2financial BID Evaluation Report For Koka-Adulala-Debrezeit After CAC's Review & Printed Out, Dec12,2014

Design and Construction of Koka - Adulala - Debrezeit Road Project Ethiopian Roads Authority
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
2. BACK GROUND................................................................................................................1
2.1 The Project..............................................................................................................1
2.2 Financing.................................................................................................................1
3. TENDERING PROCESS...................................................................................................2
3.1 Invitation to bids......................................................................................................2
3.2 Pre-Bid Meeting......................................................................................................3
3.3 Opening of Qualification Application.....................................................................4
3.4 Post Qualification Evaluation and Result................................................................4
3.5 Financial Bid Opening............................................................................................5
4. EVALUATION OF BID.....................................................................................................7
4.1 Preliminary Examination.........................................................................................7
4.2 Detailed Evaluation of Bids..................................................................................13
4.2.1 Financial Evaluation of Bids..............................................................................13
4.2.2 Comparison of Bid Price with Engineer’s Cost Estimate..................................16
5. RECOMMENDATION....................................................................................................23
Annexes
Annex-1 Copy of Notice of Invitation for Bid
Annex-2 Copies of Responses for Queries and Addenda
Annex-3 Summary of Post Qualification Evaluation
Annex-4 Copies of Bid Opening Forms and Attendance Sheet
Annex-5 Exchange Rate
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page i

1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the bid evaluation procedures and the evaluation carried out
by the Tender Analysis Committee for the the Design and Construction of Koka -
Adulala - Debrezeit Road project.
The Tender Analysis Committee comprises of three Civil Engineers from

Engineering Procurement Directorate, namely; Ato Teshome Hailu,W/rt Bethelhem
Gezahegn and Ato Baye Tizazu .
Following the introductory part;a brief description of the background of the project
and summary of result of evaluation of post qualificationapplications will be
presented. Then follows the most core subject of this report, which is the
evaluation of the bids of post qualified bidders. Finally, the Tender Analysis
Committee has recommended for the award of the contract.
2. BACK GROUND
2.1 The Project
The road project is entirely located in the States of Oromia; the project road starts
at the exit of Koka town, passes via Adulala (at the bottom of Ziquala Mountain)
and Dire Towns to end at Debrezeit (Bishoftu) having a total length of about 52.22
Km.
The project involves identifying the best route alignment based on technical,
economic, social, environmental and administrative reasons, designing and
constructing of the road with DC4 (Low Volume Design Class)with Double Surface
Treatmentfor the first 20.5 km up to Adulala Town followed by Double Surface
Treatment section with DS4 Standard up to km 39+700 and the final section shall be
DS3 Asphalt Concrete Standard till the end of the project. The work includes
demolishing and removal of substandard structures such as Bridge, slab culverts,
and pipe culverts, and construction of new culverts and Bridges.
The referenced road links the existing Modjo - Hawassa and Addis - Adama Roads.
Hence, ERA intends to construct Koka-Adulala-Debrezeit using the service of

contractor experienced in the investigation, design and construction of roads stated
under the contract.
2.2 Financing
The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has allocated

sufficient budget towards the cost of Koka - Adulala - Debrezeit and intends to
apply part of the proceeds to eligible payments for the design and construction
works.
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 1

3. Tendering Process
3.1 Invitation to bids
Specific Procurement Notice of Invitation for Bid was published on the Ethiopian
Herald on February 04 and 05, 2014.Pursuant to the Notice of Invitation, Thirty
two (32) applicants have collected the tender documents before the deadline for
submission of applications as shown in Table 3.1 below.
(Copy of Notice of Invitation is attached as Annex 1)
Table 3.1: List of Applicants who have purchased the Bidding Documents
Country of
I. No. Name of Applicants
Registration
1. Al Asab General Transport & Contracting Establishment United Arab
Emirates(UAE)
2. ASER Construction PLC Ethiopia
3. China First Highway Engineering Co. Ltd China
4. China Gezhouba Group Company Limited China
5. China Railway 18th Bureau Group Co.ltd China
6. China Railway No.3 Engineering Group Co. Ltd China
7. China Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltd China
8. China Tiesiju Civil Engineering Group Co. Ltd China
9. CRBC Addis Engineering Plc China
10. Cross-Land Construction Ethiopia
11. Diriba Defersha General Contractor Ethiopia
12. DMC Construction Plc Ethiopia
13. DUNYALAR Asphalt Road Transport Structure Turkey
Contracting Mining Trading ltd. Company
14. Ethio General Contractor Ethiopia
15. Fermanoglu Construction Tourism Trade industry Turkey
16. G/Hiwot E/Mariam General Contractor Ethiopia
17. Gemshu Beyene Construction Plc Ethiopia
18. Highland Construction Group S.A.L Lebanon
19. Hunan Huanda Road & Bridge Corporation China
20. Macro General Contractor & Trading Plc Ethiopia
21. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited India
22. Pyramid Construction Ethiopia
23. Raubex Construction (pty) Ltd South Africa
24. Rotational International Trading Plc Ethiopia
25. Samson Cherinet General Contractor Ethiopia
26. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd India

Country of
Registration
27. Sinohydro Corporation Ltd China
28. Sur Construction Plc Ethiopia
29. Tekleberahn Ambaye Construction Plc Ethiopia
30. Yemane Girmay General Contractor Ethiopia
31. Yencomad Construction Plc Ethiopia
32. Yotek Construction Plc Ethiopia
Total number of applicants =32
3.2 Pre-Bid Meeting
A pre-bid meeting of the tender was held on March 10, 2014, at 10:00 PM at
ERA Conference Room in the presence of representatives of ERA and interested
bidders.
The minute of the Pre-Bid Meeting, Addenda & Clarification to Queries were
issued to all bidders who purchased bidding document as shown in the table 3.2
below.
Table 3.2: Minute of the Pre-Bid Meeting, Clarification to Queries, Addenda and
Issued Dates
I/No Description Date issued to

Bidders
1. Minutes of Pre-Bid Meeting and Addendum No. 1 March 14, 2014
2. Clarification to Queries and Addendum No.2 April 02, 2014
3. Addendum No.3 May 02, 2014
4. Addendum No.4 June 03, 2014
5. Clarification to Queries and Addendum No.5 June 17, 2014
6. Clarification to Additional Quires July 09,2014
7. Additional Clarification and Addendum No.6 July 15,2014
(Minute of Pre-bid meeting, Clarification to Queries and Addenda issued to the bidding
document are attached as Annex-2)

