ROADS & BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
UPGRADATION TO 6 LANE WITH PAVED SHOULDERS OF AHMEDABAD -
BAGODARA SECTION OF NH 8A (NEW NH 47) FROM KM 16+000 TO KM
56+000 ON EPC MODE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT (PACKAGE 1)
EPC CONTRACTOR- SCIW-MIPL-MSKEL(JV)

UPGRADATION TO 6 LANE WITH PAVED SHOULDER OF

BAGODARA - LIMBDI SECTION OF NH 8A (NEW NH 47)
FROM KM 56+000 TO KM 99+000 ON EPC MODE
IN STATE OF GUJARAT (PACKAGE - 2)
EPC CONTRACTOR- SADBHAV ENGINEERING LIMITED

M/s Theme Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur.

 Location Map

2
 SALIENT FEATURES OF AHMEDABAD -
BAGODARA SECTION OF NH 8A (NEW NH 47) FROM KM 16+000 TO KM 56+000 ON EPC
MODE IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT (PACKAGE 1)

S. NO. PARTICULARS DETAILS

1 Length 40.060 Km
2 Name of the Concessionaire M/s. SCIW-MIPL-MSKEL(JV)

3 Date of Award 01.12.17

4 Appointed Date 08.01.2018

5 Name of the Authority Engineer Theme Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.

6 Agreement Date 31.05.2018

7 Commencement date 31.05.2018

8 Total Project Cost Rs. 440.880 Cr.
9 Time Limit 2 Years
10 Major Structures 1 Flyover, 1 RoBs

11 Minor Structures 11 Minor Bridges, 8 VUPs

12 Total No of structure 62
13 Service road length 8.336 KM
3
 SALIENT FEATURES OF BAGODARA - LIMBDI SECTION OF NH 8A (NEW NH 47)
FROM KM 56+000 TO KM 99+000 ON EPC MODE IN STATE OF GUJARAT
(PACKAGE - 2)

S. NO. PARTICULARS DETAILS

1 Length 43.065 Km
2 Name of the Concessionaire M/s. SADBHAV ENGINEERING LIMITED

3 Date of Award 13.10.2017

4 Appointed Date 08.01.2018

5 Name of the Authority Engineer Theme Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.

6 Agreement Date 31.05.2018
7 Commencement date 31.05.2018
8 Total Project Cost Rs. 502.74 Cr.
9 Time Limit 2 Years
10 Major Structures 6 Nos ( 3 MJB & 3 Flyover)
11 Minor Structures 25 Nos.
12 Total No of structure 31
13 Service road length 4.524 KM
4
 Milestone-Package-I & II
Project % Stage As per Status of
Milestone Payment to be Schedule 'J" Milestones
achieved

I 10% 7/7/2018
(180th day from Appointed Date)
II 30% 8/1/2019 --
(365th day from Appointed Date)
III 60% 12/7/2019 --
(550th day from Appointed Date)
Scheduled 100% 8/1/2020 --
Completion (730th day from the Appointed
Date)

5
 Design Review Status

6
 Plan & Profile Drawings
Status of Submission & Review of Plan & Profile of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi Package-I (From km 126.720 to km
148.000)
Submission Complianc Details of
Reviewed & Comments by
S.No. Section date of e Date by Reviewed by Theme HO Deficiencies/
Theme HO
Contractor Contractor Annexure
At a few locations horizontal
curve length is less as per
standard .Vertical Curves VIP to
VIP Distance is not as per
To provide Design data in soft
06.07.2018 09.07.2018 Standards. Designed on SSD A3
copy on dated 06.07.2018
From Km 126 instead of ISD and Design FRL is
1
to km 142 less than CA FRL. Deficiencies
communicated on dated
16.07.2018 & 18.07.2018
Design to be carried out as per
Compliances
Standards and Manual on Pending A4
on 25.07.2018
dated 30.07.2018
At a few locations horizontal
curve length is less as per
standard .Vertical Curves VIP to
To provide Design data in soft VIP Distance is not as per
From km 142
24.07.2018 copy & Clear Copy in PDF, on 25.07.2018 Standards. Designed on SSD A5
to km 148
dated 25.07.2018 instead of ISD and Design FRL is
2
less than CA FRL. Deficiencies
communicated on 16.07.2018 &
27.07.2018
Design to be carried out as per
Compliances
Standards and Manual on Pending A6
on 28.07.2018
dated 30.07.2018

7
 Plan & Profile Drawings
Status of Submission & Review of Plan & Profile of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi (Package-II) (From 83.655 to 126.720)
Submission Reviewed & Details of
Compliance Date by
S.No. Section date of Comments by Theme Reviewed by Theme HO Deficiencies/
Contractor
Contractor HO Annexure
At a few locations horizontal
curve length is less as per
standard .Vertical Curves VIP to
From Km To provide Design VIP Distance is not as per
83.655 to km 28.06.2018 data in soft copy on 09.07.2018 Standards. Designed on SSD A1
126.720 dated 28.06.2018 instead of ISD and Design FRL
1
is less than CA FRL.
Deficiencies communicated on
16.07.2018 & 18.07.2018
To provide data in soft
Compliances
copy on dated A2
08.09.2018
11.09.2018

