified over time based on NHAI’s experience.
3.2.7 Defining the Scoring System and Methodology

To arrive at the vendor rating, we would evaluate each Performance Indicator on a scale of 1 to 5. Once
a score has been assigned, we will multiply the score allotted (to each Performance Indicator) with their
relative weights to arrive at the Actual Score. This Actual Score will then be multiplied with the Factor
to arrive at the Final Weighted Score of that particular Performance Indicator. Subsequently, we will
sum up these Final Weighted Scores of all Performance Indicators in a given Rating Discipline to arrive
at a consolidated score for a specific Rating Discipline. This will help us evaluate the performance of the
Page 16
contractor on each rating discipline. To arrive at the final score we will add up the scores of all rating
disciplines which will then be used for evaluation of the vendor.
Sample Performance Evaluation Framework Matrix
Rating Discipline Perform Total Final
Sub- Score Maximum Actual Weigh
ance Maximum Factor Weighted
weight Allotted Score Score tage
Indicator score Score
A B1 C1 B2 C2 D E F
Quality of QS1 - - - - - - -
Services QS2 - - - - - - -
TL1 - - - - - - -
Timelines
TL2 - - - - - - -
PC1 - - - - - - -
Project Cost
PC2 - - - - - - -
Project PM1 - - - - - - -
Management PM2 - - - - - - -
Communication CR1 - - - - - - -
Responsiveness CR2 - - - - - - -
SAC1 - - - - - - -
Safety
SAC2 - - - - - - -
Sub Weights = ‘A’ = Weights allotted on a scale of 1 to 3 for Performance Indicators (Low, Medium and
High respectively for 1,2 and 3)
Score Allotted = ‘B1’ = Scores assigned on the basis of performance on a scale of 1 to 5
Maximum Score = ‘C1’ = Sub Weights multiplied by 5 (Maximum scale for scores)
Actual Score = ‘B2’ = Scores Allotted (B1) multiplied by Sub Weights (A)
Total Maximum Score = ‘C2’ = Maximum scores (C1) multiplied by 5 (Maximum scale for scores)
Weightage = ‘D’ = Weights allotted to different Rating Disciplines adding up to 100%
Factor = ‘E’ = Calculated as Weightage of Rating Discipline *100/Sum of Maximum Scores Allotted for
each Rating Discipline
Final Weighted Score = ‘F’ = Calculated as Actual Score multiplied by Factor
Factor: In our suggested model, we have proposed a rating system enabling a “percentage” base for
evaluation—a concept that provides for ease of understanding and usage. Thus, ‘Factor’ will be a
component which will be calculated for each Rating Discipline, so that sum of Final Weighted Score for
all Rating Disciplines adds up to 100. This will be calculated as Weightage of Rating Discipline *100/Sum
of Maximum Scores for each Rating Discipline, where Total Maximum Score is calculated by multiplying
the weights assigned to each Performance Indicator with ‘5’ as this is the maximum scale of score.
3.2.8 Scoring Acceptability

The minimum acceptance performance score for vendors will be 60%. Any vendor scoring below 40%
for a particular contract will be issued warning letters. For vendors whose average scoring based on their
performance of contracts falls below 40% can considered for debarment from future contracts. The
classification of performance as per the scores achieved is presented in the following table:
Score
Description of Performance Recommended Actions
Range
>90% Excellent Acceptable
80% - 89% Very Good Acceptable
60% - 79% Good Acceptable
40% – 59% Fair Letters requesting corrective actions
<40% Poor Warning Letters
Page 17
3.2.9 Incorporation of Past Performance Rating

We would also integrate the flexibility of incorporating vendor’s previous performances with NHAI, in the
evaluation matrix. The vendor’s Past Performance Rating will be calculated on a maximum three year
period for those who have been in business with the NHAI for an equivalent or a lesser duration of time.
The following factors schedule applies for subsequent years as shown in the table below:
Years in business with client Factor

Years 1 2 3
1* 100% 0 0
2 60% 40% 0
3 50% 30% 20%
*Latest Year
The factor assigned above is multiplied by the weighted score of the vendor for a project conducted in
that specific year. For Example: A vendor has been working with NHAI for last 3 years. The score of the
vendor in these years is; Y1 – 50, Y2 – 65, Y3 – 80 with factor of Y1 – 50%, Y2 – 30%, Y3 – 20%. Then
the cumulative score or the past performance rating score will be equal to 50*0.5 + 65*0.3 + 80*0.2
generating a final score of 60.5. The vendor is assigned a higher weightage if they have performed well
in the most recent years.
3.3 Guidelines for Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework

The Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework should be governed by the following guidelines, to help
NHAI develop a framework which is holistic, driven by clarity and results in optimum and timely solutions.
3.3.1 Process of Evaluations with Involvement of Vendor

The first stage in the performance review cycle shall be the self-scoring of performance by the vendors
and the gathering of associated evidence to justify their score. To assist with this process, a template
data entry sheet shall be provided to all vendors. For each Key performance Indicator, the data entry
sheet shall include a dropdown list with the detailed performance parameters for each score from 5 to 1
and “NA ─ Not Applicable” option. This sheet shall also provide for an associated comments box for each
KPI where comments are required for all KPI’s to explain the reasoning behind the allocated score. These
are instructive and allow the reader to understand why a particular score was given and what actions are
required to improve the score, if possible, for next time.
3.3.2 Evaluation of Score for Multiple Projects Executed by the Vendor

Vendors would be evaluated on individual contracts and the scores obtained across similar class of
contracts (for e.g. Technical Supervision Consultant) would be weighted averaged to arrive consolidated
vendor performance score of that vendor for that particular class of contract. The weights allocated to
individual contracts would be linked to the relative importance of the contract
3.3.3 Delay on Account of other Stakeholders

The concessionaire shall not be penalized for any delay in achievement of timelines on account of delay
in achieving conditions precedent and other approvals by the Authority, delay in getting statutory
clearances or delay on account of any other stakeholder. In case any such delay is applicable on account
of other parties, the concessionaire shall be provided benefit of doubt and should not be ranked on that
Key Performance Indicator and NA shall be marked against such KPI.
Page 18
3.3.4 Variability in Concession Agreements;

There would be different concession/contract agreements applicable at different point of times for NHAI.
The following Key Performance Indicators have been developed on the basis of latest model
concession/contract agreements provided to us by the NHAI. However, there will be projects under this
evaluation radar which were executed on earlier versions of concession agreements and therefore some
of the parameters defined below may have different timelines. In such circumstance rating would be
based on the applicable provisions of the Concession Agreement.
3.3.5 Treatment of Consortium/Joint Venture

In case of work contracts executed through PPP mode, undertaken through consortium of
concessionaires, forming a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), the performance rating will be applicable to
all the consortium members having more than 26% shareholding in the SPV. A rating of the members
would be in proportion to their share in the SPV. In case of all other forms of work & service contracts
executed through Joint Venture (JV) arrangements, all the individual contractors/ consultants would be
rated based on their stake in the JV.
3.3.6 Frequency of Performance Review Cycle

This VPEF will be conducted by NHAI annually or at the end of the contract whichever occurs first. The
annual evaluation process would be initiated from 1st January of each calendar year. As on 1st January
of each evaluation year, contracts aged more than 12 months would be considered for evaluation. For
multi-phase projects this VPEF may be completed at the end of each phase of work in addition to an
annual review. For short term contracts particularly service contracts (less than one year), we propose
to conduct the performance review at the end of the tenure of the contract. This would mean that service
contracts which expire prior to the cutoff of 31st December of a calendar would be evaluated in the next
calendar year. The entire evaluation process would be completed within 31st March of the calendar year
and final rating of vendors would be declared in the 1st week of April and which may be considered to be
made public in NHAI website. In addition, special performance evaluations may be carried out at any
time during the project implementation phase as considered appropriate and necessary in exceptional
circumstance. For instance upon identification a major default from the vendor.
3.3.7 Mid Term Evaluations in Exceptional Cases

Vendor competence and scoring would normally be utilized during the tender evaluation process to
eliminate the incompetent bidders/vendors. However, while performing the interim evaluations during the
course of project implementation, some vendors may fall below the acceptable standards and may score
below the minimum acceptable score. In this case, we propose that the vendor should be given a notice
of 6 months for works contract and 3 months service contracts to improve on their performance,
subsequent to which another interim rating would be conducted. In case the vendor still scores below the
minimum acceptable range, the contract should be terminated.
3.3.8 Minimum Performance Score for Every Rating Discipline

The minimum acceptance aggregate performance score for the vendors will be 60%. However,
determining the scale of performance only based on the aggregate score would have a tendency to neglect
the key underperformed indicators at the Rating Discipline level, thus resulting in inappropriate screening.
It may happen that for all other Rating Disciplines except Quality, which has been allotted the maximum
weightage, vendor has attained minimal scores. In such cases, the vendor may score above 60%, but has
underperformed on the most Rating Disciplines. Therefore, we are of the opinion that to avoid negligence
of underperformance of KPI, we propose that along with the aggregate scoring threshold of 60%, the
vendor must not score a performance score of ‘1’ for more than 10% of the applicable performance
Page 19
indicators and a score of ‘2’ for not more than another 10% of the applicable performance indicators. The
vendor performance rating needs to be pilot tested and only when it is institutionalized and well understood
and accepted by the vendors, decision to debar vendors based on performance scoring can be initiated
as a policy by NHAI. For vendors, whose average scoring based on their performance on contracts falls
below 40% for consecutive 2 years can be considered for debarment for allotment of contracts in future.
However, annual performance score of the vendors can be used in technical evaluation for future
procurement and the same needs to be well defined in the contract document.
3.3.9 Proposed Institution Framework for Vendor Evaluation & Rating
3.3.9.1 Composition of Evaluation Team
NHAI’s vendor performance evaluation team is proposed to comprise of technical personnel from the
relevant PIU from where the project is managed i.e. Manager- Technical, Project Director and Regional
Office Head under which the PIU is located or the concerned Technical GM/DGM from NHAI
Headquarters who manages the contract. Each of the members would have a specific role for carrying
out the assessments of the consultants, concessionaires and the contractors for their respective projects.
3.3.9.2 Process for Assigning Ratings

Evaluation by Vendor
As enumerated in section 3.3.1 above, we propose to incorporate an evaluation mechanism, where the
vendor would evaluate their performance against each of Performance Indicators and provide the same
to the officials of the NHAI one month before the scheduled review of the performance.
Evaluation by NHAI
The Evaluation Team will comprise of the on-ground relevant officials of NHAI or the concerned Technical
GM/DGM from the NHAI Headquarter managing the contract. Each member of the Evaluation team will
have a specific role in the entire process and they would complete the evaluation and finalize the VPEF
rating. This rating will be reviewed and validated by the concerned Technical CGM and will be sent to the
vendor for their review and comments. In case the vendor agrees, the rating will be finalized. However,
in case any comments/issues are raised by the vendor, a written explanation for case justification in the
form of the “Appeal” will have to be submitted to NHAI.
Vendor Rating & Review Committee (VRRC)
In order to enhance transparency and accountability, a Vendor Rating Review Committee (VRRC) in
NHAI Head Quarter may be setup who would be responsible for administering the yearly vendor
performance appraisal cycle as well as dealing with appeals against their rating. The VRRC is proposed
to be a 3 member committee with 2 CGMs and headed by a Member-NHAI. The members of the
committee would be appointed annually by the Chairman- NHAI. The VRCC would be provided functional
support by the Contract Management Cell. The VRRC is expected to perform the following tasks:
 The VRRC shall be responsible for ensuring the smooth implementation of the Vender Rating System
through tracking of how NHAI project evaluation teams are conducting rating of their projects.
 VRRC shall provide key lessons learnt and suggest to senior management the improvement
strategies and communicate the same along with the best practices to the consultants, contractors
and concessionaires.
 They shall build capacity in the NHAI on how best to conduct performance assessment of contractors
and consultants.
Page 20
 They shall be involved in carrying out independent performance assessment on selected projects
and prepare reports for projects which are experiencing serious performance challenges so as to
guide senior management on the way forward.
 VRRC shall provide the agenda and maintain minutes of past meetings.
 VRRC shall be responsible for reviewing and approving all appeals brought to them by the vendors
and the final decisions shall lie with the concerned Member heading the VRCC
Appeal Mechanism
A consultant/contractor/concessionaire who does not agree with the performance assessment made on
him or the regulating action imposed on him, may appeal (first Appeal) in writing to VRRC, with
substantiations and supporting evidence within fifteen calendar days from the date when the copy of
performance report or suspension notice is sent to the consultant/contractor/concessionaire. The appeal
can be delivered by post and shall only be considered valid if received by the NHAI. The VRRC should
decide on the case and refer such decision to the concerned Member whose decision should be final and
binding on the vendor. This is applicable for all cases where the vendor is not referred as non-performer.
However in cases where the contractor/consultant/concessionaire is referred as a non-performer, the

vendor has the right to go for the second appeal. When a vendor makes a second appeal, both parties
shall provide evidence in their favor and refer the case to the Dispute Resolution Board or an Arbitrator
before any such contested rating is documented. The use of an independent party such as Dispute
Resolution Board (DRB) shall be in accordance with the contractual obligations. The decision by an
independent party will be final. Any vendor which is referred as a non-performer with the case being
pending with DRB shall not be entitled to get shortlisted for any fresh bidding of the projects.
3.3.9.3 Rating Disclosure

Once the rating is finalized in consultation with the Vendor Rating Review Committee, the rating will be
communicated to the respective vendor and can also be made public in NHAI website. However, a policy
decision in this regard has to be taken appropriately by NHAI.
Page 21
4 Identification of Set of Performance

Indicators
4.1 Introduction
The NHAI plans to introduce the “Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework” for the consultants,
contractors and concessionaires so as to continuously measure their performance as stipulated in
consultancy and works contracts and concession agreements. A key component of a successful
performance monitoring tool is a well-defined set of performance indicators against which the
performance of the vendors’ needs to be evaluated.
The purpose of this section is to clearly spell out the Key Performance Indicators as per vendors’
respective contracts/agreements. The contract and/or agreement clearly lays down the obligations of
each of the contracting party to the agreement, their associated risks and rewards and the policy and
regulatory framework for the project implementation. In addition, it also addresses other important
concerns such as user protection, independent monitoring and dispute resolution mechanism. Given the
extensiveness of the agreement/contract coverage, it is comprehensively used in constructing the Key
Performance Indicators for each vendor class.
As the construction of Performance Indicators are based on a detailed evaluation of roles and
responsibilities of the vendors as per their contract/agreement, their involvement stage and the
associated risks and their degree of impact, the key elements to constitute each of the Performance
Indicator and the weight to be assigned to each of them may vary for different vendor and further may
vary at different point of performance evaluation cycle.
While developing these Performance Indicators we have given special emphasis on defining each
Performance Indicator quantitatively rather than qualitatively to represent more accurate linkage between
the performance delivery and the final performance score. However, certain subjective elements are
unavoidable, and the rating methodology for such KPIs has been defined such as to avoid individual
interpretation and human influences. Further, the Key Performance Indicators have been identified
keeping in view that the; Indicators are comparable across various contract types and provide comparison
of performances over a period of time to highlight the scale of improvement over period of time, Indicators
have reasonable collection cost i.e. costs associated with collecting information need to be balanced
against the benefits of collecting that information and Indicators are easily verified by third parties so as
to void any misappropriation of data and performance reporting. In addition, Key Performance Indicators
identified for each vendor class, ensures an objective assessment of vendor’s performance, by applying
established evaluation criteria aligned with NHAI’s business goals.
Given the above background the scores of the Performance Indicators will be governed by the following
Rating Guidelines:
1. The weighting scale used for each Performance Indicator will be a three grade system where a weight
of ‘3’ will be assigned in case the Performance Indicator is the most critical element to accomplish
the completion of respective rating discipline. Further weight of ‘2’ is assigned in case the
Performance Indicator is important but not critical, and ‘1’ incase the Performance Indicator and
Rating Discipline are only marginally linked to each other. In case any specific Performance Indicator
is not valid for a specific project, we would not assign any weight for the same and thus it will not get
incorporated in the rating model.
Page 22
2. The scoring system used for each Performance Indicator will be a ‘5’ grade system, where ‘5’ would
be the most desired outcome and ‘1’ being the least desired from NHAI’s perspective. The detailed
scoring system will be as stipulated below:
Score Performance Expectation
5 Performance of the vendor exceeds expectations
4 Performance of the vendor consistently meets expectations
3 Performance of the vendor mostly meets expectations, but sometimes misses expectations
2 Performance of the vendor frequently misses expectations
1 Performance of the vendor falls far below expectations
3. The minimum acceptance aggregate performance score for the vendors will be 60%. However,
determining the scale of performance only based on the aggregate score would have a tendency to
neglect the key underperformed indicators at the Rating Discipline level, thus resulting in
inappropriate screening. For example for most of the vendors the Rating Discipline “Quality” has been
assigned the highest weightage. It may happen that for all Rating Disciplines except Quality, the
vendor scores the maximum grade, but has attained minimal scores for the “Quality” Rating
Disciplines. In this case, the vendor may score above 60%, but has underperformed on the most
Rating Disciplines. Therefore, we are of the opinion that to avoid negligence of underperformance of
KPI, we propose that along with the aggregate scoring threshold of 60%, the vendor must not score
a performance score of ‘1’ for more than 10% of the applicable performance indicators and a score
of ‘2’ for not more than another 10% of the applicable performance indicators.
4. Vendor competence and scoring would normally be utilized during the tender evaluation process to
eliminate the incompetent bidders/vendors. However, while performing the interim evaluations during
the course of project implementation, some vendors may fall below the acceptable standards and
may score below the minimum acceptable score. In this case, we propose that the vendor should be
given a notice of 6 months for works contract and 3 months service contracts to improve on their
performance, subsequent to which another interim rating would be conducted. In case the vendor still
scores below the minimum acceptable range, the contract should be terminated.
5. The evaluation exercise shall be carried out based on the information gathered during the course of
the contract/concession and at the end of a contract/concession period. In assessing the performance
of the vendor on various Key Performance Indicators the vendor would be assessed based on the
various documentations available including; reports, work plans and schedules, forecasts, invoices,
correspondences electronic or non-electronic, notes, other stakeholders concerns, minutes, site
instructions, site photos and any contract or project related data and physical inspections of works.
6. The weightage assigned to a specific Performance Indicator may differ for different vendors as the
issues and concerns of various vendor categories are different and hence the overall importance of
a particular type of Performance Indicator would be different across different vendor group categories.
Given the background, this section describes the Rating Disciplines and corresponding key Performance
Indicators for each class of vendor. This evaluation tool rendering above outcomes for NHAI, evaluates
vendors directly engaged by NHAI and the sub-contractors engaged by Concessionaires or indirectly
engaged by NHAI. We will discuss each of these vendors in detail in this section.
Page 23
4.2 Key Performance Indicators For Vendors Directly Engaged by

NHAI
4.2.1 Technical Design Consultants ─ Feasibility Study, PPR and DPR

Consultants
The Technical Design Consultants include Feasibility Study, PPR and DPR Consultants. The Technical
Consultants are generally engaged using standardized contracts during the project initiation and pre-
construction stage and are proposed to be evaluated in our framework over these two project phases.
The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines six key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope
of work and activities of a Technical Design Consultant, with each Rating Discipline been assigned a
weight to allow the relative importance of every discipline to be accurately represented in the performance
scoring model.
Vendor – Technical-Design (Initiation & Pre-Construction Phase)

Rating Discipline Allocation of Weights
Quality of Services 40%
Timelines 20%
Project Management 10%
Communication and Responsiveness 10%
Project Cost 10%
Safety Considerations 10%
Total 100%
Each Rating Discipline within Technical Design Consultant vendor class is further categorized into sub-
parameters defined as “Performance Indicators” against which the performance will be evaluated. The
following table outlines the Performance Indicators for each Rating Discipline:
i) Feasibility Study Consultant
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by two Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the
highest weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline.
Further each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a
score on a scale of 1 to 5 by NHAI. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Sub – Performance Score** and Guidelines for Scoring

Performance Indicators
Weight*
Rating Discipline- Quality of Services
The Deliverables are compliant to more than 90% of the
5
criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire.
The Deliverables are compliant to more than 80-90% of
4
the criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire.
1.1 - Quality of Deliverables 3 3
2
The Deliverables are compliant to less than 60% of the
1
Page 24

Weight*
1. Reports submitted found in order and the remainder
only required minor modification
2. All areas of inaccuracies /gaps can be rectified without
major impact on project (cost, time, design &
engineering) during construction.
5 3. No missing information/details in Schedules for
DBFOT Contracts.
4. Irrigation Department consulted while finalizing the
GADs for all major structures over rivers/canals.
5. Adequate number of public consultations as required
conducted
1. Reports submitted have been revised only once owing
to deficiency in document submitted (provided further
that revisions required by NHAI not on account of
deficiency of the document submitted shall not be
accounted for)
2. Areas of inaccuracies/gaps can be rectified without
4
3. No missing information/details in Schedules for
DBFOT Contracts.
1.2 - Accuracy in Technical
3 GADs of all major structures over rivers/canals.
Designs/Drawings/Schedul
es
conducted
1. Reports submitted have been revised upto 2 times
owing to deficiency in document submitted (provided
further that revisions required by NHAI not on account
of deficiency of the document submitted shall not be
accounted for)
2. Areas of inaccuracies /gaps can be rectified without
3
3. Some missing information in Schedules for DBFOT
Contracts however no change of scope.
GADs of all major structures over rivers/canals.
conducted
1. Reports submitted have been revised upto 2 times
owing to deficiency in document submitted (provided
2
accounted for)
2. Areas of inaccuracies/gaps cannot be rectified without
a major impact on project (cost, time or design &
Page 25

Weight*
Contracts leading to change scope amounting INR 0-
5 Crore.
4. Irrigation Department not consulted while finalizing
the GADs of all major structures over rivers/canals.
5. Public Consultations have been inadequate in
comparison to requirements
1. Reports submitted have been revised more than 2
times owing to deficiency in document submitted
(provided further that revisions required by NHAI not
on account of deficiency of the document submitted
shall not be accounted for). And there is a need for
total re-examination of basic assumptions and
premises and total re-submission for some of reports.
2. Areas of inaccuracies/gaps cannot be rectified without
1
a major impact on project (cost, time or design &
Contracts leading to change scope of above 5 Crore.
4. Irrigation Department not consulted while finalizing the
GADs of all major structures over rivers/canals.
5. Public Consultations have been inadequate in
comparison to requirements
The Consultant has adequately prepared the preliminary

designs of various components of the Project Highway, in
line with the scope of services and relevant codal
provisions
5 The Consultant has adopted innovative design
1.3 –Accuracy in prescriptions for various components of the road asset
3
Plan/Profile of Highway
The innovations suggested are expected to have positive
impact in terms of cost reduction and technical durability
of asset.
There were several deficiencies in the Plan and Profile of
1
highway designs.
The Consultant has prepared separate Land Plan of the

Project Highway showing the existing ROW (along with
all the existing assets within the ROW e.g. structures,
drains, service roads, trees, utilities and safety devices)
and proposed additional land required in various
stretches for improvement of geometrics, construction of
1.4 -Accuracy in preparation
3 5 new structures, provision of intersections, interchanges,
of land plan
service roads, toll plazas, project facilities, etc. The Land
Plan shows encroachments, if any. A list of such
encroachments along with their brief description has also
been prepared and included.
The Consultant has also prepared the Land Plan
Schedules showing the existing ROW, land to be
Page 26

Weight*
acquired on duly certified village map with detailed
schedules in respect of the proposed acquisition of land
holdings as per revenue records in a format that has
enabled the Authority to initiate land acquisition
proceedings.
There were several deficiencies in the land plan prepared
1
by the Consultant.
The Consultant conducted assessment of source of

1.5 – Accuracy in natural materials in the borrow areas/quarries after
5
assessment of source of extensive survey and careful considerations. The
3
Natural materials in borrow assessment has been in line with the requirements.
areas There were several deficiencies in the assessment of
1
source of natural materials in the borrow areas.
The Consultant diligently collected Environmental &

social screening data to avoid hassles during
implementation.
5 In addition, Environment and Social Impact Assessment
1.6 - Environmental Report were prepared following due process of
3
Assessment
consultation with all stakeholders, affected persons and
community-based organizations
There were several deficiencies in the Environmental
1
assessment.
2. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by two Performance Indicators, where Performance

Indicators have be assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (Three being the highest weight),
based on its criticality for the accomplishment of respective Rating Discipline. Further each
Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a scale
of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Rating Discipline – Timelines
Project reports & deliverables were always submitted on
5 time. Public Consultations as required have conducted
on time
Project report & deliverables were submitted with upto 15
2.1 On time submission of 4 days of delay in Business Days. Public Consultations as
project reports & required have conducted on time
deliverables 3 Project report & deliverables were submitted with less
3 than 15-30 days of delay in Business Days. Public
Consultations as required have conducted on time
Project report & deliverables were submitted with more
than 30 days of delay in Business Days. Public
1
Consultations as required have not been conducted on
time.
2.2 Assistance to the 1. Provided assistance in procurement of the Right of

Authority in achieving Way
3 5
conditions precedent for the 2. Environment and forest clearances obtained within
Concessionaire prescribed timelines
Page 27

Weight*
3. Approval of the Railway authorities of the general
arrangement drawing (GAD) within prescribed
timelines
4. Timely reply to queries by Concerned Department
involved in approval process
1. Provided assistance in procurement of the Right of
Way
2. Environment and forest clearances obtained within
prescribed timelines
4 3. Approval of the Railway authorities of the general
arrangement drawing (GAD) within the extended
timeline as prescribed by agreement
Way
2. Environment and forest clearance obtained with less
than 30 days delay
3. Forest clearance obtained with less than 60 days
3 delay
arrangement drawing (GAD) within 30 days beyond
the prescribed extended time limits
Way
2. Environment clearance obtained with less than 30-60
days of delay
3. Forest clearance obtained with less than 60-90 days
2 delay
arrangement drawing (GAD) 30-60 days beyond the
prescribed extended time limits
5. Delays in reply to queries by Concerned Department
Way
2. Environment clearance obtained with more than 60
days of delay
3. Forest clearance obtained with more than 90 days
1 delay
arrangement drawing (GAD) 60 days beyond the
5. No reply to queries by Concerned Department
Page 28

Weight*
3. “Communication and Responsiveness” Rating Discipline is defined by two Performance
Indicator, where Performance Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3
being the highest weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating
Discipline. Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score
on a scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Rating Discipline – Communication and Responsiveness
Sub – Performance Score ** and Guidelines for Scoring
Weight*
Always available or responsive during consultancy
contracts. Person identified along with an organized
3.1 Responsiveness to 5 system of coordinating with NHAI. Mostly available, post
NHAI’s comments during submission phase or meet the minimum criteria as per
consultancy contracts and the contract provision. No adverse notice given by NHAI.
post-submission during 3 Non-Responsive during consultancy contracts. No
bidding and execution person identified and it lacks organized system of
phase coordinating with NHAI. Limited availability post
1
submission phase and doesn’t meet the minimum criteria
as per the contract provision. More than 3 adverse
notices given by NHAI.
The responses to the NHAI queries are factual,

consistent and the consultant has shown considerable
5
ease in discussing project details during the meetings.
3.2 Adequacy of Responses
Majority of responses are acceptable to NHAI.
to NHAI queries both during 3
The responses to the NHAI queries are generally drafted,
consultancy and project
lacks consistency and on occasions it is evident that the
execution phase 1
consultant is not well versed in discussing project details.
Most of responses are not acceptable to NHAI.
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by two Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest
weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline.
Rating Discipline – Project Management
Weight*
4.1 Availability of Key 1. Key personnel are deployed on time as per schedule
Personnel and are available for project delivery and carrying out
tasks as per proposed job description in the contract.
3
5 a. Key personnel deployed don’t have any adverse
health and medical issues that impact their
performance at project site.
b. Team leader and other key personnel are available
in the key meetings called by the Client.
Page 29

Weight*
1. Key personnel are not deployed on time as per
schedule and also not contributing as per proposed job
description in the contract.
a. Key personnel are not of sound health and there
has been adverse impact on the project owing to
1 non-availability of key personnel for a substantial
duration during contract period owing to their non-
availability medical ground.
b. Team leader and other key personnel are mostly
not available in the key meetings called by the
Client.
5 No change in Team Leader and key personnel’s position.