3.3 Opening of Qualification Application
Among the above listed thirty two (32) prospective bidders who have bought the
tender documents from ERA, only ten (10) of them have submitted their
qualification applications and financial offers in separately sealed envelopes
before/on July 17, 2014 at 2:30 PM which is the latest date for submission of
bids. Table 3.3 below shows the list of bidders who have submitted their
applications for post qualification and financial bids.
Table 3.3: List of Applicants who submitted their applications for post qualification
and financial Bids
Country of
Registration
1. Al Asab General Transport & Contracting United Arab
Establishment Emirates(UAE)
2. ASER Construction Plc Ethiopia
5. Diriba Defersha General Contractor Ethiopia
7. Ethio General Contractor Ethiopia
10. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd India
Total number of applicants =10
3.4 Post Qualification Evaluation and Result
The evaluation of bids has been a two envelope procedure; namely, Post
Qualification and Financial Evaluation.
TAC has first conducted evaluation of the post-qualification applications in line
with the criteria set out in the Post-Qualification Document and recommended
seven bidders to be qualified and to open their financial bid as indicated in Table
3.4 and rejected three bidderswith the respective reasonsas indicated in
Table3.5below.
Table 3.4: List of Qualified Bidders

I./N0 Bidder’s Name Country of Registration

Al Asab General Transport & Contracting United Arab Emirates
1. Establishment (UAE)
2. ASER Construction Plc Ethiopia
Table 3.5:List of Rejected Bidder
I./N0 Country of
Bidder’s Name Reason for Rejecting
Registration
Diriba Defersha General Failure to submit acceptable
1. Ethiopia
Contractor bid security
Failure to fulfil the Specific
2. Ethio General Contractor Ethiopia Construction Experience
Requirement
Performance Record on
ongoing Projects as
3. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd India obtained from Ethiopian
Embassy in New
Delhi,India
(Copy of Summary of Post Qualification Evaluation Result is attached as Annex 3)
3.5 Financial Bid Opening
Following the endorsement of the post-qualification evaluation outcome by the

Director General, the opening of the financial bids was scheduled and it has been
notified to the bidders that were found to be post-qualified. Accordinglyon
November 18, 2014 at 2:40Pm the financial bids of the bidder whose Post-
Qualification application was responsive has been opened in ERA’s Conference
Hall, in the presence of ERA’s Contract Award Committee Members and
representative of the post-qualified bidder, who chose to attend the opening.
Table 3.6: Read out Bid Price
I/ Read Out Bid

Post - qualified Bidders Country Discount
No. Price(ETB)

United Arab
Al Asab General Transport &
1. Emirates 1,298,000,000.00 None
Contracting Establishment
(UAE)
2. ASER Construction Plc Ethiopia 613,165,000.00 None
China First Highway
3. China 1,072,902,689.00 None
Engineering Co. Ltd
China Railway Seventh Group
4. China 814,930,469.26 None
Co. Ltd
5. DMC Construction Plc Ethiopia 1,086,456,000.00 None
Gemshu Beyene Construction
6. Ethiopia 1,324,677,429.04* None
Plc
Macro General Contractor &
7. Ethiopia 673,244,700.00 None
Trading Plc
(Copies of Minute of Bid Opening and Attendance Sheet are attached in Annex-4.)
Note: During the opening of the financial bids ceremony, it was noted thatGemshu Beyene
Construction Plc has provided two offers whichare ETB1, 324,677,429.04 and
ETB 1,317,008,706.18 in separate OriginalForm of Bids/Tenders.
However, it was also noted that offer entered in the copy Form of Bid /Tenderis
ETB1,324,677,429.04.
TAC noted that Instruction to Bidders(ITB), Clause 15: Format and Signing of Bid,
sub clauses 15.1 of the bidding document states that ‘The bidder shall prepare
one original and four photo copies of the documents comprising the bid as
described in sub-clause 10.1 of these Instructions to Bidders, bound with the
volume containing the bid proposals, and clearly marked “ORIGINAL” and
“COPY” as appropriate. In the event of any discrepancy between them, the
original shall prevail.’
TAC noted also that Particular Information to Instruction to Bidders, clause

10.1 of the Bidding Document states that “Alternative offers are not
acceptable.”
Hence, TAC has rejected Gemshu Beyene Construction Plc from further
assessment as per cited clause,.i.e, Particular Information to Instruction to
Bidders, clause 10.1 of the bidding document.
Upon opening of financial bids of the post qualified bidders, it was noted that
all bidders had submitted one original and four copies as per the requirement
of the bidding document.
CAC members signed on some pages of the original bids and then copies of the
bids were distributed to each member of the Tender Analysis Committee
(TAC) for detailed evaluation.

4. EVALUATION OF BID
The evaluation criteria assetin the bidding documents have been used for the
evaluation ofthe bids.
4.1 Preliminary Examination
The submitted bids were examined for its compliance with the following
requirements of the bidding document.
a) Completeness of Bid, and
b) Substantial responsiveness.
Under the above mentioned requirements of the bidding document, the following
were considered under each heading with the corresponding remarks:
a) Completeness of Bid
Under this heading the following were examined whether or not:
- the Form of Bid is properly signed,
- the applicant has completed the table for Base Material Reference and provided
the required quotations as documentary evidence are attached,
- the Bid is submitted in the English Language,
- the applicant has submitted the Bid in one original plus four copies, and;
- the bid contains any alternations, omissions or additions.
All the biddershave complied with these requirements except as specifically addressed
against each bidder as follows:-
AL Asab General Transport and Contracting Establishment
 Base price for steel reinforcement bar is quoted from a company named
Tewelde Gidey Importer whose reputability could not be confirmed
during evaluation. Moreover, TAC noted that the base price is not valid at
28 days prior to the closing date for submission of bid i.e June19, 2014.
Besides, base price quotation for reinforcement does not include VAT.
Hence, if found successful, the bidder shall be requested to submit the

base price for reinforcement bar which is valid at 28 days prior to the
closing date for submission of bid i.e.June19, 2014as per Requirement of
bidding document. Moreover, the bidder should be requested to provide
evidence for repeatability of Tewelde Gidey Importer.Moreover, the

bidder should be requested to submit base price for steel reinforcement

bar including VAT.
 The bidder has submitted price index for equipment and Foreign Labor
from U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics for the date not prevailing 28 days
prior to the latest date for bid submission.
Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to submit price index for equipment
and Foreign Labor for the applicable date which is 28 days prior to bid
opening i.e. June19, 2014.
 The bidder has submitted Base price for fuel and bitumen from National
Oil Ethiopia Plc (NOC) and cement from Derba Midroc Cement Plc for
the date not prevailing 28 days prior to the latest date for bid submission.

base price for fuel,bitumen and cement which is valid at 28 days prior to
the closing date for submission of bid i.e. June19, 2014 as per
Requirement of bidding document.
 The bidder has considered equipment under local currency portion

adjustment while it is proposed to be provided from foreign market
namely U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to clarify his intention on this

regard; otherwise TAC advised the item is better to be considered only
under foreign currencyportion adjustment.
 Moreover, the bidder has considered fuel&bitumen, steel reinforcement

bar and cement under foreign currency portion adjustment while they are
proposed to be provided from local market namely fromNational Oil
Ethiopia Plc, Tewelde Gidey Importand Debra Midroc Cement
Plcrespectively.
Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to clarify his intention on this regard;
otherwise TAC advised the items are better to be considered only under
local currency portion adjustment.
[
ASER Construction Plc
 The bidder has submitted price quotation/performa Invoice for bitumen

from National Oil Ethiopia Plc dated June 19, 2014 and cement from
Derba Midroc Cement Plc dated June 19, 2014. However, TAC noted
that theattached pricequotation/ performa Invoice as documentary
evidence does not show whether or not the base price for bitumen and
cement are valid at 28 days prior to the closing date for submission of bid
i.e June 19, 2014.

Hence, if found successful, the bidder shall be requested to submit base price
for bitumen and cement for the applicable date which is 28 days prior to
bid opening.
Gollagual Trading Plc. However, TAC has noted that base price quotation
for reinforcement does not include VAT.
base price including VAT for reinforcement bar which is valid at 28
days prior to the closing date for submission of bid as per Requirement
of bidding document.
 The bidder has submitted price index for equipment from U.S Bureau of
Labor Statistics for the date not prevailing 28 days prior to the latest date
for bid submission.
Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to submit price index for
equipment for the applicable date which is 28 days prior to bid opening
i.e. June19, 2014.
China First Highway Engineering Co., Ltd.
 The bidder has submitted price index for equipment and Foreign Labor
from National Bureau of Statistics China Economic Monitoring and
Analysis Centre (CEMAC) for the date not prevailing 28 days prior to the
latest date for bid submission.
equipment, Foreign Labor for the applicable date which is 28 days prior
to bid opening i.e. June 19, 2014.
 The bidder has considered equipment under local currency portion

adjustment while it is proposed to be provided from foreign market
namely from National Bureau of Statistics China Economic Monitoring
and Analysis Centre (CEMAC).

regard; otherwise TAC advised the item is better to be considered only
under foreign portion adjustment.
 In summary of the payment currencies of the bid, the bidder has specified
local currency proportion (ETB) and foreign currency proportion (USD)
to be 70% and 30% of the bid price respectively.
However,TAC noted that the addendum No.1,item No.2 issued to the

Bidding Documentstates that “Foreign bidders shall quote entirely in the
currency of the Employer’s country but may specify the percentages,

within the maximum permissible limit of 20% of foreign currency or

currencies (up to three) they require in accordance with clause 11.”
TAC noted that Instruction to Bidders (ITB), Clause 23: Determination of

Responsiveness, sub clauses 23.2 and 23.3 state respectively;
‘For the purpose of this Clause, a substantially responsive bid is one,
which conforms to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the
Bidding Documents without material deviation or reservation. A
material deviation or reservation is one which affects in any substantial
way the scope, quality or performance of the works, inconsistent with the
Bidding Documents, the Employer’s rights or the bidder’s obligations
under the contract, and the rectification of which deviation or reservation
would affect unfairly the competitive position of other bidders presenting
substantially responsive bids.
If a Bid is not substantially responsive to the requirements of the Bidding
Documents, it will be rejected by the Employer, and may not subsequently
be made responsive by the bidder having corrected or withdrawn non-
conforming deviation or reservation’.
TAC noted also that Particular Information to Instruction to Bidders,

clause 14.1 of Bidding Documents statesthat “Variations in bidding
document are not permitted and submission/inclusion of variations will
lead to rejection of the bid.”
Hence, TAC has rejected the bidder from further assessment as per cited
clauses.
China Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltd
NE- TSA Private Limited Company whose reputability could not be
confirmed during evaluation. Moreover, base price quotation for
reinforcement does not include VAT.
base price including VAT for reinforcement bar which is valid at 28
days prior to the closing date for submission of bid i.e. June19, 2014 as
per Requirement of bidding document. Moreover, the bidder should be
requested to provide evidence for repeatability of NE- TSA Private
Limited Company.
for bid submission.
i.e. June19, 2014.

 The bidder has submitted price indexes for equipment and Foreign Labor
from National Bureau of Statistics China Economic Monitoring and
Analysis Centre (CEMAC) which are not valid at 28 days prior to the
latest date for bid submission.
equipment and Foreign Labor for the applicable date which is 28 days
prior to bid opening i.e. June 19, 2014.
 The bidder has considered equipment and bitumen under local currency
portion adjustment while they are proposed to be provided from foreign
market namely from U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics and California paving
Asphalt Price Index respectively.
Hence, if found successful,the bidder shall be requested to clarify his

intention on this regard; otherwise TAC advised the items are better to
be considered only under foreign portion adjustment.
 Moreover, the bidder has considered fuel, steel reinforcement bar and
cement under foreign currency portion adjustment while they are
proposed to be provided from local market namely from National Oil
Ethiopia Plc, Ne-Tsa and Messebo CementFactory Plc respectively.

regard; otherwise TAC advised the items are better to be considered only
under local currency portion adjustment.
DMC Construction Plc
 Base price for cement is quoted from a company named Derba –Midroc
Cement Plc.However, the base price quotation does not include any tax
rate.
Hence, if found successful, the bidder shall be requested to submit the base
price including all applicable taxes for cement which is valid at 28 days
prior to the closing date for submission of bid i.e. June19, 2014 as per
Requirement of bidding document.
Abyssinia Integrated Steel Plc whose reputability could not be confirmed
during evaluation. Moreover, TAC noted that the base price is not valid at
28 days prior to the closing date for submission of bid i.e June19, 2014.
Besides, base price quotation for reinforcement does not include VAT.