Upto 33% change in key personnel’s position, however
4 with negligible impact on the project. This however shall
not include change on account of request made by NHAI.
Between 33% - 50% change in key personnel’s
3 position(s) however with negligible impact on project.
4.2 Limited change in key 3
This however shall not include change on account of
personnel
request made by NHAI.
Beyond 50% change in key personnel resulting in
substantial adverse impact on the project. This however
1 shall not include change on account of request made by
NHAI. Not satisfied with demonstrated expertise of the
key personnel replaced.
5. “Project Cost” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicators, where Performance
Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight),
based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Performance
Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The
guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Rating Discipline – Project Cost
For PPP projects, less than 10% variation (+/-) in
5 estimated civil cost and the inflation adjusted civil cost at
which financial closure is achieved.
For PPP projects, 10-15% variation (+/-) is documented
4 in estimated civil cost and the inflation adjusted civil cost
at which financial closure is achieved.
5.1 Accuracy in cost 3
estimates
For PPP projects, more than 30% variation (+/-) is
1 documented in estimated civil cost and the inflation
adjusted civil cost at which financial closure is achieved.
Page 30

Weight*
6. “Safety Considerations” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicator, where
Performance Indicator has been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest
Rating Discipline – Safety Considerations
The Consultant has prepared design and drawings with
due safety considerations and as per relevant codal
provisions. Highly Satisfied with all the aspects
mentioned as mentioned below:
1. Collected and analyzed past accident data for at-least
past 5 years
2. Identified black spots and provided design
5
recommendations for addressing the same
3. Horizontal profile designed with suitable radii of
curves, transition lengths and super elevation
4. Vertical profile designed as per terrain requirements,
6.1. Adequacy of Safety gradients and sight distances
Considerations in Design 3
5. Road Signs and Hazard Marking provided adequately
and Drawings
with due safety consideration
provisions.
3
Satisfied with all the aspects mentioned above with some
minor observations made by Client which were however
addressed by the Consultant.
Not Satisfied with at-least 2 of the above aspects
mentioned above and the Consultant has failed to
1
address the observations made by the Client strictly
owing to their deficiency in services.
* Sub-Weights is assigned on a scale of 1 to 3, where 3 reflects the highest importance being attached to a specific
Performance Indicator
** Performance Scores are to be assigned on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 reflects the best outcome on the respective
Detailed Questionnaire
Vendor: Technical Design Consultant

Sub Category: Feasibility Consultant
Rating for KPI: 1.1 Quality of Deliverables
Sl. Criteria Yes/No/NA

No.
1 Field surveys and investigations were carried out in a desired manner using high
precision instruments as per the requirements of the ToR
Page 31

No.
2 Topographic maps were detailed covering the survey width as envisaged in the
ToR and there were no missing culverts, minor and major junctions, invert levels
of the side drain etc.
3 Homogenous traffic sections have been selected, Traffic Survey locations are
fixed in such a manner that representative traffic data are obtained and relevant
codal provisions are followed
Traffic projection is carried out in a scientific & rationale manner with due
consideration of tollable and non-tollable traffic, seasonal variation factors for
4 realistic prediction of toll revenue and design of different elements of the Project
Highway. Data with regards to local/district registered vehicles have been
collected.
The consultants have made sincere efforts to collect, compile and analyze the
available data on road & bridge inventory, bridge condition survey, past
5 performance of road, right of way details, hydrological characteristics of drainage
system, terrain characteristics, socio-economic features of the Project Influence
Area.
Preliminary widening schemes, proposal for bypass/realignments including
6
suggested alternate alignments are based on thorough ground reconnaissance.
Alignments for the existing highway and new bypass were finalized with due
7
consideration of the technical, social, environmental and economic aspects
The alignment of the new carriageway meets geometric requirements, cause
8 minimum damages to the structures and is environment friendly and cost is
optimized.
For the stretches passing through hills, the broad requirements of additional
9 retaining walls, breast walls, etc. and other parameters of hill roads were
prescribed as per codal provisions adequately
The indicated locations/layout of the Toll plazas, bus shelters, truck laybys,
10 underpasses, realignments have been identified rationally based on local
consultations and as per site requirements
The Engineering drawings including horizontal and vertical alignment were worked
out with L-Sections and cross-sections of the entire Project Highway. Scales of
drawings were as per IRC: SP: 19. Proposed improvements were marked on the
plans. Such improvements included raising of road, widening of roadway,
11 widening of existing carriageway, location of median and the side on which the
new two-lane carriageway is to be provided, provision of shoulders – both paved
and granular, new structures, underpasses, grade separators, service roads,
additional road signs, road furniture, safety devices, relocation of utilities, removal
of trees, etc.
Prepared and submitted the GADs of the proposed ROBs/RUBs including viaduct
12 portion in the approaches based on preliminary consultation with the concerned
Railway Authorities
Has worked out indicative BOQ for various components and prepare rough cost
13 estimates of the Project Highway with a break up of cost for each component
separately at the Feasibility Stage
Cost estimates are realistic and based on the Schedule of Rates of the applicable
14
NH Division of the PWD, rates of similar ongoing projects etc.
Parameters of financial and economic analysis have been adopted conforming to
15
implementation strategy of the Project.
Has obtained latest copies of Khasra/Revenue map from Revenue Authorities and
16
no variation is evident on comparison at the stage of preparation of 3A and 3D
Has completed the Schedules of the Concession Agreement for award of
17
contracts on DBFOT basis to the satisfaction of the Client
Page 32

No.
Consultant has obtained the relevant copy of the approval documents from
concerned division of PWD (NH) Wing allowing the respective Utility Owing
18
Agencies for laying of utilities in the Project Road ROW including agreement in
this regard for shifting the same.
Utilities relocation plans along with realistic cost estimate prepared in consultation
19 with the owning utility authorities concerned and the same has been vetted by
respective Utility Owing Agencies.
Has provided the required assistance in preparation of bid documents. The
Consultant shall also participate in Pre-bid Conferences and assist in preparation
20
of answers to the Bidders’ queries on technical aspects of the Project and Bid
Documents.
ii) DPR/PPR Consultant
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by three Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the
score on a scale of 1 to 5 by NHAI. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:

Weight*
The Deliverables are compliant to more than 90% of the
5
4
1.1 - Quality of Deliverables 3 3
2
The Deliverables are compliant to less than 60% of the
1
1. Technical Design/Drawings/Schedules have been

accepted as right first time and the remainder only
required minor modification (provided further that
revisions required by NHAI not on account of
deficiency of the document submitted shall not be
1.2 - Accuracy in Technical accounted for)
Designs/Drawings/Schedul 3 2. All areas of inaccuracies /gaps can be rectified
5
es without major impact on project (cost, time, design &
3. Has adequately prepared the detailed designs of
various components of the Project Highway and
which is in line with the scope of services, approval of
General Arrangement Drawing (GAD) for bridges and
alignment plan by Authority
Page 33

Weight*
4. Irrigation and Railway Department consulted while
finalizing the GADs for all major structures.

revised only once owing to deficiency in document
submitted. (provided further that revisions required by
NHAI not on account of deficiency of the document
submitted shall not be accounted for)
2. Areas of inaccuracies/gaps can be rectified without
4
various components of the Project Highway, is in line
with the scope of services, approval of General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD) for bridges and
finalizing the GADs of all major structures.

revised upto two times owing to deficiency in
document submitted. (provided further that revisions
required by NHAI not on account of deficiency of the
document submitted shall not be accounted for)
2. Areas of inaccuracies /gaps can be rectified without
3
various components of the Project Highway, is in line
with the scope of services, approval of General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD) for bridges and
finalizing the GADs of all major structures.

revised upto three times owing to deficiency in
document submitted (provided further that revisions
required by NHAI not on account of deficiency of the
document submitted shall not be accounted for)
2. Areas of inaccuracies/gaps cannot be rectified
2 without a major impact on project (cost, time or
design & engineering) during construction.
3. The Authority has identified issues with the detailed
designs of various components of the Project
Highway, which are not in line with the scope of
services, approval of General Arrangement Drawing
(GAD) for bridges and alignment plan by Authority
Page 34

Weight*
4. Irrigation and Railway Department not consulted
while finalizing the GADs of all major structures.

revised more than three times owing to deficiency in
document submitted. There is a need for total re-
examination of basic assumptions and premises and
total re-submission for some of designs. (provided
accounted for)
2. Areas of inaccuracies/gaps cannot be rectified
1 without a major impact on project (cost, time or
design & engineering) during construction.
3. The Authority has identified issues with the detailed
designs of various components of the Project
Highway, which are not in line with the scope of
services, approval of General Arrangement Drawing
(GAD) for bridges and alignment plan by Authority
4. Irrigation and Railway Department not consulted
while finalizing the GADs of all major structures.
The Consultant has adequately prepared the preliminary

designs of various components of the Project Highway, in
line with the scope of services and relevant codal
provisions
The Consultant has adopted innovative design
5
prescriptions for various components of the road asset
1.3 –Accuracy in
3 The innovations suggested are expected to have positive
Plan/Profile of Highway
impact in terms of cost reduction and technical durability
of asset. The drawings prepared are “Good for
Construction” capable of execution at site without
additional instructions or changes
There were several deficiencies in the Plan and Profile of
1
highway designs.
The Consultant has prepared separate Land Plan of the

Project Highway showing the existing ROW (along with
all the existing assets within the ROW e.g. structures,
drains, service roads, trees, utilities and safety devices)
and proposed additional land required in various
1.4 -Accuracy in preparation 5
3 stretches for improvement of geometrics, construction of
of land plan
new structures, provision of intersections, interchanges,
service roads, toll plazas, project facilities, etc. The Land
Plan shows encroachments, if any. A list of such
encroachments along with their brief description has also
been prepared and included.
Page 35

Weight*
The Consultant has also prepared the Land Plan
Schedules showing the existing ROW, land to be
acquired on duly certified village map with detailed
schedules in respect of the proposed acquisition of land
holdings as per revenue records in a format that has
enabled the Authority to initiate land acquisition
proceedings.
There were several deficiencies in the land plan prepared
1
by the Consultant.
The Consultant conducted assessment of source of

1.5 - Accuracy in 5 natural materials in the borrow areas/quarries after
Assessment of source of extensive survey and careful considerations. The
3
Natural materials in borrow assessment has been in line with the requirements.
areas There were several deficiencies in the assessment of
1
source of natural materials in the borrow areas.
The Consultant diligently collected Environmental &

social screening data to avoid hassles during
implementation.
5 In addition, Environment and Social Impact Assessment
1.6 - Environmental
3 Report were prepared following due process of
Assessment
consultation with all stakeholders, affected persons and
community-based organizations
There were several deficiencies in the Environmental
1
assessment.

based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Further each
Sub- Performance Score** & Guidelines for Scoring
Weight*
Project reports & deliverables were always submitted on
5
time.
2.1 On time submission of
Project report & deliverables were submitted with upto 15
project reports & 4
days of delay in Business Days.
deliverables 3
Project report & deliverables were submitted with less
3
than 15-30 days of delay in Business Days.
Project report & deliverables were submitted with more
1
than 30 days of delay in Business Days.
2.2 Assistance to the 1. Provided assistance in procurement of the Right of

Authority in achieving Way
3 5
conditions precedent for the 2. Environment and forest clearances obtained within
Contractor prescribed timelines
Page 36

Weight*
arrangement drawing (GAD) within prescribed
timelines
Way
2. Environment and forest clearances obtained within
4 prescribed timelines
arrangement drawing (GAD) within the extended
timeline as prescribed by agreement
Way
2. Environment and forest clearance obtained with less
than 30 days delay.
3 3. Forest clearance obtained with less than 60 days
delay.
arrangement drawing (GAD) within 30 days beyond
the prescribed extended time limits.
Way
2. Environment clearance obtained with less than 30-60
days of delay.
2 3. Forest clearance obtained with less than 60-90 days
delay.
arrangement drawing (GAD) 30-60 days beyond the
prescribed extended time limits.
Way
2. Environment clearance obtained with more than 60
days of delay
1 3. Forest clearance obtained with more than 90 days
delay
arrangement drawing (GAD) 60 days beyond the

Weight*
3.1 Responsiveness to Always available or responsive during consultancy
NHAI’s comments during 3 5 contracts. Person identified along with an organized
consultancy contracts and system of coordinating with NHAI. Mostly available, post
Page 37

Weight*
post-submission during submission phase or meet the minimum criteria as per
bidding and execution the contract provision. No adverse notice given by NHAI.
phase Non-Responsive at times during consultancy contracts.
No person identified and it lacks organized system of
coordinating with NHAI. Limited availability post
1
submission phase and doesn’t meet the minimum criteria
as per the contract provision. More than 3 adverse

5
to NHAI queries both during 3
The responses to the NHAI queries are generally drafted,
consultancy and project
lacks consistency and on occasions it is evident that the
execution phase 1
consultant is not well versed in discussing project details.
Most of responses are not acceptable to NHAI.

Weight*
1. Key personnel are deployed on time as per schedule
and are available for project delivery and carrying out
b. Team leader and other key personnel are available
4.1 Availability of Key in the key meetings called by the Client.
Personnel 3 1. Key personnel are not deployed on time as per
schedule and also not contributing as per proposed job
2. Key personnel are not of sound health and there has
been adverse impact on the project owing to non-
1
availability of key personnel for a substantial duration
during contract period owing to their non-availability
medical ground.
3. Team leader and other key personnel are mostly not
available in the key meetings called by the Client.
5 No change in Team Leader and key personnel’s position.

3
4.2 Limited change in key Upto 33% change in key personnel’s position, however
personnel 4 with negligible impact on the project. This however shall
not include change on account of request made by NHAI.
Page 38

Weight*
Between 33% to 50% change in key personnel’s
position(s) however with negligible impact on project.
3
5. “Project Cost” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicators, where Performance
Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight), based
on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Performance Indicator on
the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for
scoring are provided below:
1. No missing items in the bill of quantities
2. For Non-PPP projects less than 1-5% variation (+/-) in
5
estimated civil cost and the inflation adjusted civil cost
at the time of project award.
1. Only minor items of works in the bill of quantities are
missing
4 2. For Non-PPP projects 5-7% variation (+/-) is
documented in estimated civil cost and the inflation
adjusted civil cost at the time of project award
1. Only minor items of works are missing in the bill of
quantities
3 2. For Non-PPP projects 7-10% variation (+/-) is
3
1.3 - Accuracy in BOQ and documented in estimated project cost and the inflation
cost estimates adjusted civil cost at the time of project award.
1. Major items of works are missing in the bill of
quantities
2 2. For Non-PPP projects 10-15% variation(+/-) is
documented in estimated project cost and the inflation
adjusted civil cost at the time of project award.
1. Major items of works are missing in the bill of
quantities
2. For Non-PPP projects more than 15% variation (+/-)
1
is documented in estimated project cost and the
inflation adjusted civil cost at the time of project
award.
6. “Safety Considerations” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicators, where

Page 39

Weight*
provisions. Highly Satisfied with all the aspects
mentioned as mentioned below:
1. Collected and analyzed past accident data for at-least
past 5 years
2. Identified black spots and provided design
5
recommendations for addressing the same
3. Horizontal profile designed with suitable radii of
curves, transition lengths and super elevation
4. Vertical profile designed as per terrain requirements,
6.1 Adequacy of Safety gradients and sight distances
Considerations in Design 3
5. Road Signs and Hazard Marking provided adequately
and Drawings
with due safety consideration
provisions.
3
Satisfied with all the aspects mentioned above with some
minor observations made by Client which were however
addressed by the Consultant.
Not Satisfied with at-least 2 of the above aspects
mentioned above and the Consultant has failed to
1
address the observations made by the Client strictly
owing to their deficiency in services.
Vendor: Technical Design Consultant

Sub Category: DPR/PPR Consultant
Rating for KPI: 1.1 Quality of Deliverables

No.
1 Field surveys and investigations were carried out using high precision
instruments as per the requirements of the ToR
Topographic maps capture correct details of all physical features and
obstructions, structures, railway lines, canal/river crossing, water mains, sewers,
2 gas/oil pipes, trees, plantations, electric and telecommunication lines etc. which
affect the proposal should be marked to an accuracy/tolerance consistent with
their likely interference.
3 Survey control points on ground are established physically and securely and in
sufficient numbers to allow accurate and convenient setting out of works.
Homogenous traffic sections have been selected, traffic Survey locations are
4 fixed in such a manner that representative traffic data are obtained and relevant
codal provisions are followed
Traffic projection is carried out in a scientific & rationale manner with due
5 consideration of tollable and non-tollable traffic, seasonal variation factors for
realistic prediction of toll revenue and design of different elements of the Project
Page 40

No.
Highway. Data with regards to local/district registered vehicles have been
collected.
DPR has been faithful to site conditions, availability of materials, and is capable
6
of translation on the ground
Hydraulic design parameters are based on correct data and field survey. The
information is tabulated and also represented graphically in a form that is capable
7
of being checked and verified. Due account is taken of any environment
restrictions.
8 Sub-soil investigation for design of structures, sub-grade soil and material
investigations for design of pavements is accurate, reliable and in sufficient detail.
The pavement design has taken due account of the characteristics of materials
to be used in various courses, and the variability of their properties. The
9 Pavement Design Report has forecasted, in terms of time and traffic, the
deterioration levels at various stages of pavement life, and suggested the
required maintenance strategy.
The Consultant has submitted and obtained approval of the GADs and Detail
10 engineering drawings of the proposed ROBs/RUBs including viaduct portion in
the approaches from the Railway Authorities
Adequate local consultations made by the Consultants (with a view to identifying
11 the needs/expectations of the people regarding, underpasses/realignment etc.
keeping in view the codal requirements) etc. can be considered to be appropriate
The requirements of road safety, the necessity for felling of trees are determined
12
appropriately
For the stretches passing through hills, the broad requirements of additional
13
retaining walls, breast walls, etc. were prescribed adequately
The locations/layout of the Toll plazas, bus shelters, truck laybys, underpasses
and realignments were identified rationally with due local consultations and as
14
per site requirements and detailed designs provided are to the satisfaction of the
Authority
In case of bridges, the final design is based on approval of General Arrangement
15 Drawing (GAD) and alignment plan by NHAI, to be given after consideration of
alternatives bringing out their cost effectiveness and ease of construction
The Engineering drawings including horizontal and vertical alignment were
worked out with L-Sections and cross-sections of the entire Project Highway.
Scales of drawings were as per IRC: SP: 19. Proposed improvements were
marked on the plans. Such improvements included raising of road, widening of
16 roadway, widening of existing carriageway, location of median and the side on
which the new two-lane carriageway is to be provided, provision of shoulders –
both paved and granular, new structures, underpasses, grade separators,
service roads, additional road signs, road furniture, safety devices, relocation of
utilities, removal of trees, etc.
The assumptions and methodology used for Economic and Financial appraisal
17
of the project is satisfactory
Consultant has obtained the relevant copy of the approval documents from
concerned division of PWD (NH) Wing allowing the respective Utility Owing
18
Agencies for laying of utilities in the Project Road ROW including agreement in
this regard for shifting of the same.
Utilities relocation plans along with realistic cost estimate prepared in
19 consultation with the owning utility authorities concerned and the same has been
vetted by respective Utility Owing Agencies
The description of items in Bill of Quantities are consistent with the drawings and
20
specifications
Page 41

No.
21 The rate analyses worked out for the project road are in line with the MoRTH
standards, local PWD schedule of rates for material and labour
Consultant has facilitated in obtaining “No Objection Certificates‟ from Ministry of
22
Environment and Forest/Irrigation Department
Has obtained latest copies of Khasra/Revenue Map from Revenue Authorities
23 and no variation is evident on comparison at the stage of preparation of 3A and
3D
Has completed the Schedules of the Concession Agreement for award of
24
contracts on DBFOT/EPC basis to the satisfaction of the Consultant
Has provided the required assistance in preparation of bid documents. The
Consultant has also participated in Pre-bid Conferences and assisted in
25
preparation of answers to the Bidders’ queries on technical aspects of the Project
and Bid Documents.
Page 42
4.2.2 Technical Supervision Consultant ─ Independent Engineer, Authority’s

Engineer and Supervision Consultant
NHAI engages the services of the Independent Engineer (IE), Authority’s Engineer (AE) and Supervision
Consultant (SC) to have an independent review as well as check on contractor’s/ concessionaire’s
performance. Owing to similar roles these vendors have been grouped into a particular Vendor class i.e.
Technical-Supervision. An Independent Engineer is appointed for each project under DBFOT/OMT mode,
Supervision Consultant for projects under the O&M/Item Rate contract mode and Authority Engineer’s
for EPC contracts. These engineers certify that the concessionaire/contractor adheres to all applicable
contractual provisions.
As the MCA/EPC/Item Rate Contracts are the governing agreement between the contracting parties
which addresses the obligations of each parties as well as the associated risks and rewards, it is important
to evaluate the performance of the Technical Supervision Consultant. It may be noted that depending on
the vendor type, project lifecycle different sets of KPIs would be effective. The proposed performance
monitoring framework outlines six key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope of work and activities of a
Technical Supervision Consultant, with each Rating Discipline been assigned a weight to allow the
relative importance of every discipline to be accurately represented in the performance scoring model.
Vendor – Technical Supervision Consultant

Timelines 20%
Project Cost 10%
Total 100%
1. Independent Engineer
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by six Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest
weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Further
each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a
scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Performance Indicators#
Weight*
Rating Discipline – Quality of Services
The Consultant is compliant on more than 90% of the
5 criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire against this KPI
for the Independent Engineer.
1.1 Quality of review of The Consultant is compliant on 80%-90% of the criteria
Design, Document, 3 4 mentioned in the Questionnaire against this KPI for the
Drawings and Procedures Independent Engineer.
The Consultant is compliant on 70%-80% of the criteria
3 mentioned in the Questionnaire against this KPI for the
Independent Engineer.
Page 43

Weight*
The Consultant is compliant on less than 60% of the
1.2 Inspection of the Project The Consultant is compliant to more than 90% of the
Road 5 criteria mentioned in the Questionnaires against this KPI
The Consultant is compliant to more than 80-90% of the
3 (1) The consultant is compliant to more than 70-80% of
3 the criteria mentioned in the Questionnaires against this
KPI for the Independent Engineer
2 criteria mentioned in the Questionnaires against this KPI
for the Independent Engineer
The Consultant is compliant to less than 60% of the
The Consultant is compliant to more than 90% of the

The Consultant is compliant to 80-90% of the criteria
4 mentioned in the Questionnaires against this KPI for the
1.3 Approach to addressing
3 3 mentioned in the Questionnaires against this KPI for the
of quality and safety issues
Independent Engineer
(1) Before issuance of provisional certificate, it has

ensured conduct of all mandatory tests prescribed in the
concession agreement.
(2) The punch list items include only minor works and no
1.4 Accuracy in certifications 3 5 safety related aspect features in the same.
(4) No instances of lack of accuracy were observed with
respect to change of scope, time extension proposals.
and certification of the reasonableness of such costs for
payment by the Authority to the Concessionaire.
Page 44

Weight*
(5) No instances of lack of accuracy found for
adjustment of Annuity Payment for any bonus or
reduction in Annuity (applicable for BOT-Annuity
projects)
(6) Shall assist in all related documentation at time of
issue of vesting certificates by the Authority at the time
of divesture;
(7) Termination payments and any other items having
liability on either party, determination of investment
requirements for repair & rectification in case of
termination/divestment have been accepted by NHAI
without significant revision.
(8) No instances of misreporting/false all the
certifications were issued post necessary due diligence.
Compliance to all the above points, if applicable.
1 Non-Compliance to any of the above points, if applicable
1.5 Maintenance during O&M (1) Inspection carried out at least once in a month (or as
phase per provision of the agreement), or at other times as
reasonably requested by NHAI with timely reporting.
(2) Comprehensive review was conducted and
appropriate comments were offered on Drawings and
Documents like Annual Maintenance Program, O&M
Inspection Report and Safety Reports, request made for
5 closure of lanes for maintenance works and
modifications suggested to project highway.
(3) The defects or deficiencies noted are clearly in
conformity with Good Industry Practice and maintenance
requirements stated in the agreement.
(4) Curing of defects by the concessionaire/contractor is
is adequately monitored and reviewed and deficiencies
by the Concessionaire were addressed achieved.
Satisfied with most of the above aspects with only minor
2
observations made. There were no delays in Inspection
4
and submission of Inspection Reports. Curing of defects
by the concessionaire with less than 5% time delays.
Some minor observations were made which were
however addressed with no adverse impact on the
3 quality and operational standards of the asset.
Inspection and reporting were always on time. Curing of
defects by the concessionaire with 5%-10% time delays
Some adverse comments were given which impacted
road maintenance and safety which were addressed
with 15 days of delay. Inspection and reporting were
2
delayed for not more than 2 instances in 12 months.
Curing of defects by the concessionaire with 10-15%
time delays.
1
Page 45

Weight*
delayed for more than 2 instances in 12 months. Curing
of defects by the concessionaire is conducted with more
than 15% time delays.
1. No Dispute has been raised or the dispute has been

5
successfully arbitrated in favour of the Consultant
1.6 Initiative for Dispute 3 1. Unreceptive in amicable resolution of disputes
through negotiations
Resolution
1 2. Delay in Submission of documents, proofs and
evidences
3. Non-Availability/Inability in dealing with arbitrators

Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight), based
on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Further each
Weight*
Timely reporting of change in scope, additional works,
variations in cost & quantity and other issues that could
have resulted in delay in achieving project milestones.
5 All such measures have facilitated NHAI in taking timely
actions. In the opinion of the Authority, the delay, if any,
in achievement of the project timelines is not on account
of Consultant’s default.
Compliant in reporting change in scope, additional
works, variations in cost & quantity and other issues that
could have resulted in delay in achieving project
4 milestones. All such measures have facilitated NHAI in
taking timely actions. In the opinion of the Authority, the
delay, if any, in achievement of the project timelines is
2.1 Timely Reporting of
not on account of Consultant’s default.
change in scope and flagging
3 Complaint in reporting change in scope, additional
of expected delays in
works, cost implications and other issues that can result
achieving project milestones
in delays in achieving project milestones. Some of these
3 efforts have facilitated NHAI in taking timely actions. In
the opinion of the Authority, the delay, if any, in
achievement of the project timelines is not on account of
Consultant’s default.
Some instances of failure to comply with the reporting of
change in scope, additional works, cost implications and
other issues that can result in delays in achieving project
2
milestones. In the opinion of the Authority, the delay, if
any, in achievement of the project timelines is to an
extent attributable to Consultant’s default.
Non Complaint in reporting change in scope, additional
1
works and cost implications with more than 30% delay
Page 46

Weight*
in Business Days. In the opinion of the Authority, the
to an extent attributable to Consultant’s default.
All the Inspection Reports and review of Drawings and

Documents, inspection and monitoring of Construction
5 Works and O&M works are on time.
More than 95% of the inspection reports and reviews
were submitted on time
2.2 Adherence to timelines 90%-95% of the inspection reports and reviews were
4
for reviews and reporting 3 submitted on time
80%-90% of the inspection reports and reviews were
3
submitted on time
2
submitted on time
Less than 70% of the inspection reports and reviews
1

Indicators, where Performance Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3
(three being the highest weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective
Rating Discipline. Further each Performance indicator on the basis of its performance will have to
be allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Weight*
5
system of coordinating with NHAI. No adverse notice
3.1 Timely reply/address of
3 given by NHAI.
NHAI Queries/comments
Rarely available; absent or not willing to provide
1 response on various instances. More than 3 adverse

5
3 The responses to the NHAI queries are generally
to NHAI queries
drafted, lacks consistency and on occasions it is evident
1 that the consultant is not well versed in discussing
project details. Most of responses are not acceptable to
NHAI.

Performance Indicators have be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest
Page 47

Weight*
each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will be allocated a score on a scale of
1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:

Weight*
b. Team leader and other key personnel are
4.1 Availability of key 3 1. Key personnel are not deployed on time as per
personnel schedule and also not contributing as per proposed
job description in the contract.
1
medical ground.
The Consultant provided adequate focus on

environmental issues like air, water land and noise
5 pollution, occupational health and safety of workers,
4.2 Environmental
3 accidents and safety of users and other environmental
Management
management indicators.
Inadequate focus was given on the above mentioned
1
environmental aspects of the project.
4.3 Limited change of key No change in Team Leader and key personnel’s
5
personnel position.
with negligible impact on the project. This however shall
4
not include change on account of request made by
NHAI.
3 Between 33% to 50% change in key personnel’s
3
Page 48

Weight*
5 “Project Cost” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicators, where Performance
Indicators have be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight), based on
its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Further each Performance
Indicator on the basis of its performance will be allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines
for scoring are provided below:
Highly satisfied with the following in case of change of
scope
1. In case the Change of Scope has been initiated by
the Authority, IE has suitably helped the Authority to
issue to the Concessionaire a notice specifying in
reasonable detail the works and services
contemplated and its impact on project completion
schedule
2. Has correctly assessed the options for implementing
changed scope of work
3. Has reviewed the detailed break-down of cost of
additional or deleted work items as prepared by
Concessionaire by work classifications, details
5 specifying the labor and material cost and that it is
in accordance with Schedule of Rates
5.1 Assessment during 4. Has certified the reasonableness of such cost
3
change in scope
assessment made by the concessionaire to the
satisfaction of the Client
5. Has correctly assessed the impact of change of
scope on project completion schedule
6. In case of disputes, has reasonably assessed the
cost of such change of scope to the satisfaction of
the Client
7. And if required, in case of disputes has helped the
Authority to conduct an open competitive bidding for
award of works under the change of scope to a third
party
Satisfied with most of the aspects except for one or two
3 occasions where proper reasonable justification could
not be provided which led to revisions
1 Not satisfied with most of the aspects mentioned above
6. “Safety Considerations” Rating Discipline is defined by two Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators have be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight),
Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will be allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The
Weight*
3 5 Highly satisfied with the following:
Page 49

Weight*
1. Quality of review of the drawings from safety point of
view based on the Safety Report /Audit conducted by
the Safety consultant
2. Inspection report has highlighted the required
updates on aspects safety of construction,
compliance of observations made by Safety
Consultant
3. Has instructed the Concessionaire to execute any
work which is urgently required for the safety of the
Project Highway, whether because of an accident,
unforeseeable event or otherwise
4. Has rationally determined and recommended to the
Authority suspension of works, as required, for
6.1 Addressal of Safety ensuring work zone safety in case the
issues during Development Concessionaire has not made adequate
and construction phase arrangements for the safety of workers and Users in
the zone of construction or that any work is being
carried out in a manner that threatens the safety of
the workers and Highway Users
5. For road diversions, has ensured through the
concessionaire proper safety for movement of
vehicles with use of road signs, lighting and other
traffic control devices
3 occasions which however has been addressed on being
observed by NHAI
Not satisfied with most of the aspects mentioned above.
1 Incidents of accidental injury, death at the work zone
have occurred owing to deficiency in work zone safety
Effective management of highway safety, accident

response guidelines and remedial measures at
reasonable intervals, monitoring of
Concessionaire’s/Contractor’s safety programs,
5
removal of accident black spots. Recommended
measures after implementation have resulted in 10-
20% reduction in number of accidents as compared
6.2 Highway Safety Records 3 to last year.
during O&M Phase Effective management of highway safety, accident
4
measures after implementation have resulted in less
than 10% reduction in number of accidents as
compared to last year.
3 response guidelines and remedial measures at
Page 50

Weight*
removal of accident black spots. However,
recommended measures after implementation have
not resulted in reduction in number of accidents as
Not very effective in management of highway safety,
accident response guidelines and remedial measures at
2
removal of accident black spots. Although
recommended measures were implemented, it has
resulted in upto 10% increase in number of
accidents as compared to last year.
Not very effective in issue of highway safety, accident
reasonable intervals, monitoring of Concessionaire’s
safety programs, removal of accident black spots.
1
Although recommended measures have been
implemented it has resulted in more than 10%
increase in number of accidents as compared to last
year.
# The list of Performance Indicators are comprehensive. Depending on the vendor type and project phase
some of the indicators may not be applicable
* Sub-Weights is assigned on a scale of 1 to 3, where 3 reflects the highest importance being attached
to a specific Performance Indicator
** Performance Scores are to be assigned on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 reflects the best outcome on
the respective Performance Indicator
Vendor: Technical Supervision Consultants
Sub Category: Independent Engineer
Rating Discipline: Quality of Services
KPI: 1.1 Accuracy in the review of Design, Document, Drawings and Procedures

No.
Development Phase
Has checked the conformity or otherwise of drawings and supporting documents
furnished by Concessionaire with scope of project. Also reviewed specifications
1 and standards and comments/observations sent to Authority and Concessionaire
within 15 days of receipt of documents from Concessionaire or as per provision
of the Concession Agreement
Has reviewed any modified drawings or supporting documents and furnished
2
comments in 7 days or as per provision of the Concession Agreement
Has reviewed detailed design, construction methodology, quality assurance
procedures and procurement, engineering and construction time schedule and
3
furnished comments within 15 days of receipt or as per provision of the
Concession Agreement
Page 51

No.
Has reviewed and comment on the EPC Contract or any other contract for
construction, operation and maintenance of the Project Highway, and furnished
4
its comments within 7 (seven) days from receipt of such reference from the
Authority
Has reviewed drawings of Safety Consultant and furnished comments to
5 Authority and Concessionaire in 7 days of receipt of drawings or as per provision
of the Concession Agreement
Has checked the conformity of project highway to the provisions of the
6
agreement, with reference to Safety audit by Safety Consultant
Has reviewed the Safety Report and furnished its comments to Authority in 15
7
days of receipt of report or as per provision of the Concession Agreement
Construction Phase
Has reviewed the Drawings, Documents and Safety Report and submission of
8 comments to the Authority on time or as per provision of the Concession
Agreement
Has reviewed monthly progress report of Concessionaire within 7 days and sent
9 comments to the Authority and the Concessionaire or as per provision of the
In the event, the Concessionaire fails to achieve any of the Project Milestones;
10 has undertaken a review of the progress of construction and identified such
potential delays, if any.
Has initiated change of scope requirements or reviewed change of scope
proposed by the Concessionaire and its likely impact on the Project Completion
11
Schedule and made have appropriate recommendations for Authority to decide
on whether to considering or discard such proposition
In case Independent Engineer has determined that completion of the Project
Highway is not feasible within the time specified in the Agreement, it has directed
the Concessionaire to indicate within 15 (fifteen) days the steps proposed to be
12 taken to expedite progress, and the period within which the Project Completion
Date shall be achieved. Upon receipt of a report from the Concessionaire, the
Independent Engineer has reviewed the same and send its comments to the
Authority and the Concessionaire forthwith.
Has retained at least one copy each of all Drawings and Documents received by
13
it, including ‘as-built’ Drawings, and kept them in its safe custody.
Has duly classified and listed all Drawings, Documents, results of tests and other
relevant records, and handed them over to the Authority or such other person as
14 the Authority may specify, and obtained written receipt thereof. Two copies of the
said documents has also be furnished in micro film form or in such other medium
as may be acceptable to the Authority
O&M Phase
Has timely reviewed the Drawings, Documents and Safety Report and furnished
15
comments to the Authority and the Concessionaire
Has reviewed the Monthly Fee Statement provided by the Concessionaire and
16
pointed out discrepancies, if any
Has reviewed the weekly traffic census and Weekly Reports for Weigh Stations
17
provided by the Concessionaire
Has reviewed and commented on Annual Maintenance programme furnished by
18 Concessionaire within 15 days to Authority and Concessionaire or as per
provision of the Concession Agreement
Page 52

No.
Has reviewed the monthly progress report sent by the Concessionaire within 7
19 days and sent comments to the Authority and the Concessionaire or as per
Have shown competence in conduct of traffic sampling and reporting whenever
20
requested by the Authority
General
Value management and innovative feedback provided on designs/construction
21
methodology/road safety to the Concessionaire.
Most of the innovative suggestions made have been successfully applied during
22 project execution resulting in documented cost and time savings and enhanced
safety for road users and construction workers.