base price for reinforcement bar which is valid at 28 days prior to the
closing date for submission of bid i.e. June19, 2014 as per Requirement
of bidding document. Moreover, the bidder should be requested to

provide evidence for repeatability of Abyssinia Integrated Steel

Plc.Moreover, the bidder should be requested to submit base price for
steel reinforcement bar including VAT.
for bid submission.
i.e. June19, 2014.
Macro General Contractor & Trading Plc
 Base price for cement is quoted from a company named Messebo Cement
Factory Plc. However, TAC noted that the base price is not valid at 28
days prior to the closing date for submission of bid i.e June19, 2014.
base price for cement which is valid at 28 days prior to the closing date
for submission of bid i.e. June19, 2014 as per Requirement of bidding
document.
 The bidder provided base value for Equipment from U.S Bureau of Labor
Statistics. However, the price index is provisional for May 2014 which is
not for the date prevailing 28 days prior to the last date of bid submission
i.e. June 19, 2014.
Hence, if found successful, the bidder shall submit final price index for
equipment for the applicable date which is 28 days prior to bid opening.
Fisseha H/Michael General Importerwhose reputability could not be
confirmed during evaluation.
Hence, if found successful, the bidder should be requested to provide

evidence for repeatability of Fisseha H/Michael General Importer.
b) Substantial responsiveness
The following information was checked whether or not:

- the Bidder, including each partner of a joint venture, has only participated in
one bid,
- the Bidder has responded, in the bid, to all the requirements of the issued Bid
Addenda,
- the original and copies of the Bid are substantially identical, and,
- the Bid is free from unacceptable material deviation or reservation.

All bidders have complied with these requirements except Gemshu Beyene
Construction Plc and China First Highway Engineering Co., Ltdon specific
requirement as highlighted in the section 3.6 and 4 above respectively.
4.2 Detailed Evaluation of Bids
4.2.1 Financial Evaluation of Bids
The Bid has been examined in detail under the following headings:
a) Consideration for modifications and discounts
b) Adjustment for evaluation currency, additions, and priced deviations
c) Margin of Preference to Domestic Bidders
a) Consideration for modifications and discounts
There was no bidder who made discount on its bid price. Hence, TAC has not
made modification this regards.
b) Adjustment for evaluation currency, additions, and priced deviations
In bids submitted by the bidder, there is no deviation made in accordance with

Clause 25.2(c) of the Instruction to Bidders. Hence there are no adjustments
made for such conditions.
However, adjustment to evaluation currency has been made to the bid submitted
by AL Asab General Transport and Contracting Establishment and China
Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltdas the exchange rate indicated is not the selling
exchange rate applicable on the 28 days prior to the latest submission of bids, i.e.
June 19, 2014. Hence, TAC has made corrections to compare the bids in single
currency as indicated in table 4.1 below.
(Copy of Exchange rate is attached as Annex -5)

Table 4.1:Currency Conversion
I/No Name of Bidder Corrected and / Payment Composition Exchang Amounts in Exchange Evaluation Currency
. or Discounted e Rate currency of Rate for
Bid Price in Currency Percent Amount in Used by Payment Evaluatio Bid Prices Total
(Specified of of Total Evaluation Bidder n
Currency) Payment Bid Currency
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (b) x(d) (f) (g) = (e)/(f) (h) (i) = (g) x (h) (j)
AL Asab 1,038,400,000.0 1,038,400,000.0 1,038,400,000.0
ETB 80.00% 1 1
1. General Transport 1,298,000, 0 0 0
1,295,390,994.03
and Contracting 000.00
USD 20.00% 259,600,000.00 19.9401 13,018,991.88 19.7397 256,990,994.03
Establishment
ASER
2. ETB 100.00% 613,165,000.00 1 613,165,000.00 1 613,165,000.00 613,165,000.00
Construction Plc 613,165,000.00
China Railway ETB 80.00% 651,944,375.41 1 651,944,375.41 1 651,944,375.41
814,930,
Seventh Group 813,332,101.48
3. 469.26 USD 20.00% 162,986,093.85 19.9352 8,175,794.27 19.7397 161,387,726.07
Co. Ltd
DMC 1,086,456,000.0 1,086,456,000.0 1,086,456,000.0
5. ETB 100.00% 1 1 1,086,456,000.00
Construction plc 1,086,456,000.00 0 0 0
Macro General
6. Contractor & ETB 100.00% 673,244,700.00 1 673,244,700.00 1 673,244,700.00 673,244,700.00
673,244,700.00
Trading Plc.

Finally, the corrected bid price after applying Adjustment for evaluation currency is
shown in table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2: Corrected/Discounted offer
I/No. Name of Bidder Corrected and /or Evaluated Bid Price

Discounted Bid Price after applying
currency conversion
1. 1,298,000,000.00 1,295,390,994.03
2. ASER Construction Plc 613,165,000.00 613,165,000.00
China Railway Seventh Group
814,930,469.26 813,332,101.48
3. Co. Ltd
4. DMC Construction Plc 1,086,456,000.00 1,086,456,000.00
5. 673,244,700.00 673,244,700.00
Trading Plc
c) Domestic Preference
As per Clause 26.1 of the Instruction to Bidders of the Bidding document, domestic bidders
who meet the following criteria are eligible for a 7½ percent margin of preference in the
comparison of their bids with those of bidders who do not qualify for the preference. A
domestic bidder is one that meets the following criteria:
(a) for an individual firm:

(i) is registered in the country of the Employer;
(ii) has more than 50 percent ownership by nationals of the country of the Employer;
(iii) does not subcontract more than 10 percent of the Contract Price to foreign
contractors.
(b) for a joint venture (JV) of domestic firms:
(i) Individual member firms shall satisfy Sub-Paragraphs 26.3 (a) (i) and (a) (ii)
above;
(ii) the JV shall be registered in the country of the Employer;
(iii) the JV shall not subcontract more than 10 percent of the Contract Price,
excluding Provisional Sums to foreign firms.
The following procedure will be used to apply the margin of preference:

(a) After bids have been converted to a single currency in accordance with the
provisions of Paragraphs 31.2 (c), responsive bids will be classified into the
following groups:
(i) Group A: bids offered by domestic bidders and joint ventures meeting the criteria
set out in the above Sub-Clause 26.3; and
(ii) Group B: all other bids
(b) For the purpose of further evaluation and comparison of bids only, an amount
equal to 7½ percent of the evaluated Bid Price determined in accordance with the

provisions of Paragraphs 25.2 (a), (b) and (c), will be added to all bids classified in
Group B.
Accordingly, TAC has added 7½ percent to the offerof non-eligible bidders as per the provision
of the tender document which is shown in the table 4.3below.
Table 4.3: Correction for Domestic Preference with their rank
I/N Name of Bidder Corrected and/ or Eligible Add 7.5 % for Total Evaluated Rank
o. Discounted for Non-Eligible Offer after
Offerafter Domestic Bidders Applying
applying currency Preference (Group B)
Domestic
Conversion
Preference
1. ASER Construction Plc 613,165,000.00 Yes 613,165,000.00 1
Macro General Contractor
2. 673,244,700.00 Yes 673,244,700.00 2
& Trading Plc.
China Railway Seventh
3. 813,332,101.48 No 60,999,907.61 874,332,009.09 3
Group Co. Ltd
4. DMC Construction plc 1,086,456,000.00 Yes 1,086,456,000.00 4
AL Asab General
5. Transport and Contracting 1,295,390,994.03 No 97,154,324.55 1,392,545,318.58 5
Establishment
4.2.2 Comparison of Bid Price with Engineer’s Cost Estimate

The Engineer’sCost Estimatewas prepared by Core Consulting Engineers Plc.The final
Engineer’s Cost Estimate (EE) submitted at the end of January 2014. The Engineer’s
Cost Estimate (EE) was ETB 745,002,880.60including 4%Design, Surveying&
Exploration, 11.5% Physical Contingency (Risk Assessment),5% Construction
Warranty and 15%VAT.
Consequently, the corrected and discounted bid price ofASER Construction Plc is
82.3% as compared to the Engineer’s Cost Estimate; and that ofMacro General
Contractor & Trading Plcis 90.4%%, China Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltd is
109.4%, DMC Construction Plc is 145.8% and AL Asab General Transport and
Contracting Establishment is 174.2%.
Summary of such comparison is indicated in Table 4.4 below.

[
Table 4.4:Comparison ofBidders' Offer with the Engineer’s Cost Estimate
Bidders'
I/ No. Name of firm Bidders' Offer Offer/Engineer’s
CostEstimate (%)
1. ASER Construction Plc 613,165,000.00 82.3%
2. 673,244,700.00 90.4%
Trading Plc
China Railway Seventh
3. 814,930,469.26 109.4%
Group Co. Ltd
4. DMC Construction Plc 1,086,456,000.00 145.8%
5. 1,298,000,000.00 174.2%

As it can be seen from the above table, the offer provided by the lowest evaluated
bidder,ASER Construction Plc, is 17.7% lower than the Engineer’s Cost Estimate,
[
which is acceptable.
In order to see the weighting contribution of each bill group so as to see the volume of
works having major contribution for the total estimated cost, TAC has taken the
summary of the Bill of Quantity of the Engineer’s CostEstimate as shown in the
table4.5 below.
Table 4.5: Summary of Bill of Quantities of the Engineer’s CostEstimate
Weighting
Total Amount of
Bill Group Contribution of the
Description Engineer's Cost
No. Engineer's Cost
Estimate
Estimate
Bill No.1 General 63,608,865.69 11.8%
Bill No.2 Site Clearance 2,891,531.94 0.5%
Bill No.3 Drainage 81,176,814.23 15.1%
Bill No.4 Earthworks 68,878,807.90 12.8%
Bill No.5 Sub-Base and Road Base 109,021,482.10 20.3%
Gravel wearing Course/
Bill No.6 165,223,186.55 30.7%
/DBST/Asphalt Concrete
Bill No.8 Structures 8,043,437.97 1.5%
Bill No.9 Ancillary Works 38,906,842.18 7.2%
Sub Total(excluding design works,
537,750,968.56 100.0%
Physical Contingencies , warranty Risk)
From the above table, TAC has understood that pavement structureshas comprised of
30.7% of the project overall cost and the major component of the work with respect to
volume of work.
To this effect, TAC has collected different projects to make comparison whether or not
theoffer provided by thelowest evaluated bidder is reasonable by taking cost per km of
other projects that werecurrently signed.
However, TAC could not found similar project as subject project consist of three
pavement structures/Pavement Composition for different sections of the Road.
The planned Koka to Debrezeit road will be constructed to DC4 (Low Volume Design
Class) Paved Surface with Double Surface Treatmentfor the first 20.5 km up to Adulala
Town followed by Double Surface Treatment section with DS4 Standard up to km
39+700(19.2km) and the final section shall be DS3 Asphalt Concrete Standard till the
end of the project(12.52km).
Hence, TAC could notmakecomparisonbased on cost per km of other projects that were
currently signed.
Therefore, TAC decided to verify Engineer’s Cost Estimate to check whether or not it
reflect the current market, the market price around submission of the Cost Estimate
(beginning of January 2014).

Accordingly TAC compared selected major items, which contributes 89.5% to the
Engineer’s Cost Estimate with average rates entered by the lowest evaluated bidders
of six recently signed road projects.
Table 4.6: List of Projects Selected forVerification of the Engineer’s Cost Estimate
Ite Name of Project Bid Submission Contract Signing

m Date Date
No.
1. Dansha-Abderafi- April 11, 2013 November 26, 2013
Maikadra
2. Bahirdar-Zema River February 28, 2013 September 09, 2013
Bridge
3. Gashena – Bilbala June 27, 2013 January 09, 2014
4. Konso-Yabello February 27, 2014 September 19,2014
5. Ambo-Wolliso February 27, 2014 October 14,2014
6. Adaba-Angetu December 05, 2013 October 03,2014
Summary of such comparison is indicated in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4.7: Verification of the Engineer’s Cost Estimate by Comparing of unit rates of major items with other recently signed projects
Average of six recently signed EE/ Weighting