KPI: 1.2 Inspection of the Project Road

No.
Construction Phase
Has conducted Monthly Inspection of the construction works and Project
Highway, post receipt of monthly progress report but before the 20th day of that
1
month, Inspection Report has been sent to Authority and Concessionaire or as
per provision of the Concession Agreement
The Inspection Reports cover all important aspects like construction milestones,
likely delays and failure to achieve milestones, work methodology adopted, the
2 materials used and their sources, and conformity of construction works with the
scope of the project and the Specifications and Standards, aimed at ensuring
safety of workers and users in the construction zone.
Has notified its programme of inspection to the Authority and to the
3 Concessionaire, who may, in their discretion, depute their respective
representatives to be present during the inspection.
4 Additional inspections have also been undertaken as required.
Prior to issue of Completion/Provisional Completion Certificate
Has reviewed the detailed inventory and particulars of all works and equipment
5 as furnished by the Concessionaire 30 days prior to completion & 7 days prior to
testing or prescribed by the Concession Agreement
O&M Phase
Has done Monthly inspection of Project Highway, post receipt of monthly
progress report but before the 20th day of that month, O&M Inspection Report
6
has been sent to the Authority and the Concessionaire or prescribed by the
Has inspected the Project Highway more than once , if any deficiencies, defects
7
lapses, required such inspection
Has monitored and reviewed the curing of defects and deficiencies by the
8
Concessionaire
In the event that the Concessionaire notifies the Independent Engineer of any
9
modifications that it proposes to make to the Project Highway, the Independent
Page 53

No.
Engineer has reviewed the same and send its comments to the Authority and
the Concessionaire within 15 (fifteen) days of receiving the proposal
In case of Termination, inspected the project highway in the presence of the
10 Concessionaire earliest 90 days and latest 15 days before Termination or
prescribed by the Concession Agreement
In case of Termination, determined compliance with Divestment Requirements
through requisite testing and recommendations to retain in Escrow account any
11
additional expense for repair and rectification beyond those identified as per
In case of Termination, done an Inspection every 15 days for 90 day period post
12 Termination, to determine the liability of Concessionaire for defects and
deficiencies, reported the same to Authority and Concessionaire

KPI: 1.3 Approach to addressing of quality and safety issues
No.
Construction Phase
In case it has been determined that the Concessionaire has not made adequate
arrangements for the safety of workers and Users in the zone of construction or that
any work is being carried out in a manner that threatens the safety of the workers
1
and the Users, it has made recommendation to the Authority forthwith, identifying
the whole or part of the Construction Works that should be suspended for ensuring
safety in respect thereof
In case there is suspension of Construction Works and which is for reasons is not
attributable to the Concessionaire, the Independent Engineer has determined the
2 extension of dates set forth in the Project Completion Schedule, to which the
Concessionaire is reasonably entitled, and notified the Authority and the
Concessionaire of the same
In the event that the Concessionaire carries out any remedial measures to secure
the safety of suspended works and Users, it may, by notice in writing, require the
Independent Engineer to inspect such works, and within 3 (three) days of receiving
3
such notice. And the Independent Engineer has inspected the suspended works
and make a report to the Authority forthwith, recommending whether or not such
suspension may be revoked by the Authority.
Has issued instructions to Concessionaire to carry out on sample basis tests to
4 determine conformity with Specifications and Standards. And have monitored tests
and reviewed results thereof
Has carried out sample tests comprising 10% of the quantity or number of tests
prescribed for each category or type of tests in the Quality Control Manuals and
5
have also recorded in writing, increased the aforesaid sample size by up to 10% for
certain categories or types of tests as felt necessary
Under the criteria for acceptance/ rejection of the test results, it has been
determined in accordance with the Quality Control Manuals. The tests are
6 undertaken on a random sample basis and are in addition to, and independent of,
the tests that may be carried out by the Concessionaire for its own quality
assurance in accordance with Good Industry Practice.
Page 54

No.
Has enforced testing of remedial works for removal or rectification of defects or
7
deficiencies and determined conformity to Standards and Specifications.
Has copied all communications, comments, instructions, Drawings or Documents
8 sent to the Concessionaire, and a copy of all the test results with comments thereon
have been furnished to the Authority forthwith.
Has obtained, from the Concessionaire in two copies thereof, all communications
and reports required to be submitted by the Concessionaire to the Independent
9
Engineer, and has send one of the copies to the Authority along with its comments
thereon.
Prior to issue of Completion/Provisional Completion Certificate
(All the points under this head to be read in lines with the provision of the
Concession Agreement)
Has observed, monitored and reviewed the tests done to determine compliance
10
with the specifications and standards
Has carried out additional tests, if felt necessary, through Concessionaire in
11 accordance with Good Industry Practice and determined compliance with
specifications and standards
Has carried out visual and physical checks and determined conformance of all
12
works and equipment within the provisions of agreement
Has undertaken a Test drive with a car and a fully loaded truck and determined
13
conformation of quality of service as per provisions of agreement
Has checked riding quality of each lane of carriageway with a calibrated bump
14
integrator
Has tested pavement composition on both sides by digging pits at 5 Km intervals,
15
determined at random
Has tested road cross section, with physical dimensions measured at sample site
16
at 1 Km intervals, determined by random lot
Has tested bridge cross section on both sides, with physical dimensions measured
17
at 1 sample site per span of bridge, determined by random lot
Has conducted Non-destructive Rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity
18
tests at two randomly chosen spots in each span of all bridges
19 Has done Load testing on bridges with span of 15 meters or more
In case, additional tests are recommended, they have resulted in improvement of
20
asset quality
O&M Phase
21 Has submitted O&M report specifying tests, if any to be undertaken by
Concessionaire to determine conformity of Project Highway with maintenance
Requirements
22 Has monitored and reviewed tests and remedial measures undertaken by the
Concessionaire and also determined the damages payable to the Authority
23 In respect of any defect or deficiency referred to in Schedule-K, the Independent
Engineer has specified the permissible limit of deviation or deterioration with
reference to the Specifications and Standards and also the time limit for repair or
rectification of any deviation or deterioration beyond the permissible limit.
24 Has determined if any delay has occurred in completion of repair or remedial works
in accordance with the Agreement, and along with determination of the Damages,
if any, payable by the Concessionaire to the Authority for such delay
Page 55

No.
25 Has undertaken traffic surveys i.e. manual and automatic as per the direction of the
Authority employing adequate measures to full satisfaction of the Authority
2. Authority’s Engineer
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by six Performance Indicators, where

Weight*
for the Authority’s Engineer.
Authority’s Engineer.
1.1 Quality of review of The Consultant is compliant on 70%-80% of the criteria
Drawings and Procedures Authority’s Engineer.
1.2 Inspection of the Project The Consultant is compliant to more than 90% of the
Road 5 criteria mentioned in the Questionnaires against this KPI
3 (1) The consultant is compliant to more than 70-80% of
KPI for the Authority’s Engineer
for the Authority’s Engineer
Page 56

Weight*
Authority’s Engineer
(1) Before issuance of provisional certificate, it has

ensured conduct of all mandatory tests prescribed in the
(2) The punch list items include only minor works and no
safety related aspect features in the same.
(3) No instances of lack of accuracy were observed with
respect to change of scope, time extension proposals
and certification of the reasonableness of such costs for
5 payment by the Authority to the Contractor.
(5) Have issued interim and final payment certificates for
1.4 Accuracy in certifications 3
payment to the Contractor in respect of claims for
payment raised in accordance with the provisions of the
contract and to the completion satisfaction of the
Authority.
(7) No instances of misreporting/false all the
Compliance to all the above points, if applicable
Compliance to any one of the above points, if

1
applicable
(1) Inspection carried out at least once in a month (or as

per provision of the agreement), or at other times as
1.5 Maintenance during Documents like Annual Maintenance Program, O&M
2 5
Defect Liability Phase Inspection Report and Safety Reports, request made for
closure of lanes for maintenance works and
Page 57

Weight*
(4) Curing of defects by the contractor is adequately
monitored and reviewed and deficiencies by the
Concessionaire were addressed achieved.
Satisfied with most of the above aspects with only minor
4
by the contractor with less than 5% time delays.
defects by the contractor with 5%-10% time delays
2
Curing of defects by the contractor with 10-15% time
delays.
1
of defects by the contractor is conducted with more than
15% time delays.

5
successfully arbitrated in favour of the Consultant
1.6 Initiative in Dispute 3 4. Unreceptive in amicable resolution of disputes
Resolution
1 5. Delay in Submission of documents, proofs and
evidences
2. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by three Performance Indicators, where Performance

Weight*
2.1 Timely Reporting of
change in scope and flagging
3 5 All such measures have facilitated NHAI in taking timely
of expected delays in
achieving project milestones
Page 58

Weight*
Complaint in reporting change in scope, additional
works, cost implications and other issues that can result
in delays in achieving project milestones. Some of these
3 efforts have facilitated NHAI in taking timely actions. In
2
1 in Business Days. In the opinion of the Authority, the

4
3
submitted on time
2
submitted on time
1

Weight*
Page 59

Weight*
5
3 given by NHAI.

5
to NHAI queries
NHAI.
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by three Performance Indicators, where

Weight*
4.1 Availability of key 3 1. Key personnel are not deployed on time as per
personnel schedule and also not contributing as per proposed job
1
medical ground.
4.2 Limited change of key No change in Team Leader and key personnel’s
3 5
personnel position.
4
Page 60

Weight*
NHAI.
3
Indicators have be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight), based on
scope
1. In case the Change of Scope has been initiated by
the Authority, AE has suitably helped the Authority
to issue to the Contractor a notice specifying in
reasonable detail the works and services
contemplated
2. Has correctly assessed the options for implementing
changed scope of work
3. Have reviewed the detailed design proposed by the
Contractor
4. Has reviewed the detailed break-down of cost of
Contractor by work classifications, details specifying
5.1 Assessment during
3 5 the labor and material cost and that it is in
change in scope
accordance with Schedule of Rates or MoRTH
Standard Data Book
5. Has certified the reasonableness of such cost
assessment made by the contractor to the
satisfaction of the Client
6. Has correctly assessed the impact of change of
7. In case of disputes, has reasonably assessed the
cost of such change of scope to the satisfaction of
the Client
8. And if required, in case of disputes has helped the
Authority to conduct an open competitive bidding for
award of works under the change of scope to a third
party
Page 61

Weight*

Highly satisfied with the following:
1. Quality of review of the drawings from safety point of
view based on the Safety Report /Audit conducted
by the Safety consultant
2. Inspection report has highlighted the required
updates on aspects safety of construction,
compliance of observations made by Safety
Consultant
3. Has instructed the Contractor to execute any work
which is urgently required for the safety of the
Project Highway, whether because of an accident,
unforeseeable event or otherwise
5
6.1 Addressal of Safety ensuring work zone safety in case the
issues during Development 3
Concessionaire has not made adequate
and construction phase
arrangements for the safety of workers and Users in
3 occasions which however has been addressed based
on observations given by NHAI
have occurred owing to deficiency in work zone safety.

6.2 Highway Safety Records 3 response guidelines and remedial measures at
during Defect Liability Phase reasonable intervals, monitoring of Contractor’s safety
5 programs, removal of accident black spots.
Recommended measures were implemented and
have resulted in 10-20% reduction in number of
Page 62

Weight*
reasonable intervals, monitoring of Contractor’s safety
4 programs, removal of accident black spots.
Recommended measures were implemented and
have resulted in less than 10% reduction in number
of accidents as compared to last year.
3
recommended measures after implementation have
not resulted in reduction in number of accidents as
2
resulted in upto 10% increase in number of
safety programs, removal of accident black spots.
1
Although recommended measures were
implemented it has resulted in more than 10%
increase in number of accidents as compared to last
year.

Sub Category: Authority’s Engineer

No.
Construction Phase
Has reviewed the drawings furnished by the Contractor along with supporting
1
data and recommendations from Safety Consultant within 15 days (30 for major
Page 63

No.
bridge or structure) and commented specifically on conformity or otherwise with
Scope of the Project and Specifications and Standards
Has reviewed revised Drawings sent by Contractor and furnished comments
2
within 10 days of receipt
Has reviewed, Quality Assurance Plan submitted by Contractor and conveyed
3
comments to the Contractor within 21 days stating modifications, if any
Had reviewed Contractors proposed methodology for executing the Works and
4
conveyed comments to the Contractor within a period of 10 days of receipt
Has granted written approval to the Contractor, where necessary, for interruption
5 and diversion of the flow of traffic in the existing lane(s) of the Project Highway
for purposes of maintenance
Has submitted regular periodic reports, at least once a month, as per duties and
6
functions in Agreement, by the 10th of every month
Has reviewed monthly progress report furnished by the Contractor and
7 comments have been sent to the Authority and the Contractor within 7 days of
receipt
Has initiated on behalf of the Authority or reviewed the Change of scope
8
proposed by the contractor and its reasonableness in terms of cost and timelines
Has obtained prior written approval determining Time Extension, additional costs
9 to be paid by Authority to Contractor, Termination Payment or any obligation or
liability for either party exceeding 50 Lakh
Withhold payments for the affected works for which the Contractor fails to revise
10
and resubmit the Drawings
Has obtained a copy of all the Contractor's quality control records and documents
11
before issuing Completion Certificate
Within 10 (ten) days of receipt of the Stage Payment Statement from the
Contractor , has determined the amount due to the Contractor and
12
recommended the release of 90 (ninety) percent of the amount so determined
as part payment, pending issue of the Interim Payment Certificate
Has delivered to the Authority and the Contractor, an Interim Payment Certificate
13 certifying amount due and payable to Contractor, within 15 days of receipt of
Stage Payment Statement
Has furnished a copy of all communications, comments, instructions, Drawings
14 or Documents which were sent to Contractor along with a copy of all test results
to the Authority
Has obtained a complete set of as built Drawings, reflecting the Project Highway
as actually designed, engineered and constructed, as-built survey illustrating
layout of Project Highway, setback lines of buildings and structures part of project
15
facilities and submitted the same to Authority. 2 copies have been furnished in
micro film or other acceptable medium to Authority, within 90 days of Project
Completion Date
Has provided value management and innovative feedback provided on
16
designs/construction methodology/road safety to the Contractor.
Most of the suggestions made have been successfully applied during project
17 execution resulting in documented cost and time savings and enhanced safety
for road users and construction workers.
Defect Liability Phase
Page 64

No.
Has Verified the Contractors monthly statement and certified the amount to be
18 paid to the Contractor, within 15 days of receipt of Monthly Maintenance
Statement
Has certified final payment with 30 (thirty) days of the receipt of the final payment
19 statement of Maintenance

No.
Construction Phase
Has inspected the Construction Works and the Project Highway and generated a
monthly Inspection Report bringing out clearly the results of inspection and
1
remedial actions by contractor and compliance of recommendation by Safety
Consultant
Submitted Inspection report covering results of inspections and remedial actions
2
by Contractor in respect to Defects or Deficiencies.
Submitted Inspection Report also covering details of compliance of
3
recommendations made by the Safety Consultant
Has done a pre-construction review of manufacturer's reports and standard
4
samples of manufactured Materials and such other Materials
Has determined conformance of Works to Specifications and Standards, enforced
through tests carried out by Contractor, at a time and frequency as per Agreement
5
and Good Industry Practice for quality assurance(IRC Special Publication-11 &
Specifications for Road and Bridge Works by MOSRTH)
In the event that the Contractor fails to achieve any of the Project Milestones, it
has undertaken a review of the progress of construction and identified potential
delays, if any. In case it has determined that completion of the Project Highway is
6 not feasible within the time specified in the Agreement, it has directed the
Contractor to indicate within 15 (fifteen) days the steps proposed to be take to
expedite progress, and the period within which the Project Completion Date shall
be achieved.
Prior to issue of Completion/Provisional Certificate
Has carried out, or cause to be carried out, all the Tests specified in Schedule-K
7 and before issue of Completion Certificate or Provisional Certificate as the case
may be
Conducted visual and physical inspection of construction and determined that all
8
works and equipment conform to provisions of Agreement
Has aided and advised the Contractor in preparing the monthly Maintenance
9
Program, through a joint monthly inspection with Contractor
Has undertaken regular inspections, at least monthly, to evaluate compliance with
10 Maintenance Requirements and submitted Maintenance Inspection Report to the
Authority and the Contractor

Page 65


No.
Construction Phase
For ensuring that the Works conform to Specifications and Standards, the
Authority’s Engineer has requisitioned the Contractor to carry out, or cause to be
1 carried out, tests at such time and frequency and in such manner as specified in
the Agreement and in accordance with Good Industry Practice for quality
assurance.
Have recommend to the Authority suspension of the whole or part of the Works if
the work threatens the safety of the Users and pedestrians. After the Contractor
2 has carried out remedial measure, the Authority’s Engineer has inspected such
remedial measures forthwith and reported to the Authority recommending whether
or not the suspension may be revoked.
In the event the Contractor carries out any remedial measures to secure the safety
of suspended works and users, and requires the Authority’s Engineer to inspect
3 such works, the Authority’s Engineer has inspect the suspended works within 3
(three) days of receiving such notice, and reported to the Authority forthwith,
recommending whether or not such suspension may be revoked by the Authority.
Has checked at least 20% of the quantity or number of tests for each category or
4
type for quality control
Has determined the timing of tests and criteria for acceptance/rejection of results
5
as per Quality Control Manuals.
In the event that results of any tests conducted establish any Defects or
6 deficiencies in the Works, the Authority’s Engineer have directed the Contractor to
carry out remedial measures.
Has tested on a random sample basis and in addition to and independent of tests
7
by Contractor for own quality assurance
Have instructed the Contractor to execute any work which is urgently required for
8 the safety of the Project Highway, whether because of an accident, unforeseeable
event or otherwise
Prior to issue of Completion/Provisional Certificate
9 Has checked riding quality of each lane with calibrated bump integrator
Has conducted Non-destructive Rebound hammer and Ultrasonic pulse velocity
10
tests at two randomly chosen spots in each span of all bridges
11 Has done Load testing on bridges with span of 15 meters or more
Has carried out through contractor, additional tests in accordance with Good
12 Industry Practice, to determine compliance of Project Highway with Specifications
and Standards
Has determined the date and time of the tests in consultation with the Contractor
13
and notify the Authority.
Has conducted/observed, monitored and reviewed the Tests conducted and to
14
determine compliance with Specifications and Standards
Has suspended/delayed testing for anticipated/determined Defect or deficiencies
15
and required the Contractor to remedy and rectify
Has upon completion provided copies of all Test data including detailed results to
16
Contractor and Authority
Page 66

No.
Has specified the tests the Contractor shall carry out for determining conformity
17 with Maintenance Requirements for Project Highway. Monitored and reviewed the
results of the tests and remedial measures taken
In respect of any defect or deficiency referred Schedule-E, the Authority’s Engineer
has in conformity with Good Industry Practice, specified the permissible limit of
18 deviation or deterioration with reference to the Specifications and Standards and
shall also specify the time limit for repair or rectification of any deviation or
deterioration beyond the permissible limit.
Has examined the request of the Contractor for closure of any lane (s) of the
20 Project Highway for undertakings maintenance/repair thereof, and has granted
permission with such modifications, as it may deem necessary, within 5 (five) days
of receiving a request from the Contractor.
Upon expiry of the permitted period of closure, the Authority’s Engineer has
21 monitored the reopening of such lane (s), and in case of delay, determined the
Damages payable by the Contractor to the Authority
3. Supervision Consultant
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by seven Performance Indicators, where

Weight*
for the Supervision Consultant.
Supervision Consultant.
1.1 Accuracy in the review of The Consultant is compliant on 70%-80% of the criteria
Drawings and Procedures Supervision Consultant.

1.2 Inspection of the Project 3 for the Supervision Consultant.
Road The Consultant is compliant to more than 80-90% of the
Page 67

Weight*
(1) The consultant is compliant to more than 70-80% of
KPI for the Supervision Consultant.

Supervision Consultant
for the Supervision Consultant
(1) Issue of interim payment certificates for payment

to contractors with required recording and
certification of measurements;
(2) Team leader of Supervision Consultants have
checked at least 15% (or as specified in the contract)
of the measurements and quality control tests;
(3) Certification of “As Built” drawings, inspection of
works and issuance of defect liability certificate,
5 (4) Certification of additional cost and variation of
1.4 Accuracy in certifications 3
quantities are to the complete satisfaction of the
Authority.
(5) No instances of misreporting/false reporting. All the
Compliance to all the above points, if applicable
1 Non-Compliance to one the above points, if applicable

3 5
1.5 Initiative for Dispute successfully arbitrated in favour of the Consultant
Resolution 6. Unreceptive in amicable resolution of disputes
1
Page 68

Weight*
7. Delay in Submission of documents, proofs and
evidences
1.6 Maintenance during (1) Inspection carried out at least once in a month (or as
Defect Liability Phase per provision of the agreement), or at other times as
Documents like Annual Maintenance Program, O&M
Inspection Report and Safety Reports, request made for
5 closure of lanes for maintenance works and
(4) Curing of defects by the contractor is is adequately
monitored and reviewed and deficiencies by the
Concessionaire were addressed achieved.
2 Satisfied with most of the above aspects with only minor
4
by the contractor with less than 5% time delays.
defects by the contractor with 5%-10% time delays
2
Curing of defects by the contractor with 10-15% time
delays.
1
of defects by the contractor is conducted with more than
15% time delays.

Weight*
Page 69

Weight*
5 All such measures have facilitated NHAI in taking timely
2.1 Timely Reporting of Complaint in reporting change in scope, additional
change in scope and flagging works, cost implications and other issues that can result
3
of expected delays in in delays in achieving project milestones. Some of these
achieving project milestones 3 efforts have facilitated NHAI in taking timely actions. In
2
1 in Business Days. In the opinion of the Authority, the

4
3
submitted on time
2
submitted on time
1

Page 70

Weight*
Weight*
5
3 given by NHAI.

5
to NHAI queries
NHAI.

Weight*
and are available for project delivery and carrying
out tasks as per proposed job description in the
contract.
4.1 Availability of key 3 b. Team leader and other key personnel are
personnel available in the key meetings called by the Client.
1. Key personnel are not deployed on time as per
schedule and also not contributing as per proposed
job description in the contract.
1
medical ground.
Page 71

Weight*
No change in Team Leader and key personnel’s

5
position.
3 4
NHAI.
4.2 Limited change of key Between 33% to 50% change in key personnel’s
personnel position(s) however with negligible impact on project.
3
Indicators have be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight), based on its
criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Further each Performance
Weight*
scope
1. Has reviewed BOQ provisions with respect to site
conditions and suggested modifications, if any
2. Have provided proper reasons for negative/positive
variations in various items of the BOQ
3. Provided report on variations to the Authority as and
when due as per contract provisions
4. In case of variations, the cost has been correctly
assessed by the Consultant as per provisions of the
5.1 Assessment during contract.
3 5
change in scope a. Has reviewed the detailed break-down of cost of
Contractor by work classifications, details
specifying the labor and material cost and that
it is in accordance with Schedule of Rates or
MoRTH Standard Data Book
b. Has certified the reasonableness of such cost
assessment made by the contractor to the
satisfaction of the Authority
c. Has correctly assessed the impact of change of
Page 72

Weight*

Highly satisfied with the following:
1. Have carried out safety audit of the project road
through a qualified and experiences road safety
expert as per manual of Road Safety Audit, if as per
provision of the contract
2. Have appropriately directed the contractor to carry
out such works or do such things as may be
necessary to avoid or reduce the risk in case of any
emergency affecting the safety of life or of the works
or of the adjoining property and advised the
Authority on the same
3. Have supervised the Contractor on all matters
concerning safety and care of the work including
environmental aspects and labour welfare
4. Scrutinized the Construction Methods proposed
by the Contractor for carrying out the works to
5 ensure that these are. satisfactory with particular
6.1 Addressal of Safety reference to the technical requirements, project
issues during construction 3
implementation schedule and environmental
phase
aspects as well as safety of works, personnel and
the general public
ensuring work zone safety in case the
Concessionaire has not made adequate
arrangements for the safety of workers and Users in
3 occasions which however has been addressed based
on observations given by NHAI
Page 73

Weight*
have occurred owing to deficiency in work zone safety.
6.2 Highway Safety Records Effective management of highway safety, accident

during Defect Liability Phase response guidelines and remedial measures at
5 Concessionaire’s/Contractor’s safety programs,
measures have resulted in 10-20% reduction in
number of accidents as compared to last year.
3 response guidelines and remedial measures at
4 Concessionaire’s/Contractor’s safety programs,
measures have resulted in less than 10% reduction
in number of accidents as compared to last year.
3
recommended measures have not resulted in
reduction in number of accidents as compared to
last year.
2
resulted in upto 10% increase in number of accidents as
1 safety programs, removal of accident black spots.
Although recommended measures have been
implemented it has resulted in more than 10% increase
in number of accidents as compared to last year.
** Performance Scores are to be assigned on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 reflects the best outcome on
the respective Performance Indicator
Page 74

Sub Category: Supervision Consultant
No.
Has reviewed the Detailed Project Report, it substantiation/correction, if required
for implementation. Reviewed and proof checked designs of all elements of project
structures/ bridges/ grade separators/ retaining of walls/ embankments/ pavement
1
‘etc. and reviewed the detailed drawings submitted by the Contractor/ project
Consultant. All drawings and designs have been substantiated/ corrected, as
required and approved by Consultants and issued to Contractor for execution
Has scrutinized the construction methods proposed by the Contractor for
carrying out the works to ensure that these are. satisfactory with particular
2 reference to the technical requirements, project implementation schedule and
environmental aspects as well as safety of works, personnel and the gene ral
public
Has scrutinized Construction Methods proposed and ensured satisfaction of
3 technical requirements, project implementation schedule, environmental and
safety aspects
Has furnished Consultants quality assurance system, and obtained and approved
4
Contractors quality assurance system
Has reviewed Alignment plan and profile of the project highway and service road
5
based on Tender drawings and survey by Contractor
Initiate advance actions for handing over of site and/ or issue of drawings, and
6
/ or advise Employer
Has reviewed and proof checked all drawings and designs, ensuring correctness
7
and safety from design aspects
Has issued all detailed drawings including drainage, junctions, wayside amenities,
8
road signs and markings, safety measures etc.
Has scrutinized and approved Contractor’s working drawings and drawings for
9
temporary works
10 Has prepared and supplied the Contractor with updated and additional drawings
11 Examined the request for advances and monthly statement of contractors
Has submitted Monthly reports fully describing progress of work/services and
12
indicated the problem areas and remedial actions
13 Has finalized the as-built drawings and maintained all test data and results
Has certified "As constructed" drawings, component wise as furnished by
14
Contractor
Has submitted Commencement Report within 30 days of commencement of
15
services or as per provision of the contract
Has submitted Monthly and Quarterly progress reports by 10th of the month or as
16
per provision of the contract
Has submitted the Final Report within 90 days of completion or as per provision
17
of the contract
Has submitted Construction Supervision Manual within 30 days of
18
commencement of services or as per provision of contract
Has submitted Quality Assurance Document within 30 days of commencement of
19
services or as per provision of contract
Page 75


No.
1 Maintain a day-to-day diary recording all events relevant to the works
Has conducted a technical audit of project, including own firm on a quarterly basis
2
and submitted the report to Authority
Has monitored closely and regularly the mobilization and progress of work
3
and advise the Contractor about corrective measures
Carried out regular inspection of Contractor's equipment, plant, machinery,
4 installations, housing and medical facilities etc. and ensured compliance to the
contract provision
Has checked and verified setting-out data and ensured conformity with working
5 drawings
Ensured taking requisite samples during execution and promptly advised the
6 contractor about the results. It has maintained all test data and result
Examined Contractor’s preparation and the completed portion of work as per

7
requests for inspection and promptly advised the Contractor
Has inspected works on completion before taking over and indicated to the Project
8
Director any outstanding work for the Defect Liability Period
Has inspected the works at appropriate intervals during Defect Liability Period and
9
certified Defect Liability certificate


No.
Has maintained high standards of quality assurance in supervision and in the
1
execution of work
Has made the necessary measurements and ensured the quality of works. Also
2 has made all engineering decisions required during the implementation of the
Contract
Has done realignment, redesign/modification for completion as required and
3
approvals obtained at no extra cost
Has reviewed design, drawing, BOQ provisions and specification with respect to
4
site condition and suggested modifications, as required
Has assisted the contractor in liaising and coordinating with
5 local authorities for shifting of utilities, cutting of
trees, land acquisition etc. whenever required
Has evolved a system of control of quality of materials and completed works
6 shall also include sampling methods and criteria and acceptance criteria. The
sampling methods and the acceptance criteria is based on statistical methods
Page 76

No.
and the recommendations of the relevant IRC and MORTH
Has scrutinized the Contractor's detailed work program and suggested
7
modifications to ensure timely completion
8 Has issued advance actions for handing over of site and issue of drawings
Has observed the tests carried out by Contractor and carried out additional tests to
9
ensure quality of works
Has reviewed the test results/certificates of all construction materials and/or
10
sources of materials and undertaken additional tests to assess quality of works
Has taken the requisite samples during execution and promptly advised the
11
Contractor about results
Has maintained a permanent record of all measurements for work quantities to be
12
paid for and results of all tests
Team Leader of the Consultant has certified to have checked at least 15% of
13 measurements and quality control tests before processing payments, post
Authority’s approval
Has repeated tests under Authority’s directive, in conflict situations which is
14
however limited to 5% of total measurements/tests
Page 77
4.2.3 Technical Safety Consultants

NHAI is currently both DBFOT and EPC mode for project development. It is stipulated in the Model
Concession Agreements (MCA) for PPP projects and EPC Contracts that the Concessionaire/Contractor
shall develop, implement and administer a surveillance and safety program for providing a safe
environment on or about the Project Highways and will comply with the safety requirements set forth in
Schedule ‘L’ of Model Concession Agreement (MCA) for DBFOT projects and Schedule–H of the MCA
of OMT projects and as provided in the EPC Contract. The Technical Safety Consultants are generally
engaged during the Construction and O&M phase.
The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines four key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope
of work and activities of an Safety Consultant, with each Rating Discipline been assigned a weight to
allow the relative importance of every discipline to be accurately represented in the performance scoring
model.
Vendor – Safety Consultant (DBFOT-Toll/Annuity, OMT, EPC)

Timelines 15%
Communication & Responsiveness 10%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within Safety Consultant vendor class is further categorized into sub-parameters
(defined as “Performance Indicators”) against which the performance will be evaluated. The following
table outlines the Performance Indicators for each Rating Discipline:
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by two Performance Indicators, where

weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating Discipline. Further each
Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a scale of 1
to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Sub – Performance Score** and Guidance for Scoring

Weight*
The Consultant is compliant on more than 90% of
5
the criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire
The Consultant is compliant on 80%-90% of the
4
1.1 Adequacy in work criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire
methodology, conduct of The Consultant is compliant on 70%-80% of the
3 3
safety audits and criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire
reporting/recommendations The Consultant is compliant on 60%-70% of the
2
criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire
The Consultant is compliant on less than 60% of
1
Timely review of accident records on the Project

1.2 Recording and analysis of
Highway and remedial measures suggested.
accident records resulting in 2 5
Demonstrated benefits with reduction in accidents
accident reductions
by 10-20% as compared to previous year.
Page 78

Weight*
Highway and remedial measures suggested.
4
Demonstrated benefits with reduction in accidents
by 0-10% as compared to previous year.
3 Highway and remedial measures suggested. No
reduction in accidents recorded.
Lack of both, timely review of accident records on
the Project Highway and suggestion of remedial
2
measures. An increase in accidents by 10-20%
recorded as compared to previous year.
No timely review of accident records on the
Project Highway and no remedial measures
1
suggested. An increase in accidents by more than
20% as compared to previous year.
2. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicators, where Performance

Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight), based on
Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The
Weight*
Reports delivered and review activities conducted
5 on time or with less than 5% delay in Business
days.
2.1 Timely submission of 4
with less than 10% delay in Business days.
Reports, review of
3 Reports delivered and review activities conducted
documents/designs provided by 3
with less than 20% delay in Business days.
concessionaire and submission
2
with 20-30% delay in Business days.
1
with more than 30% delay in Business days.

each Performance indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a
Weight*
(1) Key personnel are deployed on time as per
schedule and are available for project delivery
3.1 Availability of key personnel 3 5
and carrying out tasks as per proposed job
Page 79

Weight*
a. Key personnel deployed don’t have any
adverse health and medical issues that
impact their performance at project site.
b. Safety Consultant carries out site
inspections as per schedule and available
for more the meetings with NHAI and
Concessionaire.
(1) Key personnel are not deployed on time as
per schedule and also not fully contributing as
per proposed job description in the contract.
(2) Key personnel are not of sound health and
there has been adverse impact on the project
1 owing to non-availability of key personnel for
a substantial duration during contract period
owing to their non-availability medical ground.
(3) Safety Consultant carries out site inspections
as per schedule and are not available for
meetings with NHAI and Concessionaire.
The Consultant provided adequate focus on

environmental issues like air, water land and noise
5 pollution, occupational health and safety of
3.2 Environmental Management 3 workers, accidents and safety of users and other
environmental management indicators.
Inadequate focus was given on the above
1
mentioned environmental aspects of the project.
No change in key personnel’s position. Team

5 leader and key personnel are available for all
meetings with NHAI.
Upto 33% change in position with negligible
impact on project. No Change in Team Leader
4
position. Team leader and key personnel are
available for all meetings with NHAI.
3.3 Limited change in Key
3 Between 33% to 50% change in key personnel’s
Personnel
position(s) and negligible impact on project. Team
3
leader and key personnel are available for 80% of
the meetings with NHAI.
Beyond 50% change in key personnel and
adverse impact on project. Team leader and key
1
personnel are available for less than 70% of the
meetings with NHAI.

Page 80

Weight*
Always available or responsive during
consultancy contracts. Person identified along
5
with an organized system of coordinating with
4.1 Timely reply/address of NHAI
3 NHAI. No adverse notice given by NHAI.
Queries/comments
1 response on various instances. More than 3
adverse notices given by NHAI.

consistent and the consultant has shown
5 considerable ease in discussing project details
during the meetings. Majority of responses are
4.2 Adequacy of Responses to acceptable to NHAI.
3
NHAI queries The responses to the NHAI queries are generally
drafted, lacks consistency and on occasions it is
1 evident that the consultant is not well versed in
discussing project details. Most of responses are
not acceptable to NHAI.
Vendor: Technical Safety Consultants
KPI: 1.1 Adequacy in work methodology, conduct of safety audits and reporting/recommendations

No.
Development Phase
1 Submitted the inception report including detailed methodology, check lists and
procedure within 20 days of signing agreement. Scope of check list and
procedures on to follow IRC Manual on Road Safety Audit and other
International Safety Manual
2 Collected data of all accidents in the project highway for preceding two years
from Police Stations (Primary Source) and other secondary sources and the was
data analyzed for the type of victims killed or injured, impacting vehicles, location
of accidents and other relevant factors
3 Did analysis of Fatal and grievously injured accidents “to identify the black spots”
and relate to Accidents records with Traffic Volume to show trend as per Traffic
Volume Count
4 Reviewed comments from Concessionaire/Contractor, Independent/Authority’s
Engineer and NHAI on the draft Safety Report and furnished the Final Safety
Report which inter-alia shall include costing of all safety recommendations. Also
reviewed the design details and forwarded three copies of the Safety Drawings
with its recommendations, if any, to the Independent/Authority’s Engineer
Page 81
5 The accident data and the design details was compiled, analyzed and used for
evolving a package of recommendations consisting of safety related measures
for the Project Highway
6 Carried out Design Stage Road Safety audit as per the applicable manual,
guidelines, standards and good industry practices; and prepared a draft Safety
Report, taking into consideration the changes being proposed to the cross
section and its likely effect on fatal and serious accidents and suggested
countermeasures to mitigate the accident potential.
7 The safety audit was completed in a period of three months (or within the
contract timelines) and a report thereof (the “Safety Report”) was submitted to
the Authority, in five copies.
Construction Period
8 The Safety Consultant has collected and analyzed accident data for the relevant
period
9 Has studied the Safety Report for the Development Period and inspected the
Project Highway to assess the adequacy of safety measures and provided a gap
report vis-à-vis what was given in Final Safety Report and Safety Report which
was finally implemented.
10 Has completed the safety audit within a period of 4 (four) months (or as per the
contract timelines) and submitted a Safety Report recommending a package of
additional road safety measures, if any, that are considered essential for
reducing accident hazards on the Project Highway.
11 Inspected the Project Highway keeping into consideration the construction
planning for the project as prepared by the Concessionaire/Contractor. Has also
identified the safety implications of the construction planning.
12 Carried out the Safety Audit once in a Calendar Quarter, till COD/End of
Construction, to assess the adequacy of safety measures adopted and provided
in construction zone(s).
13 Collected accident data (monthly) from the Concessionaire/Contractor /PD
office/other secondary source and examine causes of fatal accidents including
suggesting countermeasures.
14 Submitted a Quarterly Safety Report on additional Road Safety measures, if any
and Summary of audit carried out in every quarter or as per contract timeline
15 Received comments from Concessionaire, Independent Engineer/Authority’s
Engineer and NHAI and furnished revised recommendations of safety measures
after duly examining the above comments and submit Safety Reports.
16 Provided Monthly Reports on all activities which were planned, actually
executed and planned for the next month.
17 In addition to the Construction Stage Safety Report, has also prepared Quarterly
Safety Reports after each inspection (once in a calendar quarter or as per the
contract timelines). The scope of each of this inspection has included identifying
of any gaps in provision of safety features as per the development stage and
construction stage safety audit including work zone safety audit.
18 Reviewed Contractual Provisions and Established Work zone Safety Audit
Procedure through Review of the existing systems followed in planning,
execution, documentations and reporting. Identified the major hazards and risks
associated with construction activities
19 Conducted Work Zone Safety Audit with detailed assessment of aspects
pertaining to Traffic Management Plan, Traffic Safety Measures, Worker Safety,
Fire Safety Practices, Electrical Safety Practices, Mechanical Safety Practices,
Safety of road-side residents and passers-by, Emergency Response
Page 82
Arrangements and recommended specific remedial actions to overcome safety

deficiencies and to strengthen/improve safety conditions in the project’s
contracts. Also reassessed whether the recommendations made in the Audit
Reports (contract specific) have been implemented or not (including reasons) in
the project sites.
20 Strengthened Work zone Safety Implementation by NHAI. Assisted in reviewing
and revising/issuing instructions and established a system for conducting
performance review of Concessionaire/Contractor and IE/AE.
21 Submitted Work Zone Safety Report every quarter or as per the contract
timelines
22 Organized and conducted a One day Workshop on half yearly basis on findings
of Safety Audits and follow up action, for the representatives from NHAI,
Concessionaire/Contractor, IE/AE and local NGOs etc.
O&M Phase
23 Has done a safety audit once in every Accounting Year or as per the contract
timelines
24 Has reviewed and analyzed the annual report and accident data of the preceding
year, and undertaken an inspection of the Project Highway.
25 Has completed the safety audit within a period of 1 (one) month or as per the
contract timelines and submitted a Safety Report recommending specific
improvements, if any, required to be made
26 The accident data and the design details have been complied, analyzed and
used for evolving a package of recommendations consisting of safety related
measures of the Project Highway.
27 The safety audit has been completed in a period of three months or as per the
contract timelines and a report thereof (the “Safety Report”) was submitted to
the Authority
Page 83
4.2.4 Financial and Legal Consultant

NHAI has been progressively improving and developing stretches on PPP mode on DBFOT – Toll /
Annuity basis. NHAI empanels various firms for providing financial and legal consultancy services in
respect of these BOT Projects. These consultants are expected to provide services for a period of 12 to
15 months for a given specific project. The financial and legal consultant engaged by NHAI assist in all
project related matters from pre-qualification stage until the financial closure stage of the project including
the warranties and undertakings required to be obtained from various project players at various stages
and carrying out the “Due diligence” on behalf of NHAI as the Project Owner’s Consultant.
Financial and Legal Consultant assist NHAI through the entire process of bid and award through
providing financial / legal advice, modeling and structuring implementation of these projects on BOT and
OMT basis. The consultant develops a comprehensive Public Private Partnership structure and legal,
commercial and financial guidance documents, to assist NHAI in selection of private sector.
The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines four key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope
of work and activities of a Financial and Legal Consultant, with each Rating Discipline been assigned a
scoring model.
Vendor – Financial and Legal Consultants

Timelines 15%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within Financial and Legal Consultant vendor class is further categorized into
sub-parameters (defined as “Performance Indicators”) against which the performance will be evaluated.
The following table outlines the Performance Indicators for each Rating Discipline:
1. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicators, where Performance

Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the highest weight),
Performance Indicators Sub – Performance Score** and Guidance for Scoring
Weight*
All project deliverables were submitted as per
the timelines as agreed with NHAI and as
5 specified in the proposal/inception report. All
delays on account of Authority or other external
factors shall be condoned.
1.1. Timely Delivery of Reports 3 Either one or all of project deliverables were
submitted with a delay of less than 15 days from
3
the scheduled timelines. These delays have
been on account of the Consultant
Either one or all of project deliverables were
1
submitted with a delay of more than 15 days
Page 84

Weight*
from the scheduled timelines. These delays
have been on account of the Consultant.
2. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by five Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the highest
each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will be allocated a score on a scale

Weight*
(1) The estimates of toll revenue cash flows,
costs and financial viability has been in sync with
no major errors or omissions identified in the
financial model.
5 (2) The assumptions incorporated in the model
were realistic and based on latest figures.
2.1 Quality of Financial
2 (3) Provided adequate assistance in financial
Forecasts
modelling and advising during and after financial
closure of the project.
One of the above mentioned aspects did not
3
meet the performance requirements of the NHAI.
None of the above mentioned aspects meet the
1
requirements of the NHAI.
The Consultant on the basis of the cash flow and

traffic projections:
(1) Identified and advised the most appropriate
project implementation structure.
5 (2) Appropriately allocated risks to make it more
attractive to the private player without
2.2 Assistance in finalizing significantly increasing the liability of NHAI.
project and risk allocation 3 (3) Estimated realistic grant/loan component for
structure the project.
One of the above mentioned factors have not
3 been in line with the requirements and needs
improvement.
Two or more of the above mentioned factors
1 were not in sync with the requirements and
needs improvement.
(1) The qualification parameters identified for the

qualification stage are in sync with the
2.3 Assistance in finalization of
requirements of the projects.
qualification parameters, 3 5
(2) No errors or omissions were made while
RFQ and RFP
drafting the Request for Qualification (RFQ) and
Request for Proposal (RFP).
Page 85

Weight*
One of the above mentioned factors have not
3 been in line with the requirements and needs
improvement.
None of the above mentioned factors were in
1 sync with the requirements and needs
improvement.
The Consultant managed the entire bid process

management with accuracy, precision and
promptness:
(1) The Consultant evaluated the RFQ
responses with no biasedness, no errors and
omissions.
(2) The Consultant promptly assisted NHAI in
5
seeking additional clarifications from the
2.4 Assistance in Bid Process potential bidders relating to financial, commercial
3
Management and legal issues.
(3) The consultant selected the most appropriate
private player based on the selection criteria and
assisted NHAI in signing of the concession
agreement.
The Consultant underperformed on any one of
3
the above defined parameters.
The Consultant underperformed on two or more
1
of the above defined parameters,
The financial consultant provided qualitative

inputs to NHAI in devising strategies for
restructuring or refinancing the project. The
5
strategies were implementable and were
2.5 Suggestions on Post accepted by NHAI in the first submission without
Award Contract 2 any revisions.
management The strategies advised were implementable,
3 however were accepted after one revision in the
submission
The strategies advised were not implementable
1
and were not accepted by NHAI.

Rating Discipline. Further each Performance indicator on the basis of its performance will be
allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Weight*
Consultant is always available and responsive
2 5
for instructions issued, queries or notices issued
Page 86

Weight*
by NHAI. Consultant responds promptly on most
3.1. Responsiveness to
of the occasions.
instruction, queries or notice
Consultant is rarely available and does not
of NHAI 1
respond on most of the occasions.
The Consultant was prompt in:

(1) Discussing salient project features and in
monitoring the progress of the project.
5
(2) Assigning principal coordinator to oversee the
3.2. Correspondence with key
whole process.
players in project 3
(3) Coordinating activities of NHAI.
development
The Consultant was prompt only on two of the
3
above specified aspects.
The Consultant was unable to undertake any of
1
the above mentioned tasks.
5 The price quoted by the Financial Consultant is

10% (or less) lower than quoted by other
equivalently rated Financial consultants for
handling the same scope of work.
3.3. Pricing Competitiveness 2 at par with other equivalently rated Financial
consultants for handling the same scope of work.
higher than quoted by other equivalently rated
Financial consultants for handling the same
scope of work.
The Consultant conducted adequate number of

meetings with the personnel of NHAI to
5
understand the requirements of the projects and
3.4. Conducting Meetings 2 discuss the outcome of the financial analysis.
The Consultant did not conduct adequate
1 number of meetings as per the requirement of
the projects.
The Consultant conducted adequate number of

workshops to the targeted investors particularly
5
contractors and financiers so as to generate
interest in the proposed project.
3.5. Conducting Workshops 2
The Consultant did not conduct adequate
number of workshops to the targeted investors
1
and was unable to generate interest in the
project.
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicator, where
Page 87

Weight*
Weight*
1. Key personnel are deployed on time as per

schedule and are available for project delivery
and carrying out tasks as per proposed job
5 a. Key personnel deployed don’t have any
adverse health and medical issues that
impact their performance at project site.
available in the key meetings called by the
Client.
4.1 Availability of Key Personnel 3 1. Key personnel are not deployed on time as per
schedule and also not contributing as per
proposed job description in the contract.
2. Key personnel are not of sound health and
there has been adverse impact on the project
1 owing to non-availability of key personnel for a
substantial duration during contract period
owing to their non-availability medical ground.
3. Team leader and other key personnel are
mostly not available in the key meetings called
by the Client.
No change in Team Leader and key personnel’s

5
position.
Upto 33% change in key personnel’s position,
however with negligible impact on the project.
4
This however shall not include change on
account of request made by NHAI.
position(s) however with negligible impact on
4.2 Limited change in key 3 3
project. This however shall not include change
personnel
on account of request made by NHAI.
Beyond 50% change in key personnel resulting
in substantial adverse impact on the project. This
however shall not include change on account of
1
request made by NHAI. Not satisfied with
demonstrated expertise of the key personnel
replaced.
Legal Consultants and Arbitrators

Since its inception in 1995, NHAI has awarded various national highway projects to numerous contractors
and concessionaires. Over time, numerous disputes have arisen in the projects awarded by NHAI and it
is currently party to several legal and arbitral proceedings. Given the loss of time and money due to
Page 88
disputes and to further strengthen the process of performance evaluation, it is imperative for NHAI to
have a comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism to enable faster and efficient resolution of conflicts.
The process followed for dispute resolution mechanism, specified in the contractual clauses of the
agreement is as detailed below:
1. Amicable Settlement: In the event that any dispute, controversy or claim arises among the vendor
in connection with the agreement or the interpretation of any of its provisions or upon the occurrence
of an event of default, the vendor and NHAI appoints one senior representative who is not involved
in the day-to- day operations relating to the project and is readily available in an effort to resolve
such dispute, controversy or claim. The parties at the first instance try to resolve all such disputes
through mutual consultation and negotiation between the representatives on the Consultation Panel.
2. Dispute Resolution Board: In the event that the parties are unable to resolve a dispute, controversy
or claim through amicable settlement, the dispute is referred to Dispute Resolution Board (DRB).
DRB is formed comprising of three members having relevant experience in the field. One member
each is selected by NHAI and the vendor. The third member is selected by the two members so
appointed by the parties to act as expert in order to organize a panel of experts. However, all the
members of the DRB are required to be approved by both the parties. On receiving written request
for review of the dispute, the Board convenes the hearings. Thereafter, the DRB reaches a majority
decision and gives notice to the parties of their decision. The decision of the DRB shall be binding
unless a Party issues a notice of intention to refer the matter to arbitration. The decision through
DRB is an intermediation step only for non-PPP projects. For PPP projects, the parties after trying
through amicable settlement, directly settles through Arbitration.
3. Arbitration: In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve any dispute, controversy, or claim in
accordance with amicable settlement and DRB, such dispute, controversy or claim is finally settled
by a panel of arbitrators referred as “Arbitration Tribunal (AT)", in accordance with the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitration Panel consists of three parties. The owner and vendor,
who appoint one arbitrator each and such arbitrators, designate a third person to act as arbitration
in order to organize an Arbitration Panel. The arbitrators are assumed to make a reasoned award
and any award made in any arbitration is final and binding on the Parties as from the date it is made.
4. Litigation: While the ruling of AT is binding on each of the contracting parties, the contract enables
the parties to challenge the arbitral award in Court. It may be pertinent to note that the acceptability
of arbitration award is significantly low and most of the AT rulings are challenged either by NHAI or
by the contractor in District/High Court.
As detailed above, NHAI has to perform number of activities in order to comply with the defined framework
for dispute resolution. Over the past, there are number of pending claims, arbitration matters and
litigations before the various courts of law in respect of disputes raised by vendor. Further it has also
been observed that in some cases they get time barred due to delay on the part of various functionaries
of NHAI which leads to the pendency of disputes and delay in settlement of the claims resulting in huge
financial liabilities on NHAI including substantial interest component awarded by the Arbitral Tribunals
(ATs) in their awards. For that purpose, certain departments / cells have been created at the NHAI
Headquarters to enable the Authority to take necessary action in a timely manner.
Contract Management Cell (CMC) and Legal and Arbitration Cell (L&A)
NHAI has to deal with number of legal cases from contractors/concessionaires as part of the dispute
resolution process. On recommendation of Planning Commission and Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC)
and consequent approval of the competent authority, a Legal & Arbitration (L&A) Cell was set up at NHAI
Headquarters in September 2008. The major functions of the L&A Cell thus set up are as below:
Page 89
 Monitor dispute resolution process and outcomes

 Advise on general legal issues arising out of dispute redressal and arbitration proceedings
 Advise on legal cases pertaining to contractual matters
 Advise on improvements to contracts on the basis of disputes arising
 To maintain data relating to dispute resolution/ arbitration/ court cases
 Appointment and engagement of Arbitrators, DRB Members, Techno-legal experts, solicitors and
legal counsels
Contract Management Cell (CMC) performs the same tasks as L&A, however undertakes such disputes
for only Item Rate Contracts. Further, CMC’s role in such cases is limited till arbitration only and if any of
the aggrieved parties decides to file litigation, the L&A Cell takes up the matter and provides necessary
guidance to the Technical Division and PIU thereon.
Legal Consultants: Although the L&A Cell has formulated guidelines for officers to deal with legal
matters, in certain events where the cases involves major legal implications, higher financial stakes,
increasing complexities, wider ramifications, L&A Cell takes assistance of an advocate/law firm or Legal
Consultants depending on the complexity of the matter.
In addition, to NHAI also appoints two external legal consultants to look into various legal aspects. One
of the consultants gets allocated to look into settlement cases arising out of negotiations regarding the
matters pertaining to Independent Settlement Advisory Committee (ISAC). The other consultant provides
legal assistance pertaining to contracts of various projects under the jurisdiction of Member (PPP) and
Member (Finance). In addition, the consultants also look into legal issues concerning the Commercial
Operations division and RO.
These consultants are expected to have minimum 10 years of experience in dealing with similar cases of
Central/State Government organizations or Public Sector Entities. The Legal expert under various
projects is identified to perform the following tasks:
1. Providing legal opinion

2. Legal vetting of draft agreements including concession agreement and bidding documents
3. Drafting of claims, counter claims, rejoinder, statement of defence, interim applications, reply to
interim applications, affidavit, rejoinder to application and agreement.
4. Drafting of legal notice, brief of legal notice, issuing notice and replying to notice
5. Discussion with client’s representatives/legal counsel
6. Appearance before arbitrators
7. Appearance before arbitral tribunal
Although a framework for evaluating the performance of Legal Consultant is presented for cognizance by
NHAI it is a subject matter of discussion/debate as to whether it would be prudent and legally feasible for
NHAI to evaluate the performance of a legal consultant. A legal Consultant can be evaluated on the
following key performance indicators:
Performance Indicators Weightage Performance Score** and Guidelines for Scoring

The legal consultants meets the performance
requirements on all of the following parameters:
1.1. Quality of Legal Vetting
40% 5 (1) Highly satisfied with improvements advised
of draft agreements
in contract on the basis of dispute concerns in
other projects,
Page 90
Performance Indicators Weightage Performance Score** and Guidelines for Scoring

(2) All clauses of the draft agreements are
modified in the best interest of NHAI.
(3) No errors/omissions have been identified
with respect to the legal aspect of the draft
agreements, and
(4) Legal vetted documents resulted in minimum
disputes.
(5) The advice provided by the Consultant is
exhaustive and comprehensive fully covering
the relevant citations of the Supreme cour
judgment/cases.
One of the above mentioned aspects have not
3
been in line with the performance requirements.
Two or more of the above mentioned aspects
1 have not been in line with the performance
requirements.
The Legal Consultant responded to the legal

5
notice prior to the scheduled timelines.
1.2. Timely response on
The Legal Consultant responded on the last day
replying and issuing 20% 3
of the scheduled timelines.
legal notice
The Legal Consultant responded with a delay
1
from the scheduled timelines
The Legal Consultant has a success rate

5
(winning cases of NHAI) of more than 90%.
1.3. Success Rate 20% 3
(winning cases of NHAI) of 70%-90%.
1
(winning cases of NHAI) of less than 70%.
5 The price quoted by the Legal Consultant is

10% (or less) lower than quoted by other
equivalently rated Legal consultants for
handling the same scope of work.
3 The price quoted by the Legal Consultant is at
1.4. Pricing par with other equivalently rated Legal
20%
Competitiveness consultants for handling the same scope of
work.
1 The price quoted by the Legal Consultant is
higher than quoted by other equivalently rated
Legal consultants for handling the same scope
of work.
4.2.5 Toll Collection Agency

Toll Collection Agencies are involved by NHAI for various National Highway stretches developed and are
yet to be handed over to PPP OMT operator. The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines
five key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope of work and activities of a Toll Collection Agency, with each
Page 91
Rating Discipline been assigned a weight to allow the relative importance of every discipline to be
accurately represented in the performance scoring model.
Vendor – Toll Collection Agency

Timelines 15%
Communication & Responsiveness 5%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within Toll Collection Agency vendor class is further categorized into sub-
parameters (defined as “Performance Indicators”) against which the performance will be evaluated. The
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by three Performance Indicators, where

weight*
Rating Discipline - Quality of Services
5 Less than 20 seconds
4 Between 25-30 seconds
1.1 Average operating time at toll 3 Between 25-30 seconds
gates during peak & off peak 3 Between 30-35 second and results in traffic
2
hour congestion at peak period
More than 35 seconds and results traffic
1
congestion both at peak and non-peak hour
The software installed is compatible and able to

5 generate classified traffic data. Less than 0.01%
of software downtime reported.
The software installed is compatible and able to
4 generate classified traffic data. 0.01-0.1% of
software downtime reported.
1.2 Infrastructure provisions and
3 The software installed is compatible and able to
compatibility of Installed
3 generate classified traffic data. 0.1-1% of
Software and unplanned
software downtime reported.
software downtime
The software installed is not able to generate
2 classified traffic data. 1-2% of software
downtime reported.
The software installed is not able to generate
1 classified traffic data. >2% of software downtime
reported.
1.3 Compliance with all No cases of non-compliance in a month on

2 5
instructions issued by NHAI aspects mentioned below.
Page 92

weight*
and all performance Display of user fee notifications at appropriate
obligations as per the locations. Issue of proper receipts to all vehicles.
Contract Maintenance of proper registers including those
relating to collection of User Fee from different
type of vehicles; No instances of excess fee
charged.
Only 1 case of non-compliance reported in a
quarter on aspects mentioned above.
4
However no instances of excess fee charged or
non-issue of proper receipts.
Upto 2 non-compliances reported in a quarter
on aspects mentioned above however that
3 didn’t result in operational hassles.
However no instances of excess fee charged or
2-3 non-compliances reported in a quarter on
aspects mentioned above that resulted in some
2 minor operational hassles.
However, instances of non-issue of proper
receipts.
More than 3 non-compliances reported in a
month that resulted in major operational hassles
1 including major traffic congestions.
However instances of excess fee charged and

Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest weight), based
weight*
1. Daily Reporting of incidents along with
weekly and monthly consolidated reports
and any information sought by NHAI
5
provided on time
2. On time submission of Monthly user fee
statement for all 12 months.
2.1 Timely reporting and sharing 1. Daily Reporting of incidents along with
2
of information as sought by NHAI weekly and monthly consolidated reports
4
provided on time
statement for 10-12 months.
3
Page 93

weight*
provided on time.
2
provided on time only occasionally.
and any information sought by NHAI are not
1
provided on time.
statement for less than 5 months.

each Performance indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score on a
Weight*
No incidents of accidents or unusual
5
occurrences reported in a quarter.
Upto one incident of accident/ unusual
4 occurrences reported in a quarter. And the
remedial measures are taken immediately.
Upto two incidents of accidents/ unusual
3.1 Number of incidents of 3 occurrences reported in a quarter. And the
accidents or unusual 3 remedial measures are taken immediately.
occurrences Upto three incidents of accidents/ unusual
occurrences reported in a quarter. And the
2
remedial measures taken have been
successful.
More than three incidents of accidents/ unusual
1 occurrences reported in a month. And the
remedial measures taken are not successful.
The Agency is compliant on more than 90% of

5
The Agency is compliant on 80%-90% of the
4
3.2 Quality of Traffic criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire
2
Management at Toll Plaza The Agency is compliant on 70%-80% of the
3
2
Page 94

weight*
The Agency is compliant on less than 60% of the
1

Performance Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (Three being the
score on a scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Weight*
1) No change in key personnel’s position.
Plaza Manager and other Key Personnel
5 are deployed as per contract schedule.
2) And Plaza Manager available for all key
meetings with NHAI.
1) Upto 33% change in position with negligible
impact on project. No change in position of
Plaza Manager. Plaza Manager and other
4 Key Personnel are deployed as per contract
schedule.
2) And Plaza Manager available for all key
4.1 Deployment of key personnel meetings with NHAI.
and limited change of key 3 1) Between 33% to 50% change in key
personnel personnel’s position(s) and negligible
impact on project. Plaza Manager and other
3 Key Personnel are deployed as per contract
schedule. Plaza
2) Plaza Manager available for the key
meetings with NHAI.
1) Beyond 50% change in key personnel and
adverse impact on project. Plaza Manager
and other Key Personnel are not fully
1
deployed as per contract schedule.
2) Plaza Manager mostly not available for key
meetings with NHAI.
The Agency is compliant on more than 90% of

5
4
4.2 Behavior of the staff deployed The Agency is compliant on 70%-80% of the
3 3
for toll operations criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire
2
The Agency is compliant on less than 60% of the
1
Page 95

weight*
All the insurances required as part of the
5
contract are maintained within timelines.
4.3 All Insurances are maintained contract are maintained with delays or some of
3
and renewed timely the insurances are also not available. Some of
1
the insurance policies had to be revised owing
to deficiencies in the provisions of the
insurances submitted
Weight*
Always available or responsive during
consultancy contracts. Person identified along
5
with an organized system of coordinating with
5.1 Timely reply/address of NHAI
3 NHAI. No adverse notice given by NHAI.
Queries/comments
1 response on various instances. More than 3
adverse notices given by NHAI.

consistent and the consultant has shown
5 considerable ease in discussing project details
during the meetings. Majority of responses are
5.2 Adequacy of Responses to acceptable to NHAI.
3
NHAI queries The responses to the NHAI queries are
generally drafted, lacks consistency and on
1 occasions it is evident that the consultant is not
well versed in discussing project details. Most of
responses are not acceptable to NHAI.
Page 96
4.2.6 Concessionaire DBFOT ─ Build Operate Transfer (Toll & Annuity)

The NHAI is mandated to implement the NHDP, where with the increase in the coverage of NHDP
portfolio, the project implementation form changes from Item Rate contracts to Public Private Partnership
(PPP) mode of execution through Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) - Annuity and BOT-Toll basis.
BOT (Toll) Concessionaire: Private operators, who invest in tollable highway projects, are entitled to
collect and retain toll revenues for the tenure of the project concession period. The tolls are prescribed
by NHAI on a per vehicle per km basis for different types of vehicles. A Model Concession Agreement
(MCA), the governing agreement between the contracting parties addresses the obligations and
associated risks and rewards for each party to the agreement. This framework has been successfully
used for award of BOT concessions.
BOT (Annuity) Concessionaire: In this mode of execution, the concessionaire bids for annuity payments
to be received from NHAI. This covers the cost of constructing, operating and maintaining the project
highway and an expected return on the investment. The bidder quoting the lowest annuity is awarded the
project, with annuities being paid semi-annually to the concessionaire by NHAI. The concessionaire does
not bear the traffic/ tolling risk in these contracts
The proposed performance monitoring framework for the BOT Concessionaire outlines five key Rating
Disciplines outlining the scope of work and activities of a BOT Concessionaire, with each Rating Discipline
been assigned a weight to allow the relative importance of every discipline to be accurately represented
in the performance scoring model.
Vendor – BOT Concessionaire

Timelines 15%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within BOT Concessionaire vendor class is further categorized into sub-
1. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by eight Performance Indicators, where Performance

Indicators shall be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the highest weight),
Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will be allocated a score on a scale of 1 to
5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:
Sub - Performance Score ** and

Performance
Project Phase Weight* Guidelines for Scoring
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
1.1. Fulfillment of All of the Condition Precedents
Pre-
conditions 3 3 5 (CP) of the concessionaire as per
Construction
precedent the provision of the Concession
Page 97

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
Agreement (CA) are fulfilled by
the concessionaire or it has
received waiver from the
Authority for fulfillment of any of
the condition precedent within a
period of 180 days from the date
of the agreement or as provided
in the in the CA without payment
of any penalty.
Fulfillment of CPs, including
receipt of waiver by the Authority,
4 by the Concessionaire is delayed
by upto 30 days beyond 180
days
by upto 30-60 days beyond 180
days
by upto 60-90 days beyond 180
days
by more than 90 days beyond
180 days.
The Concessionaire did not pay

any liquidated damages as the
financial closure was attained
5
within the targeted timelines as
1.2. Actual vs Targeted per the relevant clause of the
Date of Financial Pre- Concession Agreement.
2 2
Closure Construction The Concessionaire paid
liquidated damages on account
of delay in achievement of
1
financial closure as per the
relevant clause of the
Concession Agreement.
The Concessionaire submitted

the following monthly progress
1.3. Timely submission Construction
1 1 5 reports on time:
of monthly reports. and O&M
1. Monthly Reports on Progress
of Construction Works
Page 98

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
2. Monthly Status Report for
Monitoring Operation and
Maintenance
3. Monthly Fee Statement (Only
for BOT – Toll)
4. Monthly Summary Reports of
Unusual Occurrences
All 48 reports were submitted on
time by the Concessionaire to the
Independent Engineer/Authority
(There are 4 categories of
monthly reporting with 12 reports
on each of them in a year).
The Concessionaire defaulted or
delayed the submission of 10%
4
of 48 monthly reports to the
Independent Engineer/Authority.
delayed submission of 10-25% of
3
48 monthly reports to the
Independent Engineer/Authority.
delayed the submission of more
1 than 25% of 48 monthly reports
to the Independent Engineer/
Authority.
The variation between the

financial and the physical
progress is to be rated as follows:
 No variation for completion of
Milestone 1.
5  Upto 10% variation for
completion of Milestone II.
 Upto 10% variation for
1.4. Financial Progress completion of Milestone III.
status  Upto 5% variation for
Construction 3 3
corresponding to completion of Milestone IV.
Physical Progress The variation between the
4 completion of Milestone 1.
completion of Milestone III.
Page 99

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
completion of Milestone IV.
completion of Milestone 1.
 More than 5% variation for
1  More than 15% variation for
The Concessionaire achieved all

the project milestones on time
1.5. Achievement of 5
and no liquidated damages were
Project Milestones
paid by the Concessionaire.
and Scheduled Construction 3 3
The Concessionaire delayed the
Project Completion
completion of one or more
Date 1
milestones and paid liquidated
damages for the same.
The Concessionaire promptly