Engineer's cost Estimate(EE) Average Contributi
Pay items Description Unit Quantity Contracts
Amount on in
Rate Amount Rate Amount (Current) %age
14.05(a) Provide Vehicle type B No 8 1,705,000.00 13,640,000.00 1,871,587.78 14,972,702.25 91.1% 2.5%
Fuel and lubricants, maintenance, insurance, for
veh-
14.06(b) type B vehicle, based on average 3000 192 43,181.27 8,290,803.89 25,533.91 4,902,510.83 169.1% 1.5%
month
km/month/vehicle
14.09(b) Type B Housing No 8 936,069.92 7,488,559.39 1,030,967.57 8,247,740.58 90.8% 1.4%
Accommodating and maintaining temporary
15.01 Km 52.20 133,172.09 6,951,583.03 61,701.66 3,220,826.42 215.8% 1.3%
diversion
32.01(a)i Excavation of Soft material irrespective of depth m3 89,089.00 63.25 5,635,112.54 95.94 8,547,347.14 65.9% 1.0%
Grade C25 concrete for Culverts(box/slab), inlet
and outlet structures and skewed ends Including
32.07(b) m3 2,256.00 4,240.24 9,565,988.88 4,270.79 9,634,901.26 99.3% 1.8%
formwork, false work, joints and class F2 surface
finish
32.17 Manhole No 791.00 39,283.59 31,073,319.69 14,711.86 11,637,078.62 267.0% 5.8%
Concrete curbing, Class ‘A’ (Type 1 -
33.01(a)i Lm 15,806.00 474.62 7,501,831.56 381.94 6,036,929.41 124.3% 1.4%
17cmx45cm)
Concrete curbing, Class ‘A’ (Type 2 -
33.01(a)ii Lm 15,806.00 322.67 5,100,199.70 343.11 5,423,190.97 94.0% 0.9%
20cmx25cm)
34.03(b)i Cement mortared stone masonry (minor drainages) m3 8,020.00 1,566.94 12,566,864.05 1,453.13 11,654,101.16 107.8% 2.3%
3
41.01(b)ii Removal of unsuitable material m 150,475.00 50.97 7,669,431.68 59.94 9,019,714.77 85.0% 1.4%
Road bed Preparation and Compaction of Material
compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density
41.03 m3 102,393.00 89.05 9,117,962.34 66.27 6,785,461.24 134.4% 1.7%
determined in accordance with AASHTO T-180 of
20cm thickness
Borrow to fill/embankment, compaction to 93%
42.01(b) m3 86,838.00 129.25 11,224,150.35 130.65 11,345,153.13 98.9% 2.1%
AASHTO T-181
42.03(a) Common (normal) excavation to spoil m3 117,231.00 68.61 8,043,352.65 51.31 6,015,083.53 133.7% 1.5%
44.05a) Construction of Improved Sub grade(15%) m3 34,134.00 132.00 4,505,688.00 118.05 4,029,466.36 111.8% 0.8%
3
44.05(b) Construction of Improved Sub grade(8%) m 186,964.00 132.00 24,679,248.00 118.05 22,070,813.52 111.8% 4.6%
51.01(a)i Gravel sub-base layer, 95% MDD, AASHTO T- m3 141,275.03 263.23 37,187,824.83 189.85 26,820,893.97 138.7% 6.9%

Average of six recently signed EE/ Weighting

Engineer's cost Estimate(EE) Average Contributi
Pay items Description Unit Quantity Contracts
Rate Amount Rate Amount Amount on in
180 (Current) %age
Base layer, crushed stone, 103% compaction

52.01(b)ii m3 105,239.96 636.53 66,988,831.20 513.94 54,087,298.36 123.9% 12.5%
(maximum compacted thickness 200mm )
54.01(b)ii Gravel shoulder wearing Coarse m3 18,405.30 263.23 4,844,826.07 236.38 4,350,718.10 111.4% 0.9%
2
61.01(a) MC-30,Cutback Bitumen (1 Lit/m ) Lt 416,459.00 44.19 18,403,323.21 36.89 15,364,366.36 119.8% 3.4%
2
62.01 RC-70 cutback bitumen (1 Lit/m ) Lt 228,398.00 44.19 10,092,907.62 36.79 8,402,846.17 120.1% 1.9%
Double surface dressing, using 19mm and 9.5mm
63C.01(a) m2 302,260.00 130.70 39,505,382.00 95.00 28,714,700.00 137.6% 7.3%
chipping, including binder MC-3000
150mm Asphaltic surfacing with penetration grade
64.02(a) m3 17,129.85 5,559.33 95,230,546.10 5,573.98 95,481,389.91 99.7% 17.7%
60/70 bitumen**
92.01(a) RC Guide posts No 6,802.00 553.85 3,767,307.25 565.55 3,846,843.33 97.9% 0.7%
Concrete tiles Constructed with 400*400*50 Pre
colored concrete on a sand bed (Maximum 4%
99.01(a) m2 33,667.00 962.83 32,415,597.61 391.61 13,184,261.49 245.9% 6.0%
weight of cement )of 50 mm thick including the
necessary jointing works using this stabilized sand.
Subtotal 481,490,641.65 393,796,338.88 89.5%
EE/ Average
EE against Average Amount(*) for major pay items selected for comparison =122.3%
Amount*
Note(*): The Average amount is determined by multiplying respective average rates of six currently signed road projects and quantity of selected major
pay items of the subject projectselected for comparison.
**Item 64.02(a) “Continuously graded asphaltic surfacing, 150 mm thick” is not common on ERA projects. TAC noted that all the projects selected for
the comparison purpose has continuously graded asphaltic surfacing,50 mm thick.Therefore, TAC has converted Item 64.02(a) “Continuously
graded asphalt concrete, 50 mm thick” to develop rate for the bituminous road base only for comparison purpose by considering the bitumen
content and the thickness of construction.

As it can be seen in the above table 4.7,
1) The Engineer’s Cost Estimate for major pay items is 122.3% compared to
average amount of currently awarded six contracts taking in consideration the
input quantity of the subject project.
TAC assumes that the increment may be forfollowingreasons;
a) TAC revisited the Concept Engineering Design Report& Employer’s

requirement and noted the followings;
 Many of the in-situ sub grade materials in the project are expansive or weak
which shall be removed and replaced for proper performance of the
pavement. The majority of the subgrade soils along the route alignment are
dark grey silty clay soils that are mostly weak and hence considered as poor
roadbed materials and could cause considerable damage to the pavement
structure unless proper treatment measures are considered in construction.
Therefore, it is recommended to remove and replace such weak and

unsuitable existing road bed materials with a suitable imported material.
 Furthermore, long swampy and seasonally water logging sections are

encountered at the start of the project which is characterized by flat
topography. In the rainy period Mojo and Awash Rivers flood the right and
left side of the road section between km 0+000 up to 9+500.
Embankments on seasonally water logging or swampy stretches shall be

treated as follows.
- The finished sub grade shall be raised to a minimum fill height of 1.2
meters above the original ground level.
- The bottom 60 cm fill on swampy subgrade sections shall be
constructed with rock fill which consists of boulders and gravels and
the embankment above the rock fill shall be constructed by a selected
material with a minimum CBR value of 8% and the fill shall be
constructed in such a way that relatively coarser materials are placed on
top of the rock fill and selected materials are reserved for subgrade
finishing. It is recommended to undercut to a depth of 1m and fill the
bottom 600mm with granular rock fill compacted with heavy dozers
and the top 400mm with improved sub-grade be compacted in two
layers of 200mm.
 The other major geotechnical aspect is the presence of erodible soils. The full
width of the road (both the carriage way and the shoulder) where erodible
soils exist shall be paved, the side drains (longitudinal ditches) shall also be
lined with masonry paved water way, turn outs shall be constructed in short
possible intervals to avoid concentrated flow of water, secondary ditches and
check dams shall be constructed to dissipate the energy of storm water

running parallel to the road.The gullies in the eroded section shall be filled
layer by layer with approved granular materials.
Based on the field observations and laboratory testing carried out indicates
that weak dark grey subgrade materials dominated the route. These soils
have shown lower CBR values and shall be replaced.
 The project area is traversing completely in flat terrain in which construction

of embankment can easily form ponding as well as during high flood of
Awash river, the road encroach in some locations. The majority of project
route traversing inseasonal/permanent swamp areas.
For this reason the following minimum spacing of relief culverts are
recommended for environmental and hydraulics requirements in addition to
the structures to be installed on clearly defined channel.
- In permanent swamp area pipe culverts of 1.10m diameter is
recommended at a spacing of 100m.
- In seasonally swampy area pipe culvert of 1.10m diameter is
recommended at spacing of 200m.
- IT requires sufficient embankment height (minimum 1.5 to 2m
throughout the stretch of road). Moreover, provision of a defined
channel approach for the rivers near the crossing points shall be
practiced for safety reason.
 Only three possible sources were identified as crushed aggregate sources.

The quarry material at km 30+080 is dominated with vesicular basalts and
cannot be used as an Asphalt aggregate source.
On the other hand, the Engineer’s Cost Estimate for major pay items is
122.3% compared to average amountof currently awarded six contracts and
this is for the reason that the item related to availability of construction
material covers higher cost of the project.In addition, the cost of hauling
these materials from alternative material sites and specific site situation/
condition which related with special treatment made the rates of some items
to be higher than average market rates.
[
2) Three out of six roadprojects selected for comparison purpose were submitted
averagely before seven months of submission of the Engineer’s Cost Estimate
and price adjustments have not been made for this period.Should it had been
updated, it reflects the current market price; and as a result, Engineer’s Cost which
seems exaggerated may roughly match with unit rates of the average rates of
currently awarded six contracts.
3) TAC noted that the majority of unit rates of Engineer’s cost Estimate for major pay
items are lower than and/or a little bit higher than the average rates of six currently
signed projects except the unit rate ofthree pay items, namely; 15.01-
Accommodating and maintaining temporary diversion, 32.17-manhole and
99.01(a)-concreteTile which is215.8%, 267.0% and 245.9%with weighting
contribution 1.3%,5.8% and 6%.

However, TAC has noted this pay items contribute to the Engineer’s Cost Estimate
only 13.1%.
Whereas the unit rates of rest major pay items which contribute 76.4% to
Engineer’s Cost Estimate as compared to the average rates of currently awarded
six contracts is in the range of 65.9% up to 169.1%.
TAC has the opinion that such price deviation is occurred due to the difference of
quality of materials, workmanship, construction methodology to be adopted,
production rate, transporting in delivering the required items and difference of
specific site situation of each project.
Due to the above stated reasons in section 4.2.2 under item (1),(2) and
(3),Engineer’s cost Estimate rate is reasonable and reflects the current market
price.
Hence, considering the above comparison of the lowest evaluated bidder offer’s
with the Engineer’s Cost Estimate and,verification of the Engineer’s Cost
Estimate made by Comparing with average rates of currently signed six road
projects,TAC found that the offer provided by ASER Construction Plcto be
acceptable.
5. RECOMMENDATION
In view of the outcome of the assessment made for award, the Tender Analysis
Committee recommends ASER Construction Plcbe invited for the pre-contract
discussion and eventual award for Design and Construction of Koka - Adulala -
Debrezeit Road project as per the following details: -
Name: ASER Construction Plc

Country Ethiopia
Original Bid price Total Lump sum cost of ETB613,165,000.00(Ethiopian
Birr: Six Hundred Thirteen Million, One Hundred Sixty
Five Thousand Only) including 15% VAT
Currency proportions: 100% Local Currency (Ethiopian Birr)
Exchange Rate N/A
Computational Errors: None
Discount : None
Proposed for Award: Total Lump sum cost of ETB 613,165,000.00 (Ethiopian
Birr: Six Hundred Thirteen Million, One Hundred Sixty
Five Thousand Only) including 15% VAT
This recommendationto invite ASER Construction Plcfor pre-contract award

discussion and eventual award of the contract is given subject to the receipt of
satisfactory clarifications, confirmations and/or additional information to the
points highlighted in different section of the report and as highlighted below.
I. General
 The bidder has confirmed through its Letter of Application not to sub-contact
a portion of contract price. However, TAC noted that the bidder stated in
Appendix to Tender/Bid “The Value of subcontracting shall be at least 20%
of the contract price and maximum of 40% of the contract price. At least two
sub-contractors shall be employed under this contract. A minimum of 10% of
the contract price shall be sub contracted to each domestic subcontractor
with category of GC5/RC5 to GC3/RC3inclusive; this portion of
subcontracting work shall be earthworks and/or sub base, road base and
gravel wearing coarse and/or bituminous surfacing”.
Hence, TAC recommends that the bidder shall be requested to clarify the
discrepancy and confirm to subcontract at least 20% of the contract price to
domestic contractors in compliance to minimum requirement of the bidding
document during the pre-contract award discussion.