3 3 5
rectified the correction works as
Page 100

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
specified in the O&M Inspection
1.6. Meeting target
O&M Report.
timeline for
The Concessionaire delayed
correction works
rectification of the correction
specified in O&M 1
works as specified in the O&M
Inspection Report
Inspection Report.
The Concessionaire, provided its

Balance Sheet, Cash Flow
Statement, Profit and Loss
5
Account, and Statutory Auditors
1.7. Provide audited report on time as per the
annual accounts designated timelines.
O&M 2 2
and schedules on The Concessionaire, submitted
time its Balance Sheet, Cash Flow
Statement, Profit and Loss
1
Account, and Statutory Auditors
report with a delay as per the
designated timelines.
5 On more than 90% of the

instances, payment to the
Independent Engineer by
1.8. Payment to
concessionaire was made within
Independent
Construction 3 3 specified timelines.
Engineer by
1 Payment to Independent
Concessionaire
Engineer by concessionaire was
made with a delay on more than
10% of the instances.
2. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by eleven Performance Indicators, where
Performance Indicators shall be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the highest
Sub-Weight* Performance Score** and
Project Stage Annuity Toll Guidelines for Scoring
2.1. Quality of finalized  The Concessionaire prepared
drawings/ design and submitted with
incorporating reasonable promptness and
Independent consistency three copies of all
Engineer’s Pre- Drawings to the Independent
review/suggestions Construction & 3 3 5 Engineer for review.
(Delays attributable Construction  The technical design and
to the Authority, if drawings were acceptable to
any, to be condoned the Independent Engineer
in case of Extension without any
of Time granted revisions/suggestions.
Page 101

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
without any penalty  The Concessionaire prepared
on account of delays and submitted with
of NHAI) reasonable promptness and
consistency three copies of all
Drawings to the Independent
4 Engineer for review.
 The technical design and
drawings were acceptable to
the Independent Engineer
after one round of
revisions/suggestions.
 The Concessionaire prepared
and submitted with
reasonable promptness and
consistency three copies of all
3 Engineer for review.
 The technical design and
after two rounds of
 The Concessionaire did not
submitted three copies of the
Engineer for review.
1  The technical design and
with more than two rounds of
 State of art machinery was

used by the Concessionaire
5
 Average age of key machinery
was less than 5 years
2.2. Quality of Machinery
Construction 2 2  Ordinary machinery with no
and Equipment used
innovation was used by the
1 Concessionaire
 Average age of key machinery
was more than 5 years
All the below mentioned aspects

2.3. Quality of
or aspects covered in the CA
Maintenance of
Construction 3 3 5 were met within the specified
existing road during
timelines and to the satisfaction
Construction Period
of IE:
Page 102

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
(1) Traffic worthiness at no time
is materially inferior as compared
to their condition 7 days prior to
the date of the Agreement,
(2) Undertook necessary repair
and maintenance works for this
purpose;
(3) Diverted the flow of traffic for
the efficient progress of
Construction Works,
(4) Ensured safe operation of the
Project Highway.
The above mentioned aspects
were achieved with a delay and
1 required substantial
improvement in the works as
noted by IE.
No major defects or deficiencies

were identified in the
Concessionaire’s design,
construction or implementation.
In addition, the concessionaire
achieves the following
conditions:
(1) Concessionaire has made
timely requests for carrying out
inspection of the mandatory tests
to the Independent Engineer
(2) The size of sample of tests
was upto 10% of the quantity
2.4. Quality of and/or number of tests
Construction and prescribed by IRC and/or
Construction 3 3 5
extent of defect MOSRTH for the construction
identified works undertaken by the
Authority. .
(3) Less than 10 Non
Conformance reports issued by
the IE.
(4) The Concessionaire every
calendar quarter provided to the
Authority - video recording,
covering the status and progress
of Construction Works.
(5) Not more than 1 additional
test recommended and the test
result had no non-conformity
outcome.
Page 103

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
Minimal defects resulted in
Concessionaire’s reworking with
instances of repetitions in the
same area of deliverables. In
addition, the concessionaire
achieves the following
conditions:
was upto 10% of the quantity
and/or number of tests
prescribed by IRC and/or
MOSRTH for the construction
3 works undertaken by the
Authority.
(2) 10-30 Non Conformance
reports have been issued by the
IE.
(3) The Concessionaire provided
video recording to the Authority
every quarter with a delay of less
than 15 days.
(4) Not more than 1-3 additional
tests recommended in a year and
only one test resulted in some
non-conformity outcomes.
Major defects resulted in
substantial reworking at the
Concessionaire’s end with slow
remedial actions and instances
of repetitions were quite
common. In addition, the
concessionaire achieves the
following conditions:
was not upto 10% of the quantity
number of tests prescribed by
1 IRC and/or MOSRTH for the
construction works undertaken
by the Authority.
(2) More than 30 Non
Conformance reports have been
issued by the IE.
(3) The Concessionaire provided
video recording to the Authority
every quarter with a delay of
more than 15 days.
(4) Of all the additional tests
recommended, more than three
Page 104

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
tests resulted in non-conformity
outcomes.
Cure period covering timelines

for curing breach for Punch List
5
items of the project highway have
been served without any delay.
Breach or default for punch list
items was addressed with a
4
delay of less than 5 days on the
cure period.
2.5. Curing Timelines for
Default Punch list
items and Construction 3 3 3
delay of 5-10 days on the cure
maintenance
period.
requirements
2
delay of 10-15 days on the cure
period.
1
delay of more than 15 days on
the cure period.
The concessionaire conforms to

the maintenance requirements of
the concession agreement. All
three of the below mentioned
aspects were achieved as per
the required timelines:
(1) Concessionaire through its
engineer undertook a daily visual
inspection of the Project Highway
and maintains a record thereof in
a register.
2.6. Quality of
(2) Undertook timely and prompt
Maintenance during O&M 2 2 5
routine maintenance during
operation period
operation period including
prompt repairs of potholes,
cracks, joints, drains,
embankments, structures,
pavement markings, lighting,
road signs and other traffic
control devices.
(3) All adverse
comments/notices issued by the
Independent Engineer were
implemented and adhered to.
Page 105

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
Concessionaire did not meet the
above mentioned aspects as per
1 the timelines and specifications
mentioned in the concession
agreement.
All the below mentioned points

have been to the satisfaction of
the Authority
1. User fee are collected
appropriately as per the Fee
Notification for different
category of vehicles
2. Monthly Passes are issued to
satisfaction of the Authority
users
3. No user fees are charged
from exempted
5 4. No adverse
comments/notices have
been provided on account of
2.7. Quality of Toll unacceptable Behavior of the
O&M NA 3
Management staff deployed for toll
operations with the highway
users
5. Toll plaza have been cleanly
maintained
6. No undue congestion and
reasonable waiting period
has been ensured at the toll
gates
Any one of the above mentioned
factors have not been achieved
to the satisfaction of the
1 Authority/ Independent Engineer.
And in spite of being brought to
notice the same has not been
addressed
All the below mentioned points

have been to the satisfaction of
the Authority
2.8. Quality of Incident 1. Round the clock ambulance
O&M 3 3 5
Management services have been provided.
2. The ambulances provided
are in good condition and
chauffer driven
Page 106

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
3. Has provided to the State
Police Department or a
substitute thereof one Jeep
or similar vehicle in good
working condition along with
chauffeurs for round-the-
clock patrolling
4. Has provided tow way
service for accident or break
down vehicles and submitted
the relevant data to the
Authority/Independent
Engineer on time
Any one of the above mentioned
factors have not been achieved
to the satisfaction of the
1 Authority/ Independent Engineer.
And in spite of being brought to
notice the same has not been
addressed
Riding quality of each lane as per

requirement of Schedule ‘K’ was
5 carried out within 180 days from
the point Roughness value
exceeded 2500 mm/km.
2.9. Periodic requirement of Schedule ‘K’ was
Maintenance of O&M 3 3 3 carried out within 180-210 days
Pavement from the point Roughness value
1 carried out beyond 210 days
from the point Roughness value
The Concessionaire is compliant

to 80-100% of the criteria
5
mentioned in the Questionnaire
against this KPI.
2.10. Quality of
Maintenance of the O&M 3 3
on 50-80% of the criteria
Project Highway 3
against this KPI.
1
to less than 50% of the criteria
Page 107

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
against this KPI.
On conduct of Traffic sampling

by Authority through
IE/Independent Toll Audit
Consultant, less than 0.5%
variation noted between the
5 traffic sampling results estimated
by NHAI and traffic reported by
concessionaire. No
discrepancies or missing
information were reported for the
concessionaire.
2.11. Authenticity of On conduct of Traffic sampling
traffic figures by Authority through
provided during O&M NA 3 IE/Independent Toll Audit
operation period for Consultant, variation between
3
traffic sampling the traffic sampling results
estimated by NHAI and traffic
reported by concessionaire,
ranged from 0.5%-1%.
On conduct of Traffic sampling
by Authority through
IE/Independent Toll Audit
Consultant, more than 1% of the
1
variation was noted between the
traffic sampling results estimated
concessionaire.
3. “Communication and Responsiveness” Rating Discipline is defined by three Performance

Indicators, where Performance Indicators shall be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three
Discipline. Further each Performance indicator on the basis of its performance will be allocated a
As per the good industry
practice, the Concessionaire has
Pre- been proactive in coordinating
3.1. Correspondence with
Construction, on the following aspects for
key Authorities and 3 3 5
Constriction ensuring completeness in design
parties
and O&M and execution:
(1) Irrigation Department for
design of major water structures,
Page 108

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
(2) Railway Department for
construction of Rail over bridges,
(3) Utility Agencies for undertake
shifting of any utility including
electric lines, water pipes and
telephone cables and
(4) Police department for setting
up of a traffic aid post, and
(5) All tripartite agreements for
bearings, traffic signals are
shared with the Independent
Engineer or the Authority.
Adverse notices have been given
1 by Authority/IE on failure to
coordinate with agencies.
The concessionaire provided

timely responses covering the
following aspects to the
satisfaction of IE
(1) The concessionaire provided
the likely impact of change of
scope on project completion
schedule,
(2) Options for implementing
changed scope of work,
5
(3) Detailed breakdown by work
3.2. Responsiveness on classifications and
Construction
delivering additional 3 3 (4) Details specifying the material
and O&M
scope of work and labor cost.
Justifications in terms of
providing safer and improved
services to the users were
explicitly detailed out by the
concessionaire for such change
of scope
The concessionaire’s responses
were not accepted by IE and
1 required several revisions on
basic assumptions resulting in
the delay.
3.3. Responsiveness to Concessionaire is responsive to

instruction, queries or Pre- the instructions issued, queries,
notice of NHAI, Construction, and cure period notices issued
3 3 5
Independent Construction by NHAI/IE. Concessionaire
Engineer or Safety and O&M responds promptly to the
Consultants – Clarity, satisfaction of the IE/Authority.
Page 109

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
Completeness and Concessionaire is rarely
Timelines 1 available and does not respond
on most of the occasions.
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by nine Performance Indicators, where


5 The Concessionaire obtained, as
required under the Applicable
Laws and as per provision in the
Concession Agreement all
applicable Permits on or before
the Appointed Date. And the
4.1. Procurement of all
Pre- annual renewals of all such
applicable permits on 3 3
Construction permits have been on time.
time
1 The Concessionaire delayed
obtaining the permits required
under the Applicable Laws and
provision of the Concession
Agreement beyond the
appointed date.
 During pre-construction period,

the Concessionaire procured
all Applicable Permits relating
to environmental protection and
conservation of the Site.
 The Concessionaire provided
adequate focus and addressed
5
environmental issues like air,
Pre-
4.2. Environmental water land and noise pollution,
Construction & 3 3
Management occupational health and safety
Operations
of workers, accidents and
safety of users and other
environmental management
indicators.
 Inadequate focus was given on
the above mentioned
1
environmental aspects of the
project.
Page 110

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
5  The Concessionaire subject to
Applicable Laws and with
assistance of the Authority
undertook shifting of
obstructing utilities including
electric lines, water pipes and
telephone cables.
 The Concessionaire ensures
that the respective entities
Pre-
4.3. Utility Shifting 2 2 owning the existing roads,
Construction
right of way or utilities are
enabled by it to keep such
utilities in continuous
satisfactory use, by providing
suitable temporary or
permanent diversions.
1 The Concessionaire was unable
to achieve either of the above
conditions.
The Concessionaire (if required

as per the concession
agreement), procured on behalf
of the Authority, on the terms and
to the extent specified by the
Authority, the additional land
required for (a) Toll Plazas, (b)
Traffic Aid Posts, (c) Medical Aid
5 Posts, (d) under passes and over
passes, (e) construction of works
specified in Change of Scope
Order issued within the timelines
specified for the activity in
4.4. Facilitation in
Pre- Monthly Progress Report and IE
additional land 1 1
Construction Inspection Report and there is no
procurement
delay in achieving project
milestones.
The Concessionaire (if required),
procured on behalf of the
Authority, on the terms and to the
extent specified by the Authority,
the additional land required for
4 (a) Toll Plazas, (b) Traffic Aid
Posts, (c) Medical Aid Posts, (d)
under passes and over passes,
(e) construction of works
Order issued with less than 30
Page 111

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
days delay in timelines specified
for the activity in Monthly
Progress Report and IE
Inspection Report
(a) Toll Plazas, (b) Traffic Aid
3 under passes and over passes,
Order issued with 30-60 days
delay in the timelines specified
Inspection Report.
2 under passes and over passes,
Order issued with 60-90 days
delay in the timelines specified
Inspection Report.
1 Posts, (c) Medical Aid Posts, (d)
under passes and over passes,
Order issued with more than 90
days delay in the timelines
specified for the activity in
Page 112

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
Monthly Progress Report and IE
Inspection Report.
All of the below mentioned

insurance aspects were
performed by the concessionaire
on time:
(1) Disclosure of proposed
insurance arrangement 45 days
5
prior to commencement of the
operation period;
(2) Undertaking insurance covers
for mitigating risks for maximum
sums and renewing the same on
or before time.
(1) Disclosure of proposed
Pre- insurance arrangement 35-45
4.5. All Insurances
Construction, days prior to commencement of
maintained and 2 2
Construction & the operation and the
renewed timely
O&M 3 construction period,
(2) Less than two of the
insurance policies were obtained
or revised with a delay of less
than 30 days.
(1) The Concessionaire failed to
buy an insurance cover for the
project highway. The insurance
therefore had to be taken by
1 Authority by paying the insurance
premium (Recoverable from the
concessionaire – In case of
termination deducted from
Performance Security).
The Concessionaire responded

on time – within a period of three
months from the date of issuance
of notice by the NHAI, to
5
4.6. Augmenting the undertake the required
capacity of the O&M NA 2 augmentation (as determined by
project highway NHAI) within six months of such
notice.
The Concessionaire did not
1 respond within the designated
timelines.
Page 113

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
All four of the below mentioned
aspects fall in line with the
performance requirements:
(1) Performance Compliance of
EPC Contractor, O&M
Contractor, and Tolling
Contractor with applicable
standards and regulations,
5 (2) Deployment of Project
Management Company (PMC)
for effective and timely
Pre-
4.7. Engagement of performance deliveries,
Construction & 3 3
reliable contractors (3) All the sub-contractor
Construction
agreements submitted on time by
the Concessionaire to the NHAI
for approval and revisions made
as suggested.
The concessionaire has
achieved all of the above points
3
except for deployment of Project
management Company.
The concessionaire has not
1 achieved any of the above
mentioned aspects.
5 DSCR of more than 1.5

4.8. Debt Service 4 DSCR in the range of 1.25 to 1.5
Construction
position of the 3 3 3 DSCR in the range of 1.1 to 1.25
and O&M
Concessionaire 2 DSCR in the range of 1 to 1.1
1 DSCR is less than 1
(1) The Concessionaire inspects

the complaint register every day.
(2) Within 7 days (as per
designated timelines) of the
close of each month, the
Concessionaire furnished a copy
of the complaint register (for that
4.9. Problem resolution
month) to the Authority and
and customer Construction &
2 2 5 Independent Engineer.
satisfaction O&M
(3) The Concessionaire takes the
capabilities
lead promptly, providing highly
effective solutions in case of
problems.
(4) As identified in the compliant
register maintained by
concessionaire or reported to the
Authority /Independent Engineer
Page 114

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
through the grievance redressal
forum, no incidence of
misconduct (of the personnel
deployed at toll points) was
reported.
(1) The Concessionaire inspects
the Complaint Register once in
every two days.
(2) The Concessionaire
furnished a copy of the
Complaint register after 7 days of
the close of each month.
1 (3) The Concessionaire provides
negligible solutions despite
repeated reminders resulting in
major complaints from affected
stakeholders.
(4) Incidents of misconduct (of
the personnel deployed at toll
points) were reported.
5 1. No Dispute has been raised or

the dispute has been
successfully arbitrated in
4.10. Initiative for Dispute favour of the Concessionaire.
Construction & 1 1. Unreceptive in amicable
Resolution/Conciliati 2 2
O&M resolution of disputes through
on
negotiations.
2. Amount of dispute raised
under arbitration has been
more than 10% of the TPC
5. “Safety Considerations” Rating Discipline is defined by three Performance Indicators, where

 The concessionaire
proactively followed daily
5.1. Submission of reporting throughout the year.
monthly summary  Weekly/monthly summary
O&M 3 3 5
reports of unusual reports were submitted on
occurrences time within 3 days of the
closing of each week/month
as specified in the agreement.
Page 115

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
 The concessionaire did not
followed daily reporting on
less than 30 days in a year.
3  Weekly/monthly summary
reports were submitted with a
delay of less than 3 days from
the scheduled timelines.
 The concessionaire did not
followed daily reporting on
more than 30 days in a year.
1  Weekly/monthly summary
reports were submitted with a
delay of more than 3 days
from the scheduled timelines.
No incidents of unusual
occurrences have been reported
5
owing to deficiencies in design
and operational conditions.
5.2. Number of incidents Improvement in geometric
Construction
of accidents or 3 3 3 design/diversion based on
and O&M
unusual occurrences reported accidents, black spots.
Accident or incidents of unusual
occurrences have been reported
1
owing to deficiencies in design
and operational conditions.
All of the following five aspects

were addressed adequately
(1) The concessionaire provided
the safety consultants with
necessary drawings at the
development stage and
recommendations provided by
the safety consultants were
adequately incorporated in the
design as per the applicable
5.3. Compliance with the Construction
3 3 5 laws,
safety measures. and O&M
(2) Concessionaire makes
adequate provisions for the
safety of workers and road users
in the construction zone as per
IRC provision during the
construction and notified
Authority and IE about such
arrangements,
(3) Concessionaire established
Highway Safety Management
Page 116

Performance
Indicators#
Annuity Toll
Unit (HSMU) to be made
functional after COD, keeping
annual record of all accidents
and FIRs with identification of the
location on the project road and
listing of the accidents and its
analysis for preceding year,
(4) All safety reports
recommendations during the
Construction and operation
phase were applied/acted upon
suitably as per IRC provisions
and good industry practices, and
(5) Concessionaire’s work has
never been suspended on
account of unsafe works/safety
reasons.
More than 2 of the above
mentioned aspects were
achieved with a delay more than
30 days as per the specified
timelines and needs substantial
1 improvement as noted by Safety
Consultants. There has been
more than 3 occasions in a year
where the work has suspended
by the Independent Engineer due
to unsafe site condition.
# Performance Indicator will be active depending on the project phase

* Weightage is assigned on a scale of 1 to 3, where 3 reflects the highest importance being attached to a specific Performance
Indicator
** Performance Scores are assigned on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 reflects the best outcome on the respective Performance
Indicator
Vendor: Concessionaire- DBFOT
KPI: 3.10 Quality of Maintenance of the Project Highway
Questionnaire
Achieved/Not
Carriageway and paved shoulders Timelines
Achieved/NA
Temporary restoration of traffic Within
24 hours
Permanent restoration of traffic Within 15 days
Roughness value exceeding 2,500 mm in a stretch of 1 km (as
180 days
measured by a standardized roughometer/bump integrator)
Pot holes 48 hours
Page 117
Cracking in more than 5% of road surface in a stretch of 1 km 30 days

Rutting exceeding 10 mm in more than 2% of road surface in a
30 days
stretch of 1 km (measured with 3 m straight edge)
Bleeding/skidding 7 days
Raveling/Stripping of bitumen surface exceeding 10 sqm 15 days
Damage to pavement edges exceeding 10 cm 15 days
Removal of debris 6 days
Hard/earth shoulders, side slopes, drains and culverts
Variation by more than 2% in the prescribed slope of
30 days
camber/cross fall
Edge drop at shoulders exceeding 40 mm 7 days
Variation by more than 15% in the prescribed side
30 days
(embankment) slopes
Rain cuts/gullies in slope 7 days
Damage to or silting of culverts and side drains during and
7 days
immediately preceding the rainy season
De-silting of drains in urban/semi-urban areas 48 hours
Road side furniture including road signs and pavement
marking
Damage to shape or position poor visibility or loss of retro-
48 hours
reflectivity
Any major failure of the street lighting and the telecom system 24 hours
Faults and minor failures of the street lighting and the telecom
8 hours
system
Obstruction in a minimum head-room of 5 m above
24 hours
carriageway or obstruction in visibility of road signs
Deterioration in health of trees and bushes Timely watering
and treatment
Replacement of trees and bushes 90 days
Removal of vegetation affecting sight line and road structures 15 days
Cleaning of toilets Every 4 hours
Defects in electrical, water and sanitary installations 24 hours
Failure of toll collection equipment or lighting 8 hours
Damage to toll plaza 7 days
Damage or deterioration in Approach Roads pedestrian
facilities, truck lay-bys, bus-bays, bus shelters, cattle crossings, 15 days
Traffic Aid Posts, Medical Aid Posts and other works
Bridges
Cracks for Temporary Measures of superstructure of bridges Within 48 hours
Cracks for Permanent Measures of superstructure of bridges Within 45 days
SpaIling/scaling of superstructure of bridges 15 days
Scouring and/or cavitation for foundation of bridges 15 days
Cracks and damages including settlement and tilting 30 days
Deformation of bridges 15 days
Loosening and malfunctioning of joints 15 days
Deforming of pads in elastomeric bearings 7 days
Gathering of dirt in bearings and joints; or clogging of spouts,
3 days
weep holes and vent-holes
Damage or deterioration in parapets and handrails 3 days
Rain-cuts or erosion of banks of the side slopes of approaches 15 days
Damage to wearing coat 15 days
Page 118
Damage or deterioration in approach slabs, pitching, apron,

30 days
toes, floor or guide bunds
Growth of vegetation affecting the structure obstructing the
15 days
waterway
Page 119
4.2.7 Operation Maintenance and Transfer Concessionaire

Operate, Maintain and Transfer (OMT), the new concept model was introduced by NHAI in 2009 for select
existing and near completion four lane national highways. Earlier, the tasks of user fee (toll) collection
and maintenance of highways were entrusted with tolling agents / operators and sub-contractors,
respectively. These tasks were integrated under the OMT concessions; with an OMT contract being a
fusion of two contracts – a tolling contract and a contract for O&M. Under this mode of execution, the
private operators would be eligible to collect tolls on these stretches for maintaining highways and
providing essential services (such as emergency/ safety services).
The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines five key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope
of work and activities of an OMT Concessionaire, with each Rating Discipline been assigned a weight to
allow the relative importance of every discipline to be accurately represented in the performance scoring
model.
Vendor – OMT Concessionaire
Timelines 15%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within OMT Concessionaire vendor class is further categorized into sub-
1. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by seven Performance Indicators, where Performance

Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the highest weight), based
Project Sub- Performance Score ** and Scoring

Phase Weight* Guidelines
All of the Condition Precedents (CP) of
the concessionaire as per the provision
of the Concession Agreement (CA) are
fulfilled by the concessionaire or it has
received waiver from the Authority for
5
fulfillment of any of the condition
1.1. Fulfillment of Pre-O&M precedent within a period of 45 days
3
Conditions Precedent Phase from the date of Agreement and prior
to COD or as provided in the in the CA
without payment of any penalty.
Fulfillment of CPs, including receipt of
waiver by the Authority, by the
4
Concessionaire is delayed by upto 10
days beyond 45 days
Page 120

3
Concessionaire is delayed by upto 10-
15 days beyond 45 days
2
Concessionaire is delayed by upto 15-
20 days beyond 45 days
1
Concessionaire is delayed by more
than 20 days beyond 45 days.
The Concessionaire achieves COD on

5 time, as per the relevant clause of the
Concession Agreement.
1.2. Timely Commercial Pre-O&M
3 The Concessionaire delays the
Operations Date Phase
achievement of COD as per the
1
relevant clause of the Concession
Agreement.
The Concessionaire constructed the

Project Facilities in accordance with
5
the Project Facility Completion
1.3. Achievement of Project Pre-O&M Schedule.
3
Timelines Phase The Concessionaire delayed the
Project Facilities in accordance with
1
the Project Facility Completion
Schedule.
The Concessionaire provided notice 9

days (or before) prior to the proposed
5 lane closure after seeking written
approval from the Independent
Engineer.
4 days prior to the proposed lane closure
with prior approval of NHAI.
1.4. Lane closure Pre-O&M 2 3 days prior to the proposed lane closure
Phase
with prior approval of NHAI.
Concessionaire provided notice of 6
days prior to the proposed lane
2 closure, without any prior approval of
NHAI. Further the concessionaire also
delayed the reopening of such lane.
Concessionaire provided notice of less
1 than 6 days prior to the proposed lane
closure and did not give any notice to
Page 121

NHAI. This delayed the reopening of
such lane.
The Concessionaire promptly rectified

5 the correction works as specified in the
1.5. Meeting target timeline
O&M Inspection Report.
for correction works O&M
3 The Concessionaire delayed
specified in O&M Phase
rectification of the correction works as
Inspection Report 1
specified in the O&M Inspection
Report.
The Concessionaire submitted the

following monthly progress reports on
time:
1. Monthly Reports on Progress of
Construction Works
2. Monthly Status Report for
Monitoring Operation and
Maintenance
5 3. Monthly Fee Statement
4. Monthly Summary Reports of
Unusual Occurrences
All 48 reports were submitted on time
by the Concessionaire to the
Independent Engineer/Authority
1.6. Timely submission of O&M
1 (There are 4 categories of monthly
Monthly Status Reports Phase
reporting with 12 reports on each of
them in a year).
delayed the submission of 10% of 48
4
monthly reports to the Independent
Engineer/Authority.
delayed submission of 10-25% of 48
3
monthly reports to the Independent
Engineer/Authority.
delayed the submission of more than
1
25% of 48 monthly reports to the
Independent Engineer/ Authority.
The Concessionaire, provided its

Balance Sheet, Cash Flow Statement,
5 Profit and Loss Account, and Statutory
1.7. Providing audited
O&M Auditors report on time as per the
annual accounts on 2
Phase designated timelines.
schedule dates
The Concessionaire, submitted its
1 Balance Sheet, Cash Flow Statement,
Profit and Loss Account, and Statutory
Page 122

Auditors report with a delay as per the
designated timelines.
2. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by five Performance Indicators, where


The concessionaire conforms to the
maintenance requirements of the
concession agreement. All of the
below mentioned aspects were
achieved as per the required timelines:
(1) Concessionaire through its
engineer undertook a daily visual
inspection of the Project Highway and
maintains a record thereof in a register.
5 (2) Undertook timely and prompt
routine maintenance during operation
2.1. Quality of Maintenance O&M
3 period including prompt repairs of
during operation period Phase
potholes, cracks, joints, drains,
embankments, structures, pavement
markings, lighting, road signs and
other traffic control devices.
(3) All adverse comments/notices
issued by the Independent Engineer
were implemented and adhered to.
Concessionaire did not meet the above
mentioned aspects as per the timelines
1
and specifications mentioned in the

5 carried out within 180 days from the
point Roughness value exceeded 2500
mm/km.
2.2. Periodic Maintenance of O&M Riding quality of each lane as per
3
Pavement Phase requirement of Schedule ‘K’ was
3 carried out within 180-210 days from
the point Roughness value exceeded
2500 mm/km.
1
Page 123

carried out beyond 210 days from the
point Roughness value exceeded 2500
mm/km.
Cure period covering timelines for

curing breach for Punch List items of
5
the project highway have been served
without any delay.
Breach or default for punch list items
4 was addressed with a delay of less
than 5 days on the cure period.
2.3. Curing Timelines for
O&M Breach or default for punch list items
Maintenance 3
Phase 3 was addressed with a delay of 5-10
Requirements
days on the cure period.
2 was addressed with a delay of 10-15
days on the cure period.
1 was addressed with a delay of more
than 15 days on the cure period.
All of the following aspects of the

maintenance program comply with the
desired timelines:
(1) Preventive maintenance schedule,
(2) Arrangements and procedures for
carrying out urgent repairs,
(3) Arrangements and procedures for
5 carrying out safety related measures,
(4) Criteria to be adopted for deciding
2.4. Quality of components of Pre-O&M
3 maintenance needs,
Maintenance Program Phase
(5) Intervals and procedures for
carrying out inspection of all elements
of the project highway,
(6) Intervals for major maintenance
works and the scope thereof.
The above mentioned aspects were
achieved with a delay and required
1
substantial improvement in the works
as noted by IE.
On conduct of Traffic sampling by

Authority through IE/Independent Toll
2.5. Correct reporting of traffic Audit Consultant, less than 2%
O&M
estimates and thus toll 2 5 variation noted between the traffic
Phase
realizations sampling results estimated by NHAI
and traffic reported by concessionaire.
No discrepancies or missing
Page 124

information were reported for the
concessionaire.
Audit Consultant, variation between
4
the traffic sampling results estimated
concessionaire, ranged from 2%-3%.
3
2
Audit Consultant, more than 7% of the
1
variation was noted between the traffic
sampling results estimated by NHAI
and traffic reported by concessionaire.