II. Major Construction Equipment
 The bidder has proposed the majority of the required equipment which
fulfills the minimum requirement set in the bidding document. However, the
bidder only proposed one Steel flat wheel roller (9 – 10 Ton) and one
Concrete mixer; whereas the minimum requirement set in the bidding
document were two for each equipment.
Therefore, the firm shall be requested to provide all the required equipment
at the right time for the proper implementation of the project as per
minimum requirement set in the bidding document.
III.Work Schedule
The activity schedule has the following shortcomings:
 The schedule does not show the critical path and the number of working
fronts, the working space diagram.
 The schedule does not show the resources associate with each construction
operation, histogram of equipment, personnel and material supply.
TAC considers the schedule was poor and recommends requesting the bidder
during pre-contract award discussion to submit acceptable schedule as per
clause 4.14 of the special condition of contract.
IV. Work Methodology

The bidder has presented satisfactory methodology with regard to the design
and construction. However, the following shortcomings have been noted.
 The majority of presented methodology on the detailed Engineering design

is copy of ERA’s old and /or new Design ToR.
Hence, TAC recommends that bidder should be requested to submit detailed
methodology for detailed Engineering design as per Employer’s
Requirement.

 The bidder specified in its design methodology as it will prepare BoQ

including fixing corresponding unit rates. Moreover, the bidder also stated
that it will prepare confidential Engineering cost estimates and submit to
client.
TAC is of opinion that as the subject project being Design and Built Project
Delivery System (DB), Priced BoQ and unit rate will not be part of the
works contract document.
Measurement and Payment provisions of the construction specification for

Design and Built Project Delivery System (DB) shall be Lump sum basis
and shall be paid upon completion of each of the work items based on the
percentage proportion provided in the works contract document.
Hence, TAC recommends that the bidder shall be requested for clarification
regarding the issue during negotiation and should be requested to confirm
to tailor its methodology specific to the project.
 In its construction methodology, bidder stated “Access Road Project to

Legatafo Waste Disposal Land fill”.
However, TAC has noted that the firm has exclusively presented its
methodologies for the intended works (Design and Construction of Koka-
Adulala-Debrezeit Road Project). Hence, TAC has considered this as
unintentionally error.
However, the bidder shall be requested to clarify the same and confirm to
submit revised work schedule considering the above shortcomings while
submitting his contractual Clause 4.14 Work Programme during pre-
contract award discussion. The bidder should also be requested to confirm
the project duration should by as per the bidding document.
V. Financial Bid
 The bidder has submitted price quotation/performa Invoice for bitumen from
National Oil Ethiopia Plc dated June 19, 2014 and cement from Derba
Midroc Cement Plc dated June 19, 2014.However, TAC noted that the
attached price quotation/ performa Invoice as documentary evidence does not
show whether or not the base price for bitumen and cement are valid at 28
days prior to the closing date for submission of bid i.e June 19, 2014.
Hence,the bidder shall be requested to submit base price for bitumen and
cement for the applicable date which is 28 days prior to bid opening.
Gollagual Trading Plc. However, TAC has noted that base price quotation for
reinforcement does not include VAT.
Hence, the bidder shall be requested to submit the base priceincluding VAT
for reinforcement bar which is valid at 28 days prior to the closing date for
submission of bid as per Requirement of bidding document.
Labor Statistics for the date not prevailing 28 days prior to the latest date for
bid submission.
Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to submit price index for equipment
for the applicable date which is 28 days prior to bid opening i.e. June19,
2014.

Annex-1
Notice of Invitation for Bid
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page i

Annex-2
Copies of responses for Queries and Addenda
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page ii

Annex-3
Summary of Post Qualification Evaluation
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page iii

Annex-4
Copy of Bid Opening Form and Attendance Sheet
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page iv

Annex-5
Copy of Exchange Rate
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page v

This page is intentionally left blank!
Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page vi

2financial BID Evaluation Report For Koka-Adulala-Debrezeit After CAC's Review & Printed Out, Dec12,2014

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

2financial BID Evaluation Report For Koka-Adulala-Debrezeit After CAC's Review & Printed Out, Dec12,2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Construction of Koka - Adulala - Debrezeit Road Project Ethiopian Roads Authority

Annex-1 Copy of Notice of Invitation for Bid

Annex-2 Copies of Responses for Queries and Addenda

Annex-3 Summary of Post Qualification Evaluation

Annex-4 Copies of Bid Opening Forms and Attendance Sheet

Annex-5 Exchange Rate

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page i

The Tender Analysis Committee comprises of three Civil Engineers from

2.1 The Project

Hence, ERA intends to construct Koka-Adulala-Debrezeit using the service of

The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has allocated

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 1

3.1 Invitation to bids

(Copy of Notice of Invitation is attached as Annex 1)

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 2

3.2 Pre-Bid Meeting

I/No Description Date issued to

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 3

3.3 Opening of Qualification Application

3.4 Post Qualification Evaluation and Result

Table 3.4: List of Qualified Bidders

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 4

I./N0 Bidder’s Name Country of Registration

Table 3.5:List of Rejected Bidder

(Copy of Summary of Post Qualification Evaluation Result is attached as Annex 3)

3.5 Financial Bid Opening

Following the endorsement of the post-qualification evaluation outcome by the

Table 3.6: Read out Bid Price

I/ Read Out Bid

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 5

TAC noted also that Particular Information to Instruction to Bidders, clause

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 6

4.1 Preliminary Examination

a) Completeness of Bid, and

Under this heading the following were examined whether or not:

- the Form of Bid is properly signed,

- the Bid is submitted in the English Language,

- the bid contains any alternations, omissions or additions.

AL Asab General Transport and Contracting Establishment

Hence, if found successful, the bidder shall be requested to submit the

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 7

bidder should be requested to submit base price for steel reinforcement

Hence, if found successful, the bidder shall be requested to submit the

 The bidder has considered equipment under local currency portion

Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to clarify his intention on this

 Moreover, the bidder has considered fuel&bitumen, steel reinforcement

ASER Construction Plc

 The bidder has submitted price quotation/performa Invoice for bitumen

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 8

China First Highway Engineering Co., Ltd.

 The bidder has considered equipment under local currency portion

Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to clarify his intention on this

However,TAC noted that the addendum No.1,item No.2 issued to the

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 9

within the maximum permissible limit of 20% of foreign currency or

TAC noted that Instruction to Bidders (ITB), Clause 23: Determination of

TAC noted also that Particular Information to Instruction to Bidders,

China Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltd

Bid Evaluation Report December 2014 Page 10

Hence, if found successful,the bidder shall be requested to clarify his

Therefore, the bidder shall be requested to clarify his intention on this

DMC Construction Plc

Hence, if found successful, the bidder shall be requested to submit the