Indicators, where Performance Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three

Concessionaire is responsive to the
instructions issued, queries, and cure
3.1. Responsiveness to
5 period notices issued by NHAI/IE.
instruction, queries or Pre-O&M
Concessionaire responds promptly to
notice of NHAI, and O&M 3
the satisfaction of the IE/Authority.
Independent Engineer or Phase
Concessionaire is rarely available and
Safety Consultants
1 does not respond on most of the
occasions.
During the concession period, the

3 5
concessionaire performed the
Page 125

following four aspects as per the
requirements of the project:
(1) Maintaining a public relations unit to
interface with and attend to receive
suggestions from the Users,
government agencies, media and
other agencies,
(2) Operation and maintenance of all
communication, control and
administrative systems necessary for
3.2. Managing Pre-O&M the efficient operation of the Project
Communication aspect and O&M Highway,
with stakeholders Phase (3) Correspondence with concerned
law enforcement agencies for
preventing any unauthorized use and
encroachments of the Project
Highway,
(4) Ensuring protection of the
environment and provision of
equipment and materials therefore;
Adverse notices have been given by
1 Authority/IE on failure to coordinate
with agencies.
Concessionaire was highly prompt in

determining the requirement of
additional works and services which
are not included in the initial scope of
the project and are expected to be
5
included as part of change of scope
order. Justifications in terms of
providing safer and improved services
3.3. Promptness for change Pre-O&M
2 to the users were explicitly detailed out
of scope of work Phase
by the concessionaire.
Concessionaire was able to assess the
requirement of change of scope after
the desired timelines, resulting in major
1 re-working, non-compliance and
corrections required to be in line with
the specified standards and
specifications.
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by seven Performance Indicators, where

Page 126

Rating Discipline – Project and Contract Management
Performance Indicators Phase Weight Guidelines
*
All of the below mentioned insurance
aspects were performed by the
concessionaire on time:
(1) Disclosure of proposed insurance
arrangement 45 days prior to
5
commencement of the operation
period;
(2) Undertaking insurance covers for
mitigating risks for maximum sums and
renewing the same on or before time.
(1) Disclosure of proposed insurance
4.1. All Insurances arrangement 35-45 days prior to
Pre-O&M
maintained and renewed 2 commencement of the operation and
Phase
timely 3 the construction period,
(2) Less than two of the insurance
policies were obtained or revised with
a delay of less than 30 days.
(1) The Concessionaire failed to buy
an insurance cover for the project
highway. The insurance therefore had
to be taken by Authority by paying the
1
insurance premium (Recoverable from
the concessionaire – In case of
termination deducted from
Performance Security).
 The Concessionaire provided

adequate focus and addressed
environmental issues like air, water
land and noise pollution,
Pre- 5
occupational health and safety of
4.2. Environmental Construction
3 workers, accidents and safety of
Management &
users and other environmental
Operations
management indicators.
 Inadequate focus was given on the
1 above mentioned environmental
aspects of the project.
5  The Concessionaire subject to

Applicable Laws and with
Pre- assistance of the Authority
4.3. Utility Shifting 2
Construction undertook shifting of obstructing
utilities including electric lines,
water pipes and telephone cables.
Page 127

 The Concessionaire ensures that
the respective entities owning the
existing roads, right of way or
utilities are enabled by it to keep
such utilities in continuous
satisfactory use, by providing
suitable temporary or permanent
diversions.
1 The Concessionaire was unable to
achieve either of the above conditions.
All of the below mentioned aspects
were achieved on time;
(1) All the sub-contractor agreements
submitted by the Concessionaire to the
NHAI for approval on time and
5
revisions made as suggested,
(2) Acquired all labor licenses and was
highly prompt for labor cess.
Pre-O&M
4.4. Engagement of reliable (3) Timely Performance delivery of the
and O&M 2
contractors Tolling Contractor.
Phase
The concessionaire implemented one
of the above mentioned factors with a
3
delay with minimal improvements
required.
The concessionaire implemented both
of the above mentioned factors with a
1
delay with substantial improvements
required.
On more than 90% of the instances,

payment to the Independent Engineer
4.5. Payment outstanding to 5
by concessionaire was made within
Independent Engineer
O&M Phase 3 specified timelines.
/Sub-Contractors/Other
Payment to Independent Engineer by
Agencies
1 concessionaire was made with a delay
on more than 10% of the instances.
(1) The Concessionaire inspects the

complaint register every day.
(2) Within 7 days (as per designated
timelines) of the close of each month,
4.6. Problem resolution and the Concessionaire furnished a copy of
customer satisfaction O&M Phase 2 5 the complaint register (for that month)
capabilities to the Authority and Independent
Engineer.
(3) The Concessionaire takes the lead
promptly, providing highly effective
solutions in case of problems.
Page 128

(4) As identified in the compliant
register maintained by concessionaire
or reported to the Authority
/Independent Engineer through the
grievance redressal forum, no
incidence of misconduct (of the
personnel deployed at toll points) was
reported.
(1) The Concessionaire inspects the
Complaint Register once in every two
days.
(2) The Concessionaire furnished a
copy of the Complaint register after 7
days of the close of each month.
1 (3) The Concessionaire provides
negligible solutions despite repeated
reminders resulting in major
complaints from affected stakeholders.
(4) Incidents of misconduct (of the
personnel deployed at toll points) were
reported.
1. No Dispute has been raised or the

dispute has been successfully
5
arbitrated in favour of the
Concessionaire.
4.7. Initiative for Dispute
O&M Phase 2 1. Unreceptive in amicable resolution
Resolution/Conciliation
of disputes through negotiations.
1 2. Amount of dispute raised under
arbitration has been more than
10% of the TPC
5 DSCR of more than 1.5

4 DSCR in the rage of 1.25 to 1.5
4.8. Debt Service position of
O&M Phase 3 3 DSCR in the range of 1.1 to 1.25
the Concessionaire
2 DSCR in the range of 1 to 1.1
1 DSCR is less than 1
5. “Safety Considerations” Rating Discipline is defined by three Performance Indicators, where


Page 129

All of the following four aspects were
executed on time ;
(1) Provision of safe conditions for the
users,
(2) Operating procedures followed for
lane closures, diversions, vehicle
breakdowns and accidents,
5 (3) Setting up of temporary traffic
cones and lights,
(4) Removal of obstruction and debris
without delay,
In addition to the above,
Concessionaire’s work has never been
suspended on account of unsafe
Pre-O&M
works/safety reasons.
5.1. Safety measures and O&M
3 Upto two of the above mentioned
undertaken Phase
aspects were delayed by 15-25 days
as per the specified timelines and
3 needs improvement as noted by Safety
Consultant. The Concessionaire work
has never been suspended on account
of unsafe works/safety reasons.
More than three of the above
mentioned aspects were delayed by
more than 30 days as per the specified
timelines and needs substantial
1 improvements as noted by Safety
Consultant. The Concessionaire work
has been suspended more than once
on account of unsafe works/safety
reasons.
No incidents of unusual occurrences

have been reported owing to
5
Pre-O&M deficiencies in design and operational
5.2. Number of incidents of
and O&M conditions.
accidents or unusual 2
Phase Accident or incidents of unusual
occurrences
occurrences have been reported owing
1
to deficiencies in design and
operational conditions.
 The concessionaire proactively

followed daily reporting throughout
5.3. Accident and response
Pre-O&M the year.
measures documentation
and O&M  Weekly/monthly summary reports
- Submission of monthly 3 5
Phase were submitted on time within 3
summary reports of
days of the closing of each
unusual occurrences
week/month as specified in the
agreement.
Page 130

 The concessionaire did not followed
daily reporting on less than 30 days
in a year.
3  Weekly/monthly summary reports
were submitted with a delay of less
than 3 days from the scheduled
timelines.
 The concessionaire did not followed
daily reporting on more than 30
days in a year.
1  Weekly/monthly summary reports
were submitted with a delay of more
than 3 days from the scheduled
timelines.
Indicator
Indicator
Page 131
4.2.8 Contractor – Design & Build – EPC Contractor

The EPC contractor is based on the model that the responsibility of investigation, design and construction
of the road lies on the EPC for a lump price determined and deployed by the PPP Concessionaire. The
contractor provides assistance in preparing and providing all information and reports to the Authority
Engineer and NHAI relating to the engineering, procurement and construction of project facilities. The
proposed performance monitoring framework outlines five key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope of
work and activities of an EPC contractor, with each Rating Discipline been assigned a weight to allow the
relative importance of every discipline to be accurately represented in the performance scoring model.
Vendor –EPC Contractor

Timelines 15%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within the EPC contractor vendor class is further categorized into sub-parameters
1. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by eight Performance Indicators, where

Further each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a score
on a scale of 1 to 5 by NHAI. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:

Weight*
 The Contractor appointed a proof check
consultant (the “Proof Consultant”) after
proposing to the Authority a panel of three names
of qualified and experienced firms.
5
 The technical design and drawings were as per
the specifications and standards of Schedule ‘D’
1.1. Quality of finalized and were acceptable to the Authority Engineer
drawings/ design without any revisions/suggestions.
incorporating Authority 3  The Contractor appointed a proof check
Engineer’s consultant (the “Proof Consultant”) after
review/suggestions proposing to the Authority a panel of three names
4 of qualified and experienced firms.
 The technical design and drawings were
acceptable to the Authority Engineer after one
round of revisions/suggestions.
 The Contractor appointed a proof check
3
consultant (the “Proof Consultant”) after
Page 132

Weight*
proposing to the Authority a panel of three names
of qualified and experienced firms.
 The technical design and drawings were
acceptable to the Authority Engineer after two
rounds of revisions/suggestions.
 The Contractor did not appoint a proof check
consultant (the “Proof Consultant”).
1  The technical design and drawings were
acceptable to the Authority Engineer after more
than two rounds of revisions.
Within 30 days of the appointed date the Contractor

submitted the following:
(1) Arrangements for design and construction, and
quality assurance plan including design quality plan,
5 (2) Traffic management plan and the safety plan.
(3) Anticipated timelines for each stage of
construction and project completion.
(4) Sequence and timing of inspections and tests
specified in the Agreement
Most of the above mentioned aspects have been
1.2. Schedule and Program of
2 submitted on time to the Authority, whereas one of
Works 4
the aspects was submitted with a delay of less than
5 days.
Most of the above mentioned aspects have been
submitted on time to the Authority, whereas two of
3
the aspects were submitted with a delay of less than
10 days.
Three of the aspects were submitted with a delay of
2
less than 15 days.
More than three of the above mentioned aspects
1
were delayed.
 State of art machinery was used by the

Contractor
5
 Average age of key machinery was less than 5
1.3. Quality of Machinery and years
2
Equipment used  Ordinary machinery with no innovation was used
by the Contractor
1
 Average age of key machinery was more than 5
years
 The contractor innovatively reduced the cost

5 such that the actual project cost was less than or
equal to 95% of the estimated project cost.
1.4. Innovative Techniques 2
 No Innovative techniques were applied to reduce
1 the project cost and/or the actual project cost was
more than 95% of the estimated project cost.
Page 133

Weight*
No major defects or deficiencies were identified in

the Contractor’s design, construction or
implementation, and the Contractor is fully
compliant for the quality of constructed items with
the specification of the tests prescribed by IRC
and/or MORTH. In addition, the Contractor achieves
the following conditions:
(1) Timely requests for inspection of the mandatory
tests have been made to the Authority’s Engineer
(2) Has carried out tests, at such time and frequency
and in such manner as specified in the EPC
5
Agreement and as per Standards & Specifications
and Good Industry Practice for quality assurance to
the complete satisfaction of the Authority and
Engineer
(3) Less than 10 Non Conformance reports issued
by the AE.
(4) The Contractor every calendar quarter provided
to the Authority - video recording, covering the
status and progress of Construction Works.
(5) Not more than 1 additional test recommended
and the test result had no non-conformity outcome.
Minimal defects resulted in Contractor’s reworking
1.5. Quality of construction of the
3 with instances of repetitions in the same area of
project highway
deliverables. In addition, the Contractor achieves
the following conditions:
tests have been made to the Authority’s Engineer
(2) Has carried out tests, at such time and frequency
and in such manner as specified in the EPC
Agreement and as per Standards & Specifications
and Good Industry Practice for quality assurance to
3
the complete satisfaction of the Authority and
Engineer
(3) 10-30 Non Conformance reports have been
issued by the AE.
(4) The Contractor provided video recording to the
Authority every quarter with a delay of less than 15
days.
(5) Not more than 1-3 additional tests recommended
in a year and only one test resulted in some non-
conformity outcomes.
Major defects resulted in substantial reworking at
the Contractor’s end with slow remedial actions and
1 instances of repetitions were quite common. In
addition, the Contractor achieves the following
conditions:
Page 134

Weight*
tests have not been made to the Authority’s
Engineer
(2) On many instances, Contractor has failed to
carry out tests, at such time and frequency and in
such manner as specified in the EPC Agreement
and as per Standards & Specifications and Good
Industry Practice for quality assurance to the
complete satisfaction of the Authority and Engineer
(2) More than 30 Non Conformance reports have
been issued by the AE.
(3) The Contractor provided video recording to the
Authority every quarter with a delay of more than 15
days.
(4) Of all the additional tests recommended, more
than three tests resulted in non-conformity
outcomes.
All the below mentioned aspects or aspects covered

in the CA were met within the specified timelines
and to the satisfaction of AE:
(1) Traffic worthiness at no time is materially inferior
as compared to their condition 10 days prior to the
5 date of the Agreement,
1.6. Quality of Maintenance (2) Undertook necessary repair and maintenance
3
during Construction Period works for this purpose;
(3) Diverted the flow of traffic for the efficient
progress of Construction Works,
(4) Ensured safe operation of the Project Highway.
Contractor did not meet the above mentioned
1 aspects as per the timelines and specifications
mentioned in the agreement.
Cure period covering timelines for curing breach for

5 Punch List items of the project highway have been
served without any delay.
Breach or default for punch list items was addressed
4
with a delay of less than 5 days on the cure period.
1.7. Curing Timelines for Default Breach or default for punch list items was addressed
3 3
of Punch list items with a delay of 5-10 days on the cure period.
2
with a delay of 10-15 days on the cure period.
1 with a delay of more than 15 days on the cure
period.
1.8. Quality of Maintenance of The Contractor is compliant to 80-100% of the

Project Highway during 3 5 criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire against this
Defect Liability Period KPI.
Page 135

Weight*
The Contractor is compliant on 50-80% of the
3 criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire against this
KPI.
The Contractor is compliant to less than 50% of the
1 criteria mentioned in the Questionnaire against this
KPI.
All the below mentioned aspects are to the full

satisfaction of the Authority:
1. Round the clock ambulance services have been
provided.
2. The ambulances provided are in good condition
and chauffer driven
3. Has provide to the State Police Department or a
3 5
substitute thereof one Jeep or similar vehicle in
1.9. Quality of Incident
good working condition along with chauffeurs for
Management during Defect
round-the-clock patrolling
Liability Period
4. Has provided tow way service for accident or
break down vehicles and submitted the relevant
data to the Authority/Independent Engineer on
time
Any one of the above mentioned factors have not
been achieved to the satisfaction of the Authority/
1
Independent Engineer. And in spite of being brought
to notice the same has not been addressed
2. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by five Performance Indicator, where Performance

Sub-
Performance Indicators Performance Score** & Guidelines for Scoring
Weight*
The Contractor achieved all the project milestones
5 on time and was not liable to pay any damages as
2.1. Achievement of Project per the EPC agreement.
3
Timelines The contractor delayed achievement of project
1 milestone and was liable to pay damages as per the
EPC agreement.
The contractor submitted the following documents

on time as per the EPC agreement:
5
2.2. Timely submission of  Construction and quality assurance plan
Construction Plan and 2  Maintenance Manual
Maintenance Manual The contractor submitted either one or both of the
1 following documents with a delay as per the
timelines specified in the EPC agreement:
Page 136

Weight*
 Construction and quality assurance plan
 Maintenance Manual
Contractor deployed its resources/ equipment on

5 time to the satisfaction of the employer. No adverse
comments were provided by Authority Engineer.
Contractor deployed its resources/ equipment with a
2.3. Timely deployment of delay. These delays were on account of Contractor
resources, equipment’s, 3 with all conditions precedent met by the NHAI
and personnel including handover of site. These delays had
1
adverse impact on the project in terms of revision in
the scheduled project completion date. Authority
Engineer has substantial adverse comments for the
same.
The Contractor submitted the following monthly

progress reports on time:
 Monthly maintenance statements
 Monthly progress reports
5
All 24 reports were submitted on time by the
Contractor (There are 2 categories of monthly
2.4. Timely Submission of reporting with 12 reports on each of them in a year).
1
Monthly Documents
The Contractor defaulted or delayed the submission
4
of 10% of 24 monthly reports.
The Contractor defaulted or delayed submission of
3
10-25% of 24 monthly reports.
1
of more than 25% of 24 monthly reports.
The Contractor provided notice 15 days (or before)

prior to the proposed lane closure after seeking
5
written approval from the Authority Engineer. There
was no delay in reopening of such lane.
The Contractor provided notice 10-15 days prior to
the proposed lane closure with prior approval of
3
2.5. Lane Closure 2 NHAI. There was no delay in reopening of such
lane.
Contractor provided notice of less than 10 days prior
to the proposed lane closure and did not give any
1 notice to NHAI. This delayed the reopening of such
lane and contractor paid damages on account of the
same to the Authority.

Page 137

Weight*

Weight*
Contractor is responsive to the instructions issued,
queries, and cure period notices issued by
3.1. Responsiveness to 5
NHAI/AE. Contractor responds promptly to the
instruction, queries or 2
satisfaction of the AE/Authority.
notice of NHAI
Contractor is rarely available and does not respond
1
on most of the occasions.
All five of the below mentioned aspects meet the

performance requirements relating coordinating
activities with:
(1) Railway Department for construction of Rail over
bridges,
(2) Utility Agencies for undertake shifting of any
5 utility including electric lines, water pipes and
3.2. Correspondence with key
3 telephone cables and
Authorities and parties
(3) Police department for reporting of accidents, and
(4) Coordinating with forest authorities if trees are
causing material adverse effect on the construction
or maintenance of the project.
(5) Coordinating for removal of encroachments.
Adverse notices have been given by Authority/AE
1
on failure to coordinate with agencies.
Contractor was highly prompt in determining the

requirement of additional works and services which
are not included in the initial scope of the project and
5 are expected to be included as part of change of
scope order. Justifications in terms of providing
3.3. Promptness for change of safer and improved services to the users were
2
scope of work explicitly detailed out by the Contractor.
Contractor was able to assess the requirement of
change of scope after the desired timelines,
1 resulting in major re-working, non-compliance and
corrections required to be in line with the specified
standards and specifications.
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by five Performance Indicators, where

Page 138

Weight*
Weight*
The Contractor obtained, as required under the
Applicable Laws and as per provision in the EPC
5 agreement all applicable Permits on or before the
4.1. Procurement of all Appointed Date. And the annual renewals of all such
2
applicable permits on time permits have been on time.
The Contractor delayed obtaining the permits
1 required under the Applicable Laws and provision of
the EPC agreement.
The Contractor provided adequate focus and

addressed environmental issues like air, water land
5 and noise pollution, occupational health and safety
4.2. Environmental
3 of workers, accidents and safety of users and other
Management
1
All of the below mentioned insurance aspects were

performed by the contractor on time:
(1) Disclosure of proposed insurance arrangement
5 within 15 days from the appointed date.
(2) Undertaking insurance covers for mitigating risks
for maximum sums and renewing the same on or
before time.
4.3. All Insurances maintained (1) Disclosure of proposed insurance arrangement
3
and renewed timely with a delay of less than 5 days from the scheduled
3 timelines.
(2) Two of the insurance policies were obtained or
revised with a delay of less than 30 days.
(1) The Contractor failed to buy an insurance cover
for the project highway. The insurance therefore had
1
to be taken by Authority by paying the insurance
premium (Recoverable from the contractor).
All four of the below mentioned aspects fall in line

with the performance requirements;
(1) EPC contractor discloses the details and
experience of the sub-contractor (if the price of such
works exceeds 5% of the total contract price) to
4.4. Engagement of reliable
2 5 NHAI for seeking approval from the Authority.
Sub-contractors
(2) All the sub-contractor agreements submitted on
time by the Contractor to the NHAI for approval and
revisions made as suggested,
(3) Ensure that sub-contractors comply with the
safety and welfare measures for the labor.
Page 139

Weight*
(4) Acquired all labor licenses and was highly
prompt for labor cess
Any one or more than one of the above mentioned
1 aspects have not been in line with the performance
requirements.
There was no delay recorded for the payment made

to the Authority Engineer and no adverse notice was
5
received by the Authority relating to the delay in the
payment to the sub-contractors.
There was delay of less than 10 days (from the
scheduled timelines) for making the payment to the
4.5. Payment outstanding to
3 Authority Engineer/Statutory Auditor. No adverse
Authority Engineer /Sub-
3 notice was received by the Authority relating to the
Contractors/Other
delay in the payment to the sub-contractors.
Agencies
There was delay of more than 10 days (from the
scheduled timelines) for making the payment to the
Authority Engineer/ Statutory Auditors. More than
1
one adverse notice was received by the Authority
relating to the delay in the payment to the sub-
contractors.
5 1. No Dispute has been raised by the Contractor

or the dispute has been successfully arbitrated
in favour of the Contractor.
4.6. Initiative for Dispute 1 1. The contractor has been unreceptive in
3
Resolution/Conciliation amicable resolution of disputes through
negotiations, and/or
2. Disputes raised were arbitrated against the
Contractor.


Sub- Performance Score ** and Scoring Guidelines
Weight*
All of the following four aspects were executed on
time ;
(1) Provision of safe conditions for the users,
5.1 Safety Measures (2) Operating procedures followed for lane
3 5
undertaken closures, diversions, vehicle breakdowns and
accidents,
(3) Setting up of temporary traffic cones and lights,
(4) Removal of obstruction and debris without delay
Page 140
4) Improvement in geometric design/diversion

based on reported accidents, black spots
In addition to the above, Contractor’s work has
never been suspended on account of unsafe
Upto two of the above mentioned aspects were
delayed by 15-25 days as per the specified
timelines and needs improvement as noted by
Safety Consultant. Improvement in geometric
3
design/diversion has been based on reported
accidents, black spots. The Contractor’s work has
More than two of the above mentioned aspects
were delayed by more than 30 days as per the
specified timelines and needs substantial
improvements as noted by Safety Consultant. No
1
improvements in geometric design/diversion have
been based on reported accidents, black spots The
Contractor’s work has been suspended more than
once on account of unsafe works/safety reasons.
 The contractor proactively followed daily

reporting throughout the year.
5  Weekly/monthly summary reports were
submitted on time within 3 days of the closing of
each week/month as specified in the contract.
 The contractor did not followed daily reporting
5.2 Accident and response
on less than 30 days in a year.
measures documentation -
Submission of monthly summary 3
reports of unusual occurrences
on more than 30 days in a year.
submitted with a delay of more than 3 days from
Indicator
Indicator
Vendor: EPC Contractor
KPI: 1.7 Quality of Maintenance of Project Highway during Defect Liability period
Questionnaire
Page 141
Nature of Defect or deficiency Timelines Achieved/Not

Achieved/NA
Roads
(a) Carriageway and paved shoulders
I. Breach or blockade Temporary restoration of traffic
within 24 hours; permanent
restoration within 15 (fifteen)
days
II. Roughness value exceeding 120 (one hundred and twenty)
2,200 mm in a stretch of 1 km (as days
measured by a calibrated bump
integrator)
III. Pot holes 24 hours
IV. Any cracks in road surface 15 (fifteen) days
V. Any depressions, rutting 30 (thirty) days
exceeding 10 mm in road surface
VI. Bleeding/skidding 7 (seven) days
VII. Any other defect/distress on the 15 (fifteen) days
road
VIII. Damage to pavement edges 15 (fifteen) days
IX. Removal of debris, dead animals 6 hours
(b) Granular earth shoulders, side slopes, drains and culverts
I. Variation by more than 1 % in the 7 (seven) days
prescribed slope of camber/cross
fall (shall not be less than the
camber on the main carriageway)
II. Edge drop at shoulders 7 (seven) days
exceeding 40 mm
III. Variation by more than 15% in the 30 (thirty) days
prescribed side (embankment
slopes
IV. Rain cuts/gullies in slope 7 (seven) days
V. Damage to or silting of culverts 7 (seven) days
and side drains
VI. Desilting of drains in urban/semi- 24 hours
urban areas
VII. Railing, parapets, crash barriers 7 (seven) days (Restore
immediately if causing safety
hazard)
(c) Road side furniture including road sign and pavement marking
I. Damage to shape or position, 48 hours
poor visibility or loss of retro-
reflectivity
II. Painting of km stone, railing, As and when required/Once
parapets, crash barriers every year
III. Damaged/missing road signs 7. (seven) days
requiring replacement
IV. Damage to road mark ups 7 (seven) days
(d) Road Lighting
I. Any major failure of the system 24 hours
II. Faults and minor failures 8 hours
(e) Trees and Plantation
I. Obstruction in a minimum head- 24 hours
room of 5 in above carriageway or
Page 142

Achieved/NA
obstruction in visibility of road
signs
II. Removal of fallen trees from 4 hours
carriageway
III. Deterioration in health of trees Timely watering and treatment
and rushes
IV. Trees and bushes requiring 30 ( thirty) days
replacement
V. Removal of vegetation affecting 15 (fifteen) days
sight line and road structures
(f) Rest Area
I. Cleaning of toilets Every 4 hours
II. Defects in electrical, water and 24 hours
sanitary installations
(g) Other Project Facilities and Approach roads
I. Damage in approach roads, 15 (fifteen) days
pedestrian facilities, truck lay-
byes, bus-bays, bus-shelters,
cattle crossings, Traffic Aid Posts,
Medical Aid Posts and service
roads
II. Damaged vehicles or debris on 4 (four) hours
the road
III. Malfunctioning of the mobile 4 (four) hours
crane
Bridges
(a) Superstructure
I. Any damage, cracks, spalling/ within 48 hours
scaling within 15 (fifteen) days or as
Temporary measures Permanent specified by the Authority’s
measures Engineer
(b) Foundations
I. Scouring and/or cavitation 15 (fifteen) days
(c) Piers, abutments, return walls and wing walls
I. Cracks and damages including 30 (thirty) days
settlement and tilting, spelling,
scaling
(d) Bearings (metallic) of bridges
I. Deformation, damages, tilting or 15 (fifteen) days Greasing of
shifting of bearings metallic bearings once in a year
(e) Joints
I. Malfunctioning of joints 15 (fifteen) days
(f) Other Items
I. Deforming of pads in eiastomeric 7 (seven) days
bearings
II. Gathering of dirt in bearings and 3 (three) days
joints; or clogging of spouts,
weep holes and vent-holes
III. Damage or deterioration in kerbs, 3 (three) days
parapets, handrails and crash (immediately within 24 hours if
barriers posing danger to safety)
IV. Rain-cuts or erosion of banks of 7 (seven) days
the side slopes of approaches
V. Damage to wearing coat 15 (fifteen) days
Page 143

Achieved/NA
VI. Damage or deterioration in 30 (thirty) days
approach slabs, pitching, apron,
toes, floor or guide bunds
VII. Growth of vegetation affecting the 15 (fifteen) days
structure or obstructing the
waterway
(g) Hill Roads
I. Damage to retaining wall/breast 7 (seven) days
wall
II. Landslides requiring clearance 12 (twelve) hours
III. Snow requiring clearance 24 (twenty four) hours
Page 144
4.2.9 Contractor Build – Item Rate Contractor

NHAI had hitherto been building roads through the conventional Item Rate contracts where the
Government provides the detailed design as well as the estimates of quantities for different items of work.
Payments to the contractor are made on the basis of measurements of the work done in respect of each
item. The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines six key Rating Disciplines outlining the
scope of work and activities of an Item Rate Contractor, with each Rating Discipline been assigned a
scoring model.
Vendor – Item Rate Contractor
Timelines 15%
Project Cost 5%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within Item Rate Contractor vendor class is further categorized into sub-
Proposed Performance Evaluation Matrix
1. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by five Performance Indicators, where Performance

Sub Performance Score** and Guidance for Scoring
Weight*
Deployment of resources, equipment’s and
5
personnel has been made on time.
4 personnel has been made with less than 10 days
delay in Business Days.
1.1. Timely deployment of
3 personnel has been made with 10-15 days delay in
resources, equipment’s, 3
Business Days.
and personnel
2 personnel has been made with 15-20 days delay in
Business Days.
1 personnel has been made with more than 20 days
delay in Business Days.

1.2. Submission of Monthly
2 5 progress reports on time:
Statements
 Monthly Statement of Works
Page 145

Weight*
 Monthly Cash Flow Forecasts
Contractor.
4
10% of 24 monthly reports.
3
1
of more than 25% of 24 monthly reports.
The construction was completed within the intended

5 completion date and no penalties were levied on the
1.3. Completion of construction
3 Contractor.
on time
The construction was delayed from the intended
1
completion date .
2. Project Cost” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicator, where Performance
Weight*
Less than 1% cost variation from the original
contract price attributable to uncontrollable factors.
5
The contractor has been entitled to all additional
payments.
1%-5% cost variation from the original contract price
and attributable to uncontrollable factors, additional
4
scope of works etc. The contractor has been entitled
to all additional payments.
5%-7% cost variation from the original contract price
and attributable to partially towards controllable and
3
partially uncontrollable factors. The contractor has
been entitled to all additional payments.
2.1. Cost variation 3
7%-10% cost variation from the original contract
price and attributable to partially towards
controllable and partially uncontrollable factors. The
2
contractor has not been entitled to an additional
payment of 1%-2% for costs which could have been
avoided by giving early warning.
More than 10% cost variation from the original
contract price and attributable to partially towards
controllable and partially uncontrollable factors. The
1
contractor has not been entitled to an additional
payment of 2%-5% for costs which could have been
avoided by giving early warning.
Page 146

Weight*
3. “Quality of Services” Rating Discipline is defined by four Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being the
Weight*
All five of the below mentioned aspects have been
in line with the performance requirements.
(1) Monthly progress reports in a format acceptable
to the Engineer were submitted stating the progress
which has been achieved during the preceding
months compared with the planned progress;
illustrate delays in proportion to the progress
planned, the consequences and state planned
corrective actions as well as remedial measures
proposed.”
(2) Equipment and vehicles deployed for the
construction activities were not older than 5 years.
5
Equipment used for road and bridge works were
3.1. Quality of Works 3 based on new technology and must not generate
noise and pollutants exceeding the limits specified
by the relevant State Authorities.
(3) The Contractor used approved quality of
materials for the construction purposes.
(4) Details of the arrangements for passing traffic
during construction, design of barricades, signs,
markings, lights, flags etc conforms and satisfies the
requirements of IRC: SP 55-2001.
(5) Roads used for haulage, were inspected at least
once daily to clear any accidental spillage.
mentioned in the contract.
(1) Have effectively cooperated with the Engineer to

address events or scenario likely to have adverse
impact on the project.
(2) The contractor has been prompt in identifying
3.2. Cooperation with
5 likely future event or circumstances that can
Engineers for early
adversely affect the quality of work, increase the
warnings signs and 2
contract price or delay execution of works.
adherence to other
(3) Adherence to Engineer’s direction to start or
directives
delay any activity.
mentioned in the contract.
Page 147

Weight*
No defects or deficiencies were identified in the

5
output of the project.
Minimal defects - less than 5% on the overall output
resulting in the contractors’ minimal re-working with
4 immediate and effective remedial actions. The
defects identified are corrected within length of time
specified by Engineer.
Minimal defects - 5-10% on the overall output
resulting in the contractor’s reworking with instances
3 of repetitions in the same area of deliverables. The
defects identified are corrected within length of time
3.3. Extent of defect/non- specified by Engineer.
2
permissible test results Major defects - less than 10-15% on the overall
output resulting in substantial reworking at the
contractor’s end with slow remedial actions and
2 instances of repetitions were quite common. Some
minor uncorrected defects have remained however
the Engineer has not deducted any payments from
the Contractor.
Major defects - more than 15% on the overall output
with almost negligible remedial actions. Some minor
1 uncorrected defects have remained and the
Engineer has deducted payments from the
Contractor.
No adverse comments/notice has been given by

5 NHAI/Engineer on the performance of the contractor
in a quarter.
3.4. Number of adverse Less than two adverse comment/notice given by
comments given by 3 3 NHAI/Engineer on the performance of the contractor
Engineer in a quarter
More than two adverse comments/notices given by
1 NHAI/Engineer on the performance of the contractor
in a quarter
Cure period covering timelines for curing breach for

5 default of construction requirements of the project
highway have been served without any delay.
Breach or default for construction requirements
4 were addressed with a delay of less than 5 days on
the cure period.
3.5. Curing Timelines 2
3 were addressed with a delay of 5-10 days on the
cure period.
2 were addressed with a delay of 10-15 days on the
cure period.
Page 148

Weight*
1 were addressed with a delay of more than 15 days
on the cure period.
4. “Communication and Responsiveness” Rating Discipline is defined by four Performance

Weight*
Contractor is responsive to the instructions issued,
queries, and cure period notices issued by
5
4.1. Responsiveness to NHAI NHAI/Engineer. Contractor responds promptly to
3
queries the satisfaction of the Engineer/Authority.
Contractor is rarely available and does not respond
1
on most of the instances.
The contractor participated in all the management

meetings conducted to review the progress of works
5
and to deal with matters raised in accordance with
4.2. Attending Management the early warning procedures.
3
Meetings The contractor did not participate in all management
meetings arranged to review the progress of works
1
and to deal with matters rose in accordance with the
early warning procedures.

consistent and the contractor has shown
5
considerable ease in discussing project details
4.3. Adequacy of Responses to 3 during the meetings.
NHAI queries The response to the NHAI queries are on all
instances drafted, lacks consistency and is evident
1
that the consultant is not well versed in discussing
project details.
As per the good industry practice, the Contractor

has been proactive in coordinating with the
following:
(1) Coordinate with service provider / concerned
authorities for cutting of trees.
4.4. Correspondence with key (2) Utility Agencies for undertake shifting of any
2 5
Authorities and parties utility including electric lines, water pipes and
telephone cables.
(3) Coordinating for removal of encroachments.
(4) Prompt initial and frequent follow-up meetings /
actions / discussions with each involved service
provider / concerned authorities.
Page 149

Weight*
Adverse notices have been given by
1 Authority/Engineer on failure to coordinate with
agencies.
5. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by four Performance Indicators, where

Weight*
All of the below mentioned aspects are in line with
the performance requirements:
(1) The Contractor subcontracted work, up to a limit
specified in Contract Data.
(2) Sub-contractors comply with all applicable
permits and laws;
(3) All the sub-contractor agreements submitted on
time by the Contractor to the NHAI for approval and
5
5.1. Smooth management of revisions made as suggested,
2
the sub-contractors (4) No acts are conducted by the sub-contractors in
violation with provisions of the agreement.
(5) No issues were identified with respect to the
compliances by the Contractor on all labor,
workmen compensation and safety regulations
required as part of the contract and general law of
the land by the Engineer/NHAI.
1
aspects have not been in line with the requirements.
The Contractor provided adequate focus and

addressed environmental issues like air, water land
5 and noise pollution, occupational health and safety
5.2. Environmental
3 of workers, accidents and safety of users and other
Management
1
1. No Dispute has been raised or the dispute has

5 been successfully arbitrated in favour of the
Contractor.
5.3. Initiative for Dispute
3 1. Unreceptive in amicable resolution of disputes
Resolution
1 through negotiations, and/or
Contractor.
5.4. Maintenance of Insurance All of the below mentioned aspects are in line with
2 5
policies the performance requirements:
Page 150

Weight*
(1) The insurance cover should comprise of the loss
of or damage to the Works, Plant and Materials,
Equipment, property in connection with the Contract
and personal injury.
(2) Insurance cover provided from the start date until
the end of Defects Liability period,
(3) All insurance renewals were made on time,
(4) Compliance with all conditions of the insurance
policies, any alterations if made with prior approval
of Engineer.
(5) Policies and certificates for insurance delivered
by the Contractor to the Engineer for the Engineer’s
approval before the Start Date
All the insurances required as part of the contract
are maintained with delays or some of the
insurances are also not available. Some of the
1
insurance policies had to be revised owing to
deficiencies in the provisions of the insurances
submitted
The monthly cash flow availability was higher than

5
the construction cash flow requirements.
The monthly cash flow availability has been at par
5.5. Cash Flow Availability 3 3
with construction cash flow requirements.
The monthly cash flow availability was less than the
1
construction cash flow requirements.


Weight*
No incident of accident or unusual occurrences
reported in a quarter. Timely review of accident
5
records on the Project Highway and suggestion of
6.1 Number of incidents of remedial measures.
accidents or unusual Not more than two incidents of accidents or unusual
occurrences (owing to occurrences in a quarter. Timely review of accident
3 3
construction defects and records on the Project Highway and suggestion of
lack of maintenance of road remedial measures.
during construction) More than two incidents of accidents or unusual
occurrences reported in a quarter. No timely review
1
of accident records on the Project Highway and
remedial measures. Lack of timely review of
Page 151

Weight*
accident records on the Project Highway and
suggestion of remedial measures.
All of the below mentioned aspects are in line with

the performance requirements and no adverse
notices have been provided by the Authority:
(1) All workmen wear reflective jackets, while
working in the traffic movement zone.
(2) Adequate precautions are taken to prevent
danger from electric cables, while digging operation
is underway.
(3) Workers employed on bituminous works, stone
crushers, concrete batching plants, etc, are
provided with protective goggles.
(4) Those engaged in welding work are provided
5
with welder protective shields.
(5) All scaffolds, ladders and other safety devices
are maintained in a safe and sound condition.
(6) All display boards are of retro reflective material
6.2 Safety measures
3 and of sizes mentioned in the drawing.
undertaken
(7) All vehicles have reverse horns.
(8) In addition, if any directions are given by the
‘Engineer’ to augment the safety measures, the
Contractor abided by his directions.
(9) A safety officer has been nominated to prepare
safety program, and oversee the safety
arrangements at site.
Less than 2 adverse notices have been given by
Authority/Supervision Consultant in a year on failure
3 to deliver the above mentioned aspects. However,
the aspects mentioned in the notice have been
addressed adequately.
More than 2 adverse notices have been given by
Authority/Supervision Consultant in a year on failure
1
to deliver the above mentioned aspects of which
some of the aspects have not been addressed.
Indicator
Indicator
4.2.10 O&M Contractor

For maintenance of various completed non-PPP projects, NHAI engages O&M Agency both for one time
renewal as well as its routine maintenance. The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines
five key Rating Disciplines outlining the scope of work and activities of an O&M contractor, with each
Rating Discipline been assigned a weight to allow the relative importance of the discipline to be accurately
represented in the performance scoring model.
Page 152
Vendor – O&M Contractor

Timelines 15%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within O&M Contractor vendor class is further categorized into sub- parameters

Performance Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest
scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring is provided below:

Weight*
All four of the below mentioned aspects were
(1) Contractor carried out timely and prompt
preventive and routine maintenance activities to
ensure adherence to the design requirements and
specifications.
(2) The percentage of road under O&M at any point
of time during the year has been below the
5
1.1. Ability to maintain the road prescribed limit.
asset above the 3 (3) All defects identified by the Engineer were
performance standards corrected during Defect liability period.
(4) Contractor deployed effective Incident
Management system comprising of prescribed
number of patrol vehicles and ambulances, first
aid, basic tow away cranes, wireless/mobile facility
and road safety works.
Contractor did not meet any/either of the above
1 mentioned aspects as per the timelines and
specifications mentioned in the contract.
All the below mentioned aspects were achieved as

per the required timelines:
(1) Adequate provision of testing equipment’s for
3
1.2. Adherence to Inspection carrying out of all mandatory tests as prescribed by
5
and testing schedule the contract.
(2) Effective inspection schedule implemented to
ensure uninterrupted traffic flow and service
standards.
Page 153

Weight*
(3) Conducted regular daily inspections followed by
weekly/ monthly inspections of the project highway
for Potholes, Cracking & Patches, Rutting,
Defective bridge decks area and bump at
approach, User information - road marking and
road signs, Blocked drains, Toll Management
System (Manual) and Tollbooth, Tow Away Trucks,
Cranes etc., Frequency of Highway Patrol.
(4) Conducted quarterly inspections for bridges,
culverts, blocked drains, road marking, and road
signs.
(5) No instances were recorded where the
Engineer has instructed contractor to carry out a
test to check for any defect or deficiencies.
Two or less than two of the above mentioned
3 aspects required improvement and has been
notified by the Authority.
More than 2 adverse notices have been given by
Authority on failure to deliver the above mentioned
1
aspects of which some of the important aspects
were not been addressed.
All the below mentioned aspects were achieved as

per the required timelines:
(1) Works carried out in accordance with
MOST/IRC/BIS specifications or as per the
performance standards related to maintenance,
route operations, drainage as laid down in contract.
5
(2) Quality control laboratory equipped with all
5
instruments required to perform tests.
(4) Repairs arising out of the inspections were
carried out by the Contractor after a joint
assessment with the Engineer and approval of
1.3. Work Control and Quality 3 NHAI.
Assurance (3) No non-conformance reported by the Engineer.
Two or less than two of the above mentioned
aspects required improvement and has been
3 notified by the Authority. Non-conformance
reported by Engineer covers less than10% of the
contract value.
More than two adverse notices have been given by
Authority on failure to deliver the above mentioned
aspects of which 1—2 aspects were not been
1
addressed. Non-conformance reported by
Engineer covers more than 10% of the contract
value.
2 All the
5 below mentioned aspects were achieved as
5 per the required timelines:
Page 154

Weight*
(1), Location and extent of each encroachment was
listed out.
(2) Program for the removal of the unauthorized
encroachments was provided for approval of NHAI.
1.4. Limit the level of (3) Regular inspection on encroachment
encroachment of project irregularities was conducted, and
Road R.O.W. (4) Contractor made all efforts to remove all un-
authorized encroachments within the ROW as
soon as possible.
Adverse notices have been given by Authority on
failure to deliver the above mentioned aspects of
1
which some of the important aspects were not been
addressed at all.

Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (Three being the highest weight),
Weight*
The contractor adhered to the timelines as
proposed in the contract on all of the following
aspects:
(1) Maintenance program and reports,
(2) Correction works during the contract and Defect
2.1. Adherence to timelines as Liability Period,
5
defined by (3) Routine operations conducted as per the
intended/revised project scheduled timelines,
completion date, (4) Performance standards timelines maintained
maintenance program for drainage system and incident management.
3
planning, performance (5) Project completed within intended/revised
Standards for completion date.
Maintenance & Operations Less than two incidents of delay in a month were
reported on the above mentioned aspects. The
3
project was completed within intended/revised
completion date.
More than two incidents of delay in a month were
reported on the above mentioned aspects. Project
1
delayed and could not be completed within
intended/revised completion date.
5 Key equipment and plants were deployed on time

to the satisfaction of the employer. No adverse
2.2. Timely deployment of key
3 comments were provided by the Engineer. All
equipment and machinery
invoices and proofs related to procurement of key
equipment and plants were also submitted on time.
Page 155

Weight*
3 There were partial delays (upto 30 Days) in
deployment of key equipment and plants with
proper justification given to the satisfaction of the
Engineer. All invoices and proofs related to
procurement of key equipment and plants were
submitted on time.
1 Delay of more than 30 days was reported for
deployment of key equipment and plants which
could not be justified to the satisfaction of the
Engineer. Some of invoices and proofs related to
procurement of key equipment and plants were not
submitted.

progress reports on time:
 Monthly Statement of Value of Works
5 executed
 Monthly Cash Flow Forecasts
2.3. Timely Submission of Contractor.
1
Monthly Reports The Contractor defaulted or delayed submission of
4
10% of 24 monthly reports.
3
The Contractor defaulted or delayed the
1 submission of more than 25% of 24 monthly
reports.
3. “Communication and Responsiveness” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance Indicator,

where Performance Indicator will have to be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (Three
Discipline. Further each Performance indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be
Weight*
3.1 Responsiveness to Contractor is responsive to the instructions issued,
5
instruction, queries or notice of queries, and cure period notices issued by NHAI.
3
NHAI, Engineer – Clarity, Contractor is rarely available and does not respond
1
Completeness and Timelines on most of the instances.
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by seven Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (Three being the
Page 156

Weight*
Weight*
 No change in key personnel’s position. All Key
Personnel are deployed as per contract
5 schedule.
 Key Personnel available for all key meetings
with NHAI.
 Upto 33% change in position with negligible
4.1. Timely Deployment of Key impact on project. Other Key Personnel are
Personnel and Limited 3 3 deployed as per contract schedule.
change in their position  Key Personnel available for all key meetings
with NHAI.
 Beyond 50% change in key personnel and
adverse impact on project. Other Key Personnel
1 are not fully deployed as per contract schedule.
 Key Personnel mostly not available for key
meetings with NHAI.
 The Contractor provided adequate focus and

addressed environmental issues like air, water
land and noise pollution, occupational health
5
4.2. Environmental and safety of workers, accidents and safety of
3
Management users and other environmental management
indicators.
 Inadequate focus was given on the above
1
All four of the below mentioned aspects fall in line

with the performance requirements;
(1) Sub-contracting only up to the limit specified in
contract data or with prior NHAI approval.
(2) Engagement of reliable and well-reputed sub-
contractors, full cooperation in sharing the site with
5
other contractors, public authorities and utilities.
4.3. Smooth management of 3 (3) Sub-contractors abide at all times by all existing
Sub-contractors
labor enactments, rules and health & safety norms.
(4) Timely payments made to the contractor and
good working relationships have been developed
with the sub-contractor.
1 aspects have not been in line with the performance
requirements.
All of the below mentioned insurance aspects were

performed by the Contractor on time:
4.4. All Insurance policies 3 5 (1) Insurance cover provided from the start date
maintained
until the Defects Liability period covering loss of or
damage of the Works, Plant & Materials,
Page 157

Weight*
Equipment, property in connection to contract and
personal injury.
(2) All insurance renewals were made on time.
(3) Comply with all conditions of the insurance
policies, and
(4) Any alterations if made with prior approval of
Engineer.
1
submitted
The change in quantity variations are managed

5 appropriately and accepted on more than 95%
occasions by the Engineer.
The change in quantity variations are managed
4 appropriately and accepted on 90%-95%
3 The change in quantity variations are managed
4.5. Quantity Variations 3 appropriately and accepted on 85%-90%
Issues were identified in determination of change
2 in quantity variations and accepted on 80%-85%
Major issues identified by NHAI/Engineer in
1 management of changes in quantity and variations.
1. No Dispute has been raised or the dispute has

5 been successfully arbitrated in favour of the
4.6. Initiative for Dispute Contractor.
Resolution 3 1. Unreceptive in amicable resolution of disputes
through negotiations, and/or
1
Contractor.
No issues were identified with respect to the

5 workmen compensation and safety regulations
required as part of the contract and general law of
4.7. Compliance with Labor
3 the land by the Engineer/NHAI.
Regulations, Health and
Upto three issues were identified by the
Safety provisions
Engineer/NHAI. However that doesn’t have any
3 adverse impact on the health and safety of the
construction workers. And timely and adequate
remedial actions were taken.
Page 158

Weight*
More than three issues were identified by the
Engineer/NHAI. Those issues have resulted in
adverse impact on the health and safety of the
1
construction workers, including incidents of
accidents, non-payments etc. No timely and
adequate remedial actions were taken.

Weight*
reported in a quarter. Timely review of accident
5
records on the Project Highway and suggestion of
remedial measures.
Not more than two incidents of accidents or
5.1. Number of incidents of unusual occurrences in a quarter. Timely review of
3
accidents or unusual 3 accident records on the Project Highway and
occurrences (Owing to suggestion of remedial measures.
deficiency in maintenance) More than two incidents of accidents or unusual
occurrences reported in a quarter. No timely review
of accident records on the Project Highway and
1
remedial measures. Lack of timely review of
accident records on the Project Highway and
suggestion of remedial measures.

time ;
(2) Operating procedures followed for lane
closures, diversions, vehicle breakdowns and
accidents,
5
(3) Setting up of temporary traffic cones and lights,
(4) Removal of obstruction and debris without
5.2. Safety measures 2 delay,
undertaken In addition to the above, Contractor’s work has
Not more than 2 of the above mentioned aspects
were delayed by 15-25 days as per the specified
3
Safety Consultant. The Contractor’s work has
Page 159

Weight*
Three of the above mentioned aspects were
delayed by more than 30 days as per the specified
timelines and needs substantial improvements as
noted by Safety Consultant. The Contractor’s work
1
has been suspended more than once on account
of unsafe works/safety reasons. The contractor has
also failed to take remedial actions as per notices
given by authority or its representative.
Indicator
Indicator
4.3 Key Performance Indicators for Vendors Indirectly Engaged by

NHAI
It has been observed by one of the GM Committees that in majority of the BOT concessions, EPC and
O&M sub-contractors are entities having management control by the Concessionaire. The EPC
Contractors generally sub-contract the works to other Contractors who does the on-ground work
execution. In such a scenario, it would be extremely difficult to rate sub-contractors in absence of a robust
monitoring mechanism to fetch performance related metrics from the entire value chain of the work sub-
contracts. Besides, the performance of a project would primarily depend on the performance of the BOT
Concessionaires and their project management skills including management of the sub-contractors
engaged by them which has been included as a KPI. We are of the same view of restricting the rating of
only those vendors for which NHAI is the principal employer. The Competent Authority would be required
to take a view on the same.
Page 160
4.3.1 EPC Contractor Engaged by Concessionaire

The EPC sub-contractor is based on the model that the responsibility of investigation, design and
construction of the road lies on the EPC sub-contractor for a lump price determined and deployed by the
PPP Concessionaire. The sub-contractor provides assistance in preparing and providing all information
and reports to the Authority Engineer and NHAI relating to the engineering, procurement and construction
of project facilities. The proposed performance monitoring framework outlines six key Rating Disciplines
outlining the scope of work and activities of an EPC sub-contractor, with each Rating Discipline been
assigned a weight to allow the relative importance of every discipline to be accurately represented in the
performance scoring model.
Vendor –EPC Contractor of Concessionaire

Timelines 15%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within the EPC sub-contractor vendor class is further categorized into sub-
1. "Quality of Services" Rating Discipline is defined by four Performance Indicators, where

highest weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating
Discipline. Further each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be
allocated a score on a scale of 1 to 5 by NHAI. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:

Weight*
The technical design and drawings were
5 acceptable to the Authority Engineer without any
1.1 Quality of finalized revisions/suggestions.
drawings/ design The technical design and drawings were
incorporating Authority 3 3 acceptable to the Authority Engineer after two
Engineer’s rounds of revisions/suggestions.
review/suggestions The technical design and drawings were
1 acceptable to the Authority Engineer with more
than two rounds of revisions/suggestions.
 State of art machinery was used by the

Contractor
5
 Average age of key machinery was less than
1.2 Quality of Machinery and 5 years
2
Equipment used  Ordinary machinery with no innovation was
used by the Contractor
1
 Average age of key machinery was more than
5 years
Page 161

Weight*
No major defects or deficiencies were identified

in the Contractor’s design, construction or
implementation, and the Contractor is fully
compliant for the quality of constructed items with
the specification of the tests prescribed by IRC
and/or MORTH. In addition, the Contractor
achieves the following conditions:
(1) The test checks by the Authority’s Engineer
comprised at least 20% of the quantity or number
of tests prescribed for each category or type of
5
test for quality control by the Contractor.
(2) Less than 10 Non Conformance reports
issued by the AE.
(3) The Contractor every calendar quarter
provided to the Authority - video recording,
covering the status and progress of Construction
Works.
(4) Not more than 1 additional test recommended
and the test result had no non-conformity
outcome.
Minimal defects resulted in Contractor’s
reworking with instances of repetitions in the
same area of deliverables. In addition, the
1.3 Quality of construction of the
3 Contractor achieves the following conditions:
project highway
(1) The test checks by the Authority’s Engineer
comprised at least 20% of the quantity or number
of tests prescribed for each category or type of
test for quality control by the Contractor.
3
(2) 10-30 Non Conformance reports have been
issued by the AE.
(3) The Contractor provided video recording to
the Authority every quarter with a delay of less
than 15 days.
(4) Not more than 1-3 additional tests
recommended in a year and only one test
resulted in some non-conformity outcomes.
Major defects resulted in substantial reworking at
the Contractor’s end with slow remedial actions
and instances of repetitions were quite common.
In addition, the Contractor achieves the following
conditions:
1 (1) The test checks by the Authority’s Engineer
comprised less than 20% of the quantity or
number of tests prescribed for each category or
type of test for quality control by the Contractor.
(2) More than 30 Non Conformance reports have
been issued by the AE.
Page 162

Weight*
(3) The Contractor provided video recording to
the Authority every quarter with a delay of more
than 15 days.
(4) Of all the additional tests recommended, more
than three tests resulted in non-conformity
outcomes.
Cure period covering timelines for curing breach

5 for Punch List items of the project highway have
been served without any delay.
Breach or default for punch list items was
4 addressed with a delay of less than 5 days on the
cure period.
1.4 Curing Timelines for Default
3 3 addressed with a delay of 5-10 days on the cure
of Punch list items
period.
2 addressed with a delay of 10-15 days on the cure
period.
1 addressed with a delay of more than 15 days on
the cure period.
2. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by four Performance Indicator, where Performance

Indicators have be assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (Three being the highest
Further each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated
a score on a scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring are provided below:

Sub- Performance Score** & Guidelines for Scoring
Weight*
The Contractor achieved all the project
5
2.1 Achievement of Project milestones on time.
3
Timelines The Contractor delayed achievement of project
1
milestone.
Contractor deployed its resources/ equipment on

time to the satisfaction of the employer. No
5
adverse comments were provided by Authority
Engineer.
2.2 Timely deployment of
Contractor deployed its resources/ equipment
resources, equipment’s, and 3
with a delay. These delays were on account of
personnel
Contractor with all conditions precedent met by
1
the NHAI including handover of site. These
delays had adverse impact on the project in terms
of revision in the scheduled project completion
Page 163

Weight*
date. Authority Engineer has adverse comments
for the same.
The Contractor provided notice 15 days (or

before) prior to the proposed lane closure after
5 seeking written approval from the Authority
Engineer. There was no delay in reopening of
such lane.
The Contractor provided notice 10-15 days prior
to the proposed lane closure with prior approval
2.3 Lane Closure 2 3
of NHAI. There was no delay in reopening of such
lane.
Contractor provided notice of less than 10 days
prior to the proposed lane closure and did not
1 give any notice to NHAI. This delayed the
reopening of such lane and contractor paid
damages on account of the same to the Authority.
5 The Contractor responsibility served the Defect

Liability period for all defects and deficiencies
identified – Period of two years commencing from
the date of Provisional certificate.
3 The contractor effectively served for all defect
2.4 Defect Liability Period 2
and deficiencies for 20-24 months from the date
of provisional certificate.
1 The contractor served for defect and deficiencies
with errors and omissions for less than 20 months
from the date of provisional certificate.
3. “Communication and Responsiveness” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance


Weight*
Contractor is responsive to the instructions
issued, queries, and cure period notices issued
3.1 Responsiveness to 5
by NHAI/AE. Contractor responds promptly to the
instruction, queries or notice 2
satisfaction of the AE/Authority.
of NHAI
Contractor is rarely available and does not
1
4. “Project Management” Rating Discipline is defined by four Performance Indicators, where

Performance Indicators have been assigned a sub-weight on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the
Page 164

Weight*
highest weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating
Discipline. Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will have to be allocated a
Weight*
5 No Dispute has been raised by the Contractor or
the dispute has been successfully arbitrated in
favour of the Contractor.
4.1 Initiative for Dispute
3 1 The contractor has been unreceptive in amicable
resolution of disputes through negotiations,
and/or disputes raised were arbitrated against
the Contractor.
All of the below mentioned insurance aspects

were performed by the Contractor on time:
(1) All Insurances were procured for the full
replacement value (including additional costs
incidental to the rectification of loss or damage
and including professional fees) from the
Construction Commencement Date until the end
5
of the Defects Liability Period.
(2) All the insurance policies were renewed on
4.2 All Insurances maintained time.
3
and renewed timely (3) Comply with all conditions of the insurance
policies, and
Engineer.
1
submitted
 No change in key personnel’s position. All Key

Personnel are deployed as per contract
5 schedule.
with NHAI.
4.3 Timely Deployment of Key
Personnel and Limited 3
impact on project. Other Key Personnel are
change in their position
4 deployed as per contract schedule.
with NHAI.
 Between 33% to 50% change in key
3
personnel’s position(s) and negligible impact
Page 165

Weight*
on project. Other Key Personnel are deployed
as per contract schedule.
 Key Personnel available for the key meetings
with NHAI.
adverse impact on project. Other Key
Personnel are not fully deployed as per
1
contract schedule.
meetings with NHAI.

5 workmen compensation and safety regulations
required as part of the contract and general law
of the land by the Engineer/NHAI.
One to two issues were identified by the
4.4 Compliance with Labor
Engineer/NHAI. However that doesn’t have any
Regulations, Health and 3 3
adverse impact on the health and safety of the
Safety provisions
construction workers.
More than two issues were identified by the
accidents, non-payments etc.
5. “Safety Considerations” Rating Discipline is defined by two Performance Indicators,

where Performance Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (three being
the highest weight), based on its criticality for the accomplishment of the respective Rating
Discipline. Further each Performance Indicator on the basis of its performance will be
Weight*
 The contractor proactively followed daily
reporting throughout the year.
 Weekly/monthly summary reports were
5
submitted on time within 3 days of the closing
5.1 Accident and response of each week/month as specified in the
measures documentation - contract.
Submission of monthly 3  The contractor did not followed daily reporting
summary reports of unusual on less than 30 days in a year.
occurrences 3  Weekly/monthly summary reports were
1
on more than 30 days in a year.
Page 166

Weight*
 Weekly/monthly summary reports were
submitted with a delay of more than 3 days
from the scheduled timelines.

time ;
(2) Operating procedures followed for lane
accidents,
5 (3) Setting up of temporary traffic cones and
lights,
delay,
5.2 Safety Measures Undertaken 3
3
1 improvements as noted by Safety Consultant.
The Contractor’s work has been suspended more
than once on account of unsafe works/safety
reasons.
Indicator
Indicator
Page 167
4.3.2 O&M Contractor Engaged by Concessionaire

O&M Sub-Contractor is engaged by the concessionaire to provide program management services from
the commencement date until the end of COD and provision of O&M services until the end of the
concession period. The O&M Sub-contractor coordinates, assists and manages; preparation of quality
manuals, monitoring the quality of works, assistance in maintenance of the contractual requirement of
Agreement, undertaking safety measures for the project and providing assistance in preparing the
monthly progress report for reporting to NHAI and the Engineer.
Vendor – O&M Contractor of Concessionaire

Timelines 15%
Total 100%
Each Rating Disciplines within O&M Contractor vendor class is further categorized into sub- parameters

Performance Indicators have been assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest
scale of 1 to 5. The guidelines for scoring is provided below:

Weight*
All four of the below mentioned aspects were
(1) Contractor deployed effective Incident
Management system comprising of prescribed
number of patrol vehicles and ambulances, first
aid, basic tow away cranes, wireless/mobile
facility and road safety works.
(3) Conducted regular daily inspections followed
by weekly/ monthly inspections of the project
1.1. Quality of components of
3 5 highway for Potholes, Cracking & Patches,
Maintenance Program
Rutting, Defective bridge decks area and bump
at approach, User information - road marking
and road signs, Blocked drains, Toll
Management System (Manual) and Tollbooth,
Tow Away Trucks, Cranes etc., Frequency of
Highway Patrol.
(4) Conducted quarterly inspections for bridges,
culverts, blocked drains, road marking, and road
signs.
Page 168

Weight*
(4) No instances were recorded where the
Engineer has instructed contractor to carry out
a test to check for any defect or deficiencies.
Contractor did not meet any/either of the above
1 mentioned aspects as per the timelines and
specifications mentioned in the contract.
The percentage of road under O&M at any point

5 of time during the year is below or in line with
the prescribed limit.
1.2. Percentage of road under The percentage of road under O&M at any point
O&M at any point of time 3 3 of time during the year is less than 5% above
during the year. the prescribed limit.
The percentage of road under O&M at any point
1 of time during the year is more than 5% higher
than the defined prescribed limit.
(1) No non-conformance reported by the

Engineer.
5 (2) The contractor is fully compliant for the
quality of constructed items with the
specification of the tests prescribed. .
(1) Non-conformance reported by Engineer
1.3. Extent of defect/non- covers less than10% of the contract value.
3
permissible test results (2) The contractor implemented effective
3
remedial actions. Contractor learnt from
instances of re-working and amendments made
and there were no repetitions.
(1) Non-conformance reported by Engineer
1 covers more than 10% of the contract value.
(2) Negligible remedial actions were initiated.
(1) The contractor provided notice of 9 days (or

before) prior to the proposed lane closure after
5 seeking written approval from the Engineer.
(2) Assured lane availability in all the instances
is as specified in the Agreement.
(1) The Contractor provided notice 6-8 days
prior to the proposed lane closure with prior
1.4. Traffic management
3 approval of Engineer.
activities during O&M 2
(2) Assured lane availability is as specified in the
period
agreement on more than 90% of the instances.
(1) Contractor provided notice of less than 6
days prior to the proposed lane closure and did
not give any notice to NHAI. This delayed the
1
reopening of such lane.
(2) Assured lane availability is as specified in the
agreement on less than 90% of the instances.
Page 169

Weight*
2. “Timelines” Rating Discipline is defined by four Performance Indicators, where Performance

Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 5 (Five being the highest weight), based

Weight*
Routine maintenance is conducted regularly as
2.1. Timelines for Routine 5
per the timelines specified in the contract.
Maintenance Exercise
The contractor delayed the execution of routine
3 3
maintenance by less than 20 days.
The contractor delayed the execution of routine
1
maintenance by more than 20 days.
The contractor rectified the defects with the

5
Defect Liability Period.
The contractor rectified the defects with a delay
4 of less than 15 days from the Defect Liability
Period.
2.2. Timelines for Rectification The contractor rectified the defects with a delay
3 3
of Defects of 15-30 days from the Defect Liability Period.
2
of 30-45 days from the Defect Liability Period.
1 of more than 45 days from the Defect Liability
Period.
No objectionable comments on the machinery

and equipment mobilized and the timelines on
5
the deployment have been registered by the
2.3. Timely deployment of key
3 Authority Engineer.
machinery and equipment
Objectionable comments on the machinery and
1 equipment deployed and their timelines have
been registered by the Authority Engineer.
The Contractor submitted the following reports

as per the timelines specified in the contract:
5
 Inventory and Inspection Reports
 12 Monthly O&M reports in a year
2.4. Submission of Reports 2 The Contractor submitted either of the above
4 reports with a delay of less than 5 business
days.
The Contractor submitted either of the above
3
reports with a delay of 5-7 business days.
Page 170

Weight*
2
reports with a delay of 7-10 business days.
1 reports with a delay of more than 10 business
days.
3. “Communication and Responsiveness” Rating Discipline is defined by one Performance

Indicator, where Performance Indicator will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 5 (five

Sub - Performance Score** and Guidance for Scoring
Weight
Contractor is responsive to the instructions
issued, queries, and cure period notices issued
3.1 - Responsiveness to 5 by NHAI/Engineer. Contractor responds
NHAI/Concessionaire/Engineer’s 3 promptly to the satisfaction of the
instructions/queries Engineer/Authority.
Contractor is rarely available and does not
1

Performance Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 5 (Five being the highest

Weight*
All of the below mentioned insurance aspects
were performed by the Contractor on time:
(1) All Insurances were procured on behalf of
the concessionaire during the construction and
the operations comprising of; loss, damage or
destruction of the Project Highway at
4.1. All Insurance policies
3 replacement value, concessionaire’s general
maintained and renewed 5
liability arising out of the agreement, liability to
on time
third parties, and any other insurance that may
be necessary.
(2) All the insurance policies were renewed on
time.
(3) Comply with all conditions of the insurance
policies, and
Page 171

Weight*
Engineer.
contract are maintained with delays or some of
the insurances are also not available. Some of
1
the insurance policies had to be revised owing
to deficiencies in the provisions of the
insurances submitted.

5 compliances by the Contractor on all labor,
workmen compensation and safety regulations
required as part of the contract and general law
of the land by the Engineer/NHAI.
4.2. Compliance with Labor One to two issues were identified by the
Regulations and Health 3 Engineer/NHAI. However that doesn’t have any
3
and Safety provisions of adverse impact on the health and safety of the
the workers construction workers.
More than two issues were identified by the
accidents, non-payments etc.
1. No Dispute has been raised or the dispute

5 has been successfully arbitrated in favour of
4.3. Initiative for Dispute the Contractor.
3 1. Unreceptive in amicable resolution of
Resolution
disputes through negotiations, and/or
1
Contractor.
 No change in key personnel’s position. All

Key Personnel are deployed as per contract
5 schedule.
with NHAI.
impact on project. Other Key Personnel are
4.4. Timely Deployment of Key
4 deployed as per contract schedule.
Personnel and Limited 3
change in their position
with NHAI.
 Between 33% to 50% change in key
personnel’s position(s) and negligible impact
on project. Other Key Personnel are
3
deployed as per contract schedule.
 Key Personnel available for the key meetings
with NHAI.
Page 172

Weight*
adverse impact on project. Other Key
Personnel are not fully deployed as per
1
contract schedule.
meetings with NHAI.

Performance Indicators will be assigned a weightage on a scale of 1 to 5 (five being the highest

Weight*
No hazardous material was generated or
5
released at the project site.
Toxic material generated or released by the
5.1. Managing environmental 4 Operator at the project site was immediately
2
safety issues removed from the project site.
Toxic materials generated or released by the
1 Operator at the project site were not removed
from the project site.
No minor incident/ accidents reported during

5
O&M works in a quarter.
5.2. Immediate suspension of
Less than two minor incident/ accident reported
unsafe works on 3 3
during O&M works in a quarter.
recommendation of
More than two major incident/ accident reported
Engineer
1 during O&M works in a quarter along with more
than three minor incidents.

5
reported in a quarter.
5.3. Number of incidents of
Less than than two incidents of accidents or
accidents or unusual 3 3
unusual occurrences in a quarter.
occurrences
More than two incidents of accidents or unusual
1
occurrences reported in a quarter.
All of the following four aspects were executed

on time ;
5.4. Safety measures (1) Provision of safe conditions for the users,
2 5
undertaken (2) Operating procedures followed for lane
accidents,
Page 173

Weight*
(3) Setting up of temporary traffic cones and
lights,
delay,
3
1 improvements as noted by Safety Consultant.
The Contractor’s work has been suspended
more than once on account of unsafe
Indicator
Indicator
Page 174
5 Way Forward
In many highway agencies around the world, the design, construction, operation and maintenance
functions are fully outsourced to external agencies. Thus, these highway agencies have a specialized
and comprehensively developed Performance Monitoring and Rating System for their existing and future
highway projects. Given the similarity of these agencies with NHAI's functions and business model of
`outsourcing' all major activities, warrants that, NHAI evaluates the capabilities of its vendors and
engages vendors, best suited to deliver their project targets and deliverables. Thus, one of the major
steps towards improving the quality of delivery of the services and – is to establish a transparent and
comprehensive `Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework'. Irrespective of the mode of
procurement, NHAI remains the owner of the assets created and therefore standardization of road
development and consistencies in performance elements remains the key responsibility of NHAI.
Given the background, the previous and the current deliverables of this study included need assessment
of this Performance Evaluation Framework, outlined relevant references from practices of selected
international and domestic agencies, and provided a conceptual framework for implementation and
execution of this framework along with the templates for Key Performance Indicators for different
categories of vendors. The Key Performance Indicators assembled and constructed in this report have
been finalized in consultation with the officials of NHAI and specific comments received from the GM
Committee members constituted by Member-PPP.
We understand from our previous engagements that a system is only as good as it users and the
organization’s ability to institutionalize the system would be a crucial element towards successful
implementation of the solution. Therefore, once the contours, guidelines, and performance matrix of the
Evaluation Framework are finalized and approved by NHAI, we propose to conduct two workshops at
HQ/ROs of NHAI where the stakeholders would be invited to participate in the workshops. The agenda
of these workshops would be to demonstrate the proposed performance evaluation and rating framework
and KPIs in order to disseminate implementation knowledge and generate high acceptance levels from
the stakeholders.
Going forward as part of this mandate, the study team will undertake review of performance evaluation
framework for one international organization – “Highway Agency, United Kingdom” and one of the
Indian entities “Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited” or “Engineers India Limited” depending on the
availability of information from these agencies. These agencies have been shortlisted subsequent to our
discussion with the relevant senior officials of NHAI and the World Bank. In addition, these agencies have
made a successful breakthrough in implementing the evaluation framework by reducing the cost and time
overruns in implementation of projects and improved the quality of the delivered services.
On approval of the VPEF, vendor coverage and the KPIs by NHAI and World Bank which principally
constitute this Deliverable, we would prepare report on “Design System Architecture and
Implementation Strategy”. This would include the final contours of the proposed system and the
implementation strategy, development of information flow, roles and responsibilities matrix of the different
levels of users and quality control measures, evaluation of the above mentioned international and
domestic organizations for their implementation models and strategies and development of IT system
architecture including institutional arrangements, budgetary requirements and implementation plan.
Page 175
Annexures
Annexure 1: Scoring Calculation for Technical Design Consultants
Actua Total
Sub Score Maximu Weighte
Rating l Maximu Weightag
Performance Indicators weight Allotte m Score Factor (E) d Score
Discipline Score m Score e (D)
s (A) d (B1) (C1) (F)
(B2) (C2)
(E =
B2 = C2 = (F =
Fixed Input Fixed Fixed D*100/∑C2
A*B1 A*C1 B2*E)
)
Quality of Deliverables 3 5 5 15 15 6.67
Accuracy in Technical Designs/Drawings/Schedules
3 5 5 15 15 6.67
Accuracy in Plan/Profile of Highway
3 5 5 15 15 6.67
Quality of 40% 0.444
Services Accuracy in preparation of land plan
3 5 5 15 15 6.67
Accuracy in assessment of source of Natural
materials 3 5 5 15 15 6.67
Environmental Assessment
3 5 5 15 15 6.67
\ 40.00
On time submission of project reports & deliverables

3 5 5 15 15 10.00
20% 0.667
Timelines Assistance to the Authority in achieving conditions
precedent for the Concessionaire/contractor
3 5 5 15 15 10.00
Sub-Total 20.00
Page 176
Actua Total
s (A) d (B1) (C1) (F)
(B2) (C2)
Responsiveness to NHAI’s comments during

consultancy contracts and post-submission during 3 5 5 15 5.00
Communication bidding and execution phase
& 10% 0.333
15
Responsivenes
s Adequacy of Responses to NHAI queries both during
3 5 5 15 5.00
consultancy and project execution phase
15
Sub-Total 10.00
Availability of Key Personnel 3 5 5 15 15 5.00
Project 10% 0.333
Management Limited Change in key personnel 3 5 5 15 15 5.00
Sub-Total 10.00
Adequacy of Safety Considerations in Design and
Safety 10% 0.333 10.00
Drawings 3 5 5 15 15
Considerations
Sub-Total 10.00
Accuracy in cost estimates 3 5 5 15 15 10% 0.333 10.00
Project Cost
Sub-Total 10.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 177
Annexure 2: Scoring Calculation for Technical Supervision Consultants

Sub Score Actual Total
Maximum Weightage Weighted
Rating Discipline Performance Indicators weights Allotted Score Maximum Factor (E)
Score (C1) (D) Score (F)
(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
Fixed Input Fixed C2 = A*C1 Fixed (F = B2*E)
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Quality of review of Design,

Document, Drawings and 3
Procedures 5 5 15 15 7.06
Inspection of the Project Road 3 5 5 15 15 7.06
Approach to addressing of quality
3
and safety issues 5 5 15 15 40% 0.471 7.06
Quality of Services
Accuracy in certifications 3 5 5 15 15 7.06
Maintenance during O&M
2
phase/Defect Liability Phase 5 5 10 10 4.71
Assistance in settlement of
3 5 5 15
disputes 15 7.06
Sub-Total 40.00
Timely Reporting of change in

scope and flagging of expected
3 5 5 15
delays in achieving project
milestones 15 20% 0.667 10.00
Timelines
Adherence to timelines for
3 5 5 15
reviews and reporting 15 10.00
Sub-Total 20.00
Availability of key personnel 3 5 5 15 15 3.33
Project Environmental Management 3 5 5 15 15 10% 0.222 3.33

Management Limited change of key personnel 3 5 5 15 3.33
15
Sub-Total 10.00
Page 178

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
Timely reply/address of NHAI

3 5 5 15 5.00
queries/Comments 15
Communication & 10% 0.333
Adequacy of Responses to NHAI
Responsiveness 3 5 5 15 5.00
queries 15
Sub-Total 10.00
Assessment during change in

3 5 5 15 10% 0.667 10.00
Project Cost scope 15
Sub-Total 10.00
Addressing of Safety issues

during Development and 3 5 5 15 5.00
construction phase 15
Safety 10% 0.333
Highway Safety records during
Considerations
O&M Phase/Defect Liability 3 5 5 15 5.00
Phase 15
Sub-Total 10.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 179
Annexure 3: Scoring Calculation for Safety Consultants

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Adequacy in work methodology,

conduct of safety audits and 3 5 5 15 15
reporting/recommendations.
60% 2.400
Quality of Services 36.00
Recording and analysis of accident
records resulting in accident 2 10
reductions 5 5 10 24.00
Sub-Total 60.00
Timely submission of Reports, review

of documents/designs provided by 3 5 5 15 15 15% 1.000
Timelines concessionaire and submission
15.00
Sub-Total 15.00
Availability of the key personnel 3 5 5 15 15

5.00
Project Environmental Management 3 5 5 15 15 15% 0.333

Management 5.00
Limited change in Key Personnel 3 5 5 15 15
5.00
Sub-Total 15.00
Page 180

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
Timely reply/address of NHAI 15

Communication & queries/Comments 3 5 5 15 5.00
10% 0.333
Responsiveness Adequacy of Responses to NHAI 15
queries 3 5 5 15 5.00
Sub-Total 10.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 181
Annexure 4: Scoring Calculation for Toll Collection Agency

Rating Discipline Performance Indicators weights Allotted Score Maximum Factor €
(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Average operating time at toll

3
gates during peak & off peak hour 5 5 15 15 22.50
Infrastructure provisions and
compatibility of Installed Software
3
and unplanned software 60% 1.500
Quality of Services downtime 5 5 15 15 22.50
Compliance with all instructions
issued by NHAI and all
2
performance obligations as per
the Contract 5 5 10 10 15.00
Sub-Total 60.00
Timely reporting and sharing of

Timelines 2 5 5 10 10 15% 1.500 15.00
information as sought by NHAI
Sub-Total 15.00
Number of incidents of accidents

3 5 5 15 15 3.00
or unusual occurrences
Safety 5% 0.200
Quality of Traffic Management at
Considerations 2 5 5 10 10 2.00
Toll Plaza
Sub-Total 5.00
Deployment of key personnel and

3 5 5 15 15
Project limited change of key personnel 5.00
15% 0.333
Management Behavior of the staff deployed for
3 5 5 15 15
toll operations 5.00
Page 182

Rating Discipline Performance Indicators weights Allotted Score Maximum Factor €
(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
All Insurances are maintained
3 5 5 15 15
and renewed timely 5.00
Sub-Total 15.00
Timely reply /address of NHAI
Communication 3 5 5 15 15
queries/Comments 2.50
and 5% 0.167
Adequacy of Responses to NHAI
Responsiveness 3 5 5 15 15
quires 2.50
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 183
Annexure 5: Scoring Calculation for Financial and Legal Consultants

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Timely Delivery of Reports 3 5 5 15 15 15% 1.000 15.00

Timelines
Sub-Total 15.00
Quality of Financial
2 10
Forecasts 5 5 10 9.23
Assistance in finalizing
project and risk allocation 3 15
structure 5 5 15 13.85
Assistance in finalization of
qualification parameters, 3 15 60% 0.923
Quality of Services RFQ and RFP 5 5 15 13.85
Assistance in Bid Process
3 15
Management 5 5 15 13.85
Suggestions on Post Award
2 10
Contract management 5 5 10 9.23
Sub-Total 60.00
Responsiveness to
instruction, queries or notice 2 5 5 10 10 1.82
of NHAI
Correspondence with key
players in project 3 5 5 15 15 2.73
Communication & development 10% 0.182
Responsiveness Pricing Competitiveness 2 5 5 10 10 1.82
Conducting Meetings 2 5 5 10 10 1.82
Conducting Workshops 2 5 5 10 10 1.82
Sub-Total 10.00
Page 184

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
Availability of Key Personnel 3 5 5 15 15 7.50

Limited change in key 15% 0.500
Project Management 3 5 5 15 15
personnel 7.50
Sub-Total 15.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 185
Annexure 6: Scoring Calculation for Concessionaire (BOT- Toll)

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Fulfillment of conditions precedent 3 5 5 15 15 2.25

Actual vs Targeted Date of
2 5 5 10 10 1.50
Financial Closure
Timely submission of monthly
1 5 5 5 5 0.75
reports
Financial Progress status
3 5 5 15 15 2.25
corresponding to Physical Progress
Achievement of Project Milestones
Timelines and Scheduled Project Completion 3 5 5 15 15 15% 0.150 2.25
Date
Meeting target timeline for
correction works specified in O&M 3 5 5 15 15 2.25
Inspection Report
Provide audited annual accounts
2 5 5 10 10 1.50
and schedule on time
Payment to Independent Engineer
3 5 5 15 15 2.25
by Concessionaire
Sub-Total 15.00
Quality of finalized drawings/ design

incorporating Independent 3 5 5 15 15 5.81
Engineer’s review/suggestions
Quality of Machinery and
2 5 5 10 10 3.87
Quality of Services Equipment used 60% 0.387
Quality of Maintenance of existing
3 5 5 15 15 5.81
road during Construction Period
Quality of Construction and extent
3 5 5 15 15 5.81
of defect identified
Page 186

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
Curing Timelines for Default Punch
list items and Maintenance 3 5 5 15 15 5.81
Requirements
Quality of Maintenance during
2 5 5 10 10 3.87
operation period
Quality of Toll Management 3 5 5 15 15 5.81
Quality of Incident Management 3 5 5 15 15 5.81
Periodic Maintenance of Pavement 3 5 5 15 15 5.81
Quality of Maintenance of the
3 5 5 15 15 5.81
Project Highway
Authenticity of Traffic figures
provided during operation period for 3 5 5 15 15 5.81
traffic sampling
Sub-Total 60.00

3 5 5 15 15 1.67
Responsiveness on delivering
Communication & 3 5 5 15 15 1.67
additional scope of work 5% 0.111
Responsiveness
Responsiveness to instruction,
queries or notice of NHAI,
3 5 5 15 15 1.67
Independent Engineer or Safety
Consultants
Sub-Total 5.00
Procurement of all applicable

3 5 5 15 15 1.96
permits on time
Project Environment Management 3 5 15 15 1.96

15% 0.130
Management Utility Shifting 2 5 5 10 10 1.30
Facilitation in additional land
1 5 5 5 5 0.65
procurement
Page 187

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
All Insurances maintained and
2 5 5 10 10 1.30
renewed timely
Augmenting the capacity of the
2 5 5 10 10 1.30
project highway
Engagement of reliable contractors 3 5 5 15 15 1.96
Debt Service position of the
3 5 5 15 15 1.96
Concessionaire
Problem resolution and customer
2 5 5 10 10 1.30
satisfaction capabilities
Initiative for Dispute
2 5 5 10 10 1.30
Sub-Total 15.00
Submission of monthly summary

3 5 5 15 15 1.67
reports of unusual occurrences
Number of incidents of accidents or 5% 0.111
Safety 3 5 5 15 15 1.67
unusual occurrences
Considerations
Compliance with the safety
3 5 5 15 15 1.67
measures.
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 188
Annexure 7: Scoring Calculation for Concessionaire (BOT- Annuity)
Total
Sub Score Maximum Actual
Rating Discipline Performance Indicators weights Allotted Score Score Factor (E)
Score (D) Score (F)
(A) (B1) (C1) (B2)
(C2)
B2 = C2 = (E = (F =
Fixed Input Fixed Fixed
A*B1 A*C1 D*100/∑C2) B2*E)
Actual vs Targeted Date of Financial
2 5 5 10 10 1.58
Closure
Timely submission of monthly reports 1 5 5 5 5 0.79
Financial Progress status corresponding
3 5 5 15 15 2.37
to Physical Progress
Achievement of Project Milestones and
Timelines 3 5 5 15 15 15% 0.158 2.37
Scheduled Project Completion Date
Meeting target timeline for correction
works specified in O&M Inspection 3 5 5 15 15 2.37
Report
Payment to Independent Engineer by
2 5 5 10 10 1.58
Concessionaire
Provide audited annual accounts and
2 5 5 10 10 1.58
schedule on time
Sub-Total 15.00

incorporating Independent Engineer’s 3 5 5 15 15 7.20
review/suggestions
Quality of Machinery and Equipment
2 5 5 10 10 4.80
used
Quality of Services Quality of Maintenance of existing road 60% 0.480
3 5 5 15 15 7.20
during Construction Period
Quality of Construction and extent of
3 5 5 15 15 7.20
defect identified
Quality of Maintenance during operation
2 5 5 10 10 4.80
period
Page 189
Total
Score (D) Score (F)
(A) (B1) (C1) (B2)
(C2)
B2 = C2 = (E = (F =
A*B1 A*C1 D*100/∑C2) B2*E)
Curing Timelines for Default Punch list
3 5 5 15 15 7.20
items and Maintenance Requirements
Quality of Incident Management 3 5 5 15 15 7.20
Quality of Maintenance of the Project
3 5 5 15 15 7.20
Highway
Sub-Total 60.00
Correspondence with key Authorities

3 5 5 15 15 3.33
and parties
Responsiveness on delivering additional
Communication & 3 5 5 15 15 3.33
scope of work 10% 0.222
Responsiveness
Responsiveness to instruction, queries
or notice of NHAI, Independent Engineer 3 5 5 15 15 3.33
or Safety Consultants
Sub-Total 10.00
Procurement of all applicable permits on

3 5 5 15 15 1.67
time
Utility Shifting 2 5 5 10 10 1.11
Facilitation in additional land
1 5 5 5 5 0.56
procurement
All Insurances maintained and renewed
2 5 5 10 10 1.11
Project Management timely 10% 0.111
3 5 5 15 15 1.67
Concessionaire
2 5 5 10 10 1.11
2 5 5 10 10 1.11
Page 190
Total
Score (D) Score (F)
(A) (B1) (C1) (B2)
(C2)
B2 = C2 = (E = (F =
A*B1 A*C1 D*100/∑C2) B2*E)
Sub-Total 10.00
Submission of monthly summary reports

3 5 5 15 15 1.67
of unusual occurrences
Safety Number of incidents of accidents or 5% 0.111
3 5 5 15 15 1.67
Considerations unusual occurrences
Compliance with the safety measures. 3 5 5 15 15 1.67
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 191
Annexure 8: Scoring Calculation for Concessionaire (OMT)

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Timely Commercial Operations Date
3 5 5 15 15 2.65
(COD)
Achievement of Project Timelines 3 5 5 15 15 2.65
Lane closure 2 5 5 10 10 1.76
Timelines Meeting target timeline for correction 15% 0.176
works specified in O&M Inspection 3 5 5 15 15 2.65
Report
Timely submission of Monthly Status
1 5 5 5 5 0.88
Reports
Providing audited annual accounts
2 5 5 10 10 1.76
on schedule dates
Sub-Total 15.00
Quality of Maintenance during

3 5 5 15 15 12.86
operation period
Curing Timelines for Maintenance
3 5 5 15 15 12.86
Quality of Services Requirements 60% 0.857
Quality of components of
3 5 5 15 15 12.86
Maintenance Program
Correct reporting of traffic estimates
2 5 5 10 10 8.57
and thus toll realizations
Sub-Total 60.00
Page 192

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
Communication & queries or notice of NHAI,
3 5 5 15 15 1.88
Responsiveness Independent Engineer or Safety
Consultants
5% 0.125
Managing Communication aspect
3 5 5 15 15 1.88
with stakeholders
Promptness for change of scope of
2 5 5 10 10 1.25
work
Sub-Total 5.00

2 5 5 10 10 1.58
renewed timely
Environmental Management 3 5 5 15 15 2.37
Utility Shifting 2 5 5 10 10 1.58
Project and Payment outstanding to Independent
Contract Engineer /Sub-Contractors/Other 3 5 5 15 15 15% 0.158 2.37
Management Agencies
2 5 5 10 10 1.58
2 5 5 10 10 1.58
3 5 5 15 15 2.37
Concessionaire
Sub-Total 15.00
Safety measures undertaken 3 5 5 15 15 1.88

Number of incidents of accidents or
2 5 5 10 10 1.25
Safety unusual occurrences
5% 0.125
Considerations Accident and response measures
documentation - Submission of
3 5 5 15 15 1.88
monthly summary reports of unusual
occurrences
Page 193

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 194
Annexure 9: Scoring Calculation for EPC Contracto

Actua Total
s (A) d (B1) (C1) (F)
(B2) (C2)
B2 = C2 = (E=D*100/∑C (F =
A*B1 A*C1 2) B2*E)
Timely submission of construction plan and
2 5 5 10 10 2.73
maintenance manual
Timelines Timely deployment of resources, equipment’s, and 15% 0.273
3 5 5 15 15 4.09
personnel
Timely Submission of Monthly Documents 1 5 5 5 5 1.36
Lane Closure 2 5 5 10 10 2.73
Sub-Total 15.00
Quality of finalized drawings/ design incorporating

3 5 5 15 15 7.50
Authority Engineer’s review/suggestions
Schedule and Program of Works 2 5 5 10 10 5.00
Quality of Machinery and Equipment used 2 5 5 10 10 5.00
Innovative Techniques 2 5 5 10 10 5.00
Quality of Quality of construction of the project highway 3 5 5 15 15 7.50
60% 0.500
Services
Quality of Maintenance during Construction Period 3 5 5 15 15 7.50
Curing Timelines for Default of Punch list items 3 5 5 15 15 7.50
Quality of Maintenance during Defect Liability
3 5 5 15 15 7.50
period
Quality of Incident Management during Defect Liability
3 5 5 15 15 7.50
Period
Sub-Total 60.00
Page 195
Actua Total
s (A) d (B1) (C1) (F)
(B2) (C2)
Responsiveness to instruction, queries or notice of
Communicatio 2 5 5 10 10 1.43
NHAI
n&
Correspondence with key Authorities and parties 3 5 5 15 15 5% 0.143 2.14
Responsivene
ss Promptness for change of scope of work 2 5 5 10 10 1.43
Sub-Total 5.00
Procurement of all applicable permits on time 2 5 5 10 10 2.00

All Insurances maintained and renewed timely 3 5 5 15 15 3.00
Project Engagement of reliable Sub-contractors 2 5 5 10 10 15% 0.200 2.00
Management
Payment outstanding to Authority Engineer /Sub-
2 5 5 10 10 2.00
Contractors/Other Agencies
Initiative for Dispute Resolution/Conciliation 3 5 5 15 15 3.00
Sub-Total 15.00

Safety Accident and response measures documentation - 5% 0.167
Considerations Submission of monthly summary reports of unusual 3 5 5 15 15 2.50
occurrences
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 196
Annexure 10: Scoring Calculation for Item Rate Contractor

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Submission of Monthly
2 5 5 10 10 3.75
Statements
Completion of construction on
3 5 5 15 15 5.63
Timelines time 15% 0.375
Timely deployment of
resources, equipment’s, and 3 5 5 15 15 5.63
personnel
Sub-Total 15.00
Cost Variation 3 5 5 15 15 5% 0.333 5.00

Project Cost
Sub-Total 5.00
Quality of works 3 5 5 15 15 15.00

Cooperation with Engineers for
early warnings signs and 2 5 5 10 10 10.00
adherence to other directives
Extent of defect/non- 60% 1.000
Quality of Services 2 5 5 10 10 10.00
permissible test results
Number of adverse comments
3 5 5 15 15 15.00
given by Engineer
Curing Timelines 2 5 5 10 10 10.00
Sub-Total 60.00
Responsiveness to NHAI
3 5 5 15 15 1.36
Communication & queries
5% 0.091
Responsiveness Attending Management
3 5 5 15 15 1.36
Meetings
Page 197

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
Adequacy of Responses to
3 5 5 15 15 1.36
NHAI queries
2 5 5 10 10 0.91
Sub-Total 5.00
Smooth management of the

2 5 5 10 10 1.54
sub-contractors
Project Initiative for Dispute Resolution 3 5 5 15 15 10% 0.154 2.31

Management Maintenance of Insurance
2 5 5 10 10 1.54
policies
Cash Flow Availability 3 5 5 15 15 2.31
Sub-Total 10.00
Number of incidents of
accidents or unusual 3 5 5 15 15 2.50
Safety occurrences 5% 0.167
Considerations Safety measures undertaken 3 5 5 15 15 2.50
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 198
Annexure 11: Scoring Calculation for O&M Contractor

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)
Ability to maintain the road asset

3 5 5 15 15 16.36
above the performance standards
Adherence to Inspection and testing
3 5 5 15 15 16.36
schedule 60% 1.091
Quality of Services Work Control and Quality Assurance 3 5 5 15 15 16.36
Limit the level of encroachment of
2 5 5 10 10 10.91
project Road R.O.W.
Sub-Total 60.00
Adherence to timelines as defined by

intended/revised project completion
date, maintenance program planning, 3 5 5 15 15 6.43
performance Standards for
Timelines Maintenance & Operations 15% 0.429
Timely deployment of key equipment
3 5 5 15 15 6.43
and machinery
Timely submission of monthly reports 1 5 5 5 5 2.14
Sub-Total 15.00
Communication & 3 5 5 15 15 5% 0.333 5.00
queries or notice of NHAI, Engineer
Responsiveness
Sub-Total 5.00
Project Timely Deployment of Key Personnel

3 5 5 15 15 15% 0.143 2.14
Management and Limited change in their position
Page 199

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)

Smooth management of Sub-
3 5 5 15 15 2.14
contractors
All Insurance policies maintained 3 5 5 15 15 2.14
Quantity Variations 3 5 5 15 15 2.14
Initiative for Dispute Resolution 3 5 5 15 15 2.14
Compliance with Labor Regulations,
3 5 5 15 15 2.14
Health and Safety provisions
Sub-Total 15.00
Number of incidents of accidents or

3 5 5 15 15 3.00
unusual occurrences 5% 0.200
Safety
Considerations Safety measures undertaken 2 5 5 10 10 2.00
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 200
Annexure 12: Scoring Calculation for EPC Subcontractor

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)
B2 = (E =
A*B1 D*100/∑C2)

incorporating Authority Engineer’s 3 5 5 15 15 16.36
review/suggestions
Quality of Machinery and Equipment
2 5 5 10 10 10.91
used
60% 1.091
Quality of Services Quality of construction of the project
3 5 5 15 15 16.36
highway
Curing Timelines for Default of
Punch list items and Construction 3 5 5 15 15 16.36
Requirements
Sub-Total 60.00

Timely deployment of resources,
3 5 5 15 15 4.50
equipment’s, and personnel 15% 0.300
Timelines
Lane Closure 2 5 5 10 10 3.00
Defect Liability Period 2 5 5 10 10 3.00
Sub-Total 15.00
Communication & 2 5 5 10 10 5% 0.500 5.00
queries or notice of NHAI
Responsiveness
Sub-Total 5.00
Project Initiative for Dispute

3 5 5 15 15 15% 0.250 3.75
Management Resolution/Conciliation
Page 201

(A) (B1) (B2) Score (C2)

3 5 5 15 15 3.75
renewed timely
Timely Deployment of Key
Personnel and Limited change in 3 5 5 15 15 3.75
their position
Compliance with Labor Regulations,
3 5 5 15 15 3.75
Health and Safety provisions
Sub-Total 15.00
Accident and response measures

documentation - Submission of
Safety 5 5 15 15 2.50
monthly summary reports of 5% 0.167
Considerations unusual occurrences 3
Safety Measures Undertaken 3 5 5 15 15 2.50
Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 202
Annexure 13: Scoring Calculation for O&M Subcontractor

Actu Total
Score Maximu Weight
Sub al Maximu
Rating Allott m Weighta Factor ed
Performance Indicators weigh Scor m
Discipline ed Score ge (D) (E) Score
ts (A) e Score
(B1) (C1) (F)
(B2) (C2)
(E =
B2 = C2 = (F =
Fixed Input Fixed Fixed D*100/∑
A*B1 A*C1 B2*E)
C2)
Quality of components of Maintenance Program 3 5 5 15 15 16.36
Percentage of road under O&M at any point of time during the year 3 5 5 15 15 16.36
Quality of
60% 1.091
Services
Extent of defect/non-permissible test results 3 5 5 15 15 16.36
Traffic management activities during O&M period 2 5 5 10 10 10.91
Sub-Total 60.00
Timelines for Routine Maintenance Exercise 3 5 5 15 15 4.09
Timelines for Rectification of Defects 3 5 5 15 15 4.09

Timelines 15% 0.273
Submission of reports 2 5 5 10 10 2.73
Timely deployment of key machinery and equipment 3 5 5 15 15 4.09
Sub-Total 15.00
Communicati
on & Responsiveness to NHAI/Concessionaire/Engineer’s
3 5 5 15 15 5% 0.333 5.00
Responsiven instructions/queries
ess
Sub-Total 5.00
Page 203
Actu Total
Score Maximu Weight
Sub al Maximu
Rating Allott m Weighta Factor ed
Performance Indicators weigh Scor m
Discipline ed Score ge (D) (E) Score
ts (A) e Score
(B1) (C1) (F)
(B2) (C2)
All Insurance policies maintained and renewed on time 3 5 5 15 15 0.250 3.75

Compliance with Labor Regulations and Health and Safety provisions
3 5 5 15 15 3.75
Project of the workers
15%
Management
Initiative for Dispute Resolution 3 5 5 15 15 3.75
Timely Deployment of Key Personnel and Limited change in their

3 5 5 15 15 3.75
position
Sub-Total 15.00
Managing environmental safety issues 2 5 5 10 10 1.00
Safety Immediate suspension of unsafe works on recommendation of

3 5 5 15 15 1.50
Consideratio Engineer 5% 0.100
ns
Number of incidents of accidents or unusual occurrences 3 5 5 15 15 1.50

Sub-Total 5.00
Total 100% 100.00
Page 204
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”),
its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and
independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see
www.deloitte.com/about for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.
This material prepared by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP (DTTILLP) is intended to provide general information on a
particular subject or subjects and are not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s).Further, the views and opinions expressed
herein are the subjective views and opinions of DTTILLP based on such parameters and analyses which in its opinion are
relevant to the subject.
Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple
industries. With a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries and territories, Deloitte brings
world-class capabilities and high-quality service to clients, delivering the insights they need to address their most complex
business challenges. Deloitte’s more than 200,000 professionals are committed to becoming the standard of excellence.
Accordingly, the information in this material is not intended to constitute accounting, tax, legal, investment, consulting, or
other professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision
which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that might affect your personal
finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. None of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, its member
firms, or its and their respective affiliates shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on
this material.
© 2016 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP

WBTA Project - Report On Establish Performance Evaluation, Monitoring

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WBTA Project - Report On Establish Performance Evaluation, Monitoring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 2016

Final Report on Identification of Set

Consultancy Services to Establish Performance

1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 6

3 Proposed Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework .......................................... 12

4 Identification of Set of Performance Indicators ....................................................... 22

5 Way Forward ............................................................................................................ 175

Annexures ....................................................................................................................... 176

PMC Project Management Company

Contract Vendor Class Project Phase Types of Vendors represented

Activities Deliverables/Action Reports Status

Activities Deliverables/Action Reports Status

Training on the performance 9. Training Needs Assessment and Scheduled

3 Proposed Vendor Performance

3.2 Structure of Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework

3.2.1 Defining Categories of Outsourced Vendors

Vendor Class Project Phase Types of Vendors Represented

Vendors Directly Engaged by NHAI

Contractor- Build Construction* Item Rate Contractor

3.2.2 Defining Rating Disciplines – Parameters for Measuring Performance

1. Quality of Services (QS)

3. Project Cost (PC)

4. Project Management (PM)

5. Safety Considerations (SAC)

6. Communication and Responsiveness (CR)

3.2.3 Allocation of Weightage to Rating Discipline

Authority Engineer (EPC)/ Supervision Consultant (Item Rate)

Safety Consultant (BOT-Toll/Annuity, OMT, EPC) 60% 15% 15% 10%

Financial/Legal Consultants 60% 15% 15% 10%

Toll Collection Agency 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

Concessionaire (BOT- Toll/Annuity) 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

OMT Concessionaire 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

EPC Contractor 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

Item Rate Contractor 60% 15% 10% 5% 5% 5%

O&M Agency 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

O&M Contractor engaged by DBFOT Concessionaire 60% 15% 15% 5% 5%

3.2.4 Performance Indicators – Defining Key Elements for Each Discipline

3.2.5 Allocation of Sub-Weighs to Performance Indicators

3.2.6 Allocation of Scores to Performance Indicators

3.2.7 Defining the Scoring System and Methodology

3.2.8 Scoring Acceptability

3.2.9 Incorporation of Past Performance Rating

Years in business with client Factor

3.3 Guidelines for Vendor Performance Evaluation Framework

3.3.1 Process of Evaluations with Involvement of Vendor

3.3.2 Evaluation of Score for Multiple Projects Executed by the Vendor

3.3.3 Delay on Account of other Stakeholders

3.3.4 Variability in Concession Agreements;

3.3.5 Treatment of Consortium/Joint Venture

3.3.6 Frequency of Performance Review Cycle

3.3.7 Mid Term Evaluations in Exceptional Cases

3.3.8 Minimum Performance Score for Every Rating Discipline

3.3.9 Proposed Institution Framework for Vendor Evaluation & Rating

3.3.9.1 Composition of Evaluation Team

3.3.9.2 Process for Assigning Ratings

Vendor Rating & Review Committee (VRRC)

However in cases where the contractor/consultant/concessionaire is referred as a non-performer, the

3.3.9.3 Rating Disclosure

4 Identification of Set of Performance

Score Performance Expectation

5 Performance of the vendor exceeds expectations

4 Performance of the vendor consistently meets expectations

2 Performance of the vendor frequently misses expectations