8
 Pavement & Traffic Survey Report-Package-I
Status of Submission of Pavement & Traffic Survey Report Design Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi (Package-
II) (From 83.655 to 126.720) & Package-I (From km 126.720 to km 148.000)
Reviewed &
Submission Compliance
Comments Reviewed by Compliance
S.No. Section date of Date by Date by Remarks
by Theme Theme HO
Contractor Contractor Contractor
HO
Effective CBR-10%
14.08.2018
However
AADT- 18786
design
PCU-41080
documents has
(at km 27.000)
not been
Compliance by signed by
29.06.2018 AADT-21676
the contractor Design
Pack I (from Observations PCU-35490
1 19.07.2018 & Director , Proof
(MSKL) Ahmedabad dt 12.7.2018 (at km 47.900)
Annexure on Consultant and
Office)
03.08.2018. Safety
Crust Composition :-
Contractor. To
BC 50mm
be got signed
DBM 120 mm
before issuing
WMM 250 mm
letter to
GSB 200 mm
contractor.
Total 620mm

9
 Pavement & Traffic Survey Report-Package-II
Status of Submission of Pavement & Traffic Survey Report Design Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi (Package-
II) (From 83.655 to 126.720) & Package-I (From km 126.720 to km 148.000)
Reviewed &
Submission Compliance
Comments Reviewed by Compliance
S.No. Section date of Date by Date by Remarks
by Theme Theme HO
Contractor Contractor Contractor
HO
Effective CBR-10%
06.09.2018
AADT- 28742
Review PCU-54815
under (at km 91.000)
process.
Approval is PQC thickness,
Observations
to be Panel Size & Concrete
conveyed to
obtained Block pavement
Team leader
from BC 50mm
31.07.2018 on
Compliance by authority for DBM 50 mm
Pack II (from Observations 14.08.2018
1 the contractor change in Aggregate Layer 100mm
(Sadbhav) Ahmedabad dt 23.7.2018 for
23.07.2018 crust CTAB 120 mm
Office) compliance of
composition CTGSB 250 mm
various
as compare Total 570mm
design
TCS of
parameters.
Schedule-B Methodology for
providing flexible
pavement for new
construction with CTAB
and CTGSB is to be
submitted by contractor
for approval.

10
 Structure Design & Drawings

Status of Structure drawings of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi Package-I (From km 126.720 to km 166.780)

By theme By R&B

Observations/under
Type of Structure As per CA Received Reviewed Reviewed
review

8(compliance pending at
No's of VUP 9 8 Nil Nil
contractor)

4(compliance pending at
No's of Minor bridges 15 4 Nil Nil
contractor)

No's of culvert 33 33 15 18

No's of flyover 1 Nil Nil Nil 1

No's of ROB 1 Nil Nil Nil 1

11
 Structure Design & Drawings
Status of Submission of Structure drawings of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi Package-I (From km 126.720 to km
166.780)
Review
Package Submission Compliance
Reviewed & Comments ed by Rem
S.No. Section date of Date by
by Theme HO Theme arks
Contractor Contractor
HO
Asked for submission of
Package 1 geotechnical report,
detailed design and other
1 Flyover at ch. 148+956 20.07.2018 Pending
supporting documents
vide mail dated Thu 26-
Jul-18

VUP
150.457 Asked to submit soft
2 142.708 23.07.2018 copy vide our mail dated Pending
129.405 at 28-Jul-18
140.140
,
Asked for submission of
geotechnical report,
Pending
3 MNB at ch. 144+977 14.07.2018 detailed design and other
supporting documents
vide mail dated 17-Jul-18
HPC
126+818,127+158,129+7
4 22,130+231, 28.06.18 Reviewed on 03.08.18
135+080,135+662,140+4
12,

12
 Structure Design & Drawings
Status of Submission of Structure drawings of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi Package-I (From km 126.720 to km
166.780)
Revi
Package Submission Compliance ewed
Reviewed & Comments Remark
S.No. Section date of Date by by
by Theme HO s
Contractor Contractor Them
e HO

Package 1
Asked for submission of
MNB Approve
design and other
1 131+355 20.07.2018 Pending d on site
supporting documents
126+779 by TL
dated 26-Dec-18

VUP
2 165.798 07.09.2018 Pending

VUP
Pending
3 153.408 22.09.2018
157.908

Asked for submission of

design excel and staad
MNB
4 22.09.18 file vide mail dated 03- Pending
155.556
Dec-18

13
 Structure Design & Drawings

Status of Submission of Structure drawings of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi

(Package-II) (From 83.655 to 126.720)
By theme By R&B

Observations/under
Type of Structure As per CA Received Reviewed Reviewed
review

1(compliance pending
No's of LVUP 1 1 Nil Nil
at contractor)
1(compliance pending
No's of VUP 1 1 Nil Nil
at contractor)
No's of Minor 6(compliance pending
9 6 Nil Nil
bridges at contractor)
No's of Major
6 Nil Nil Nil 6
Bridges
No's of culvert 14 14 5 9
No's of flyover 3 Nil Nil Nil 3

14
 Structure Design & Drawings
Status of Submission of Structure drawings of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi (Package-II)
(From 83.655 to 126.720)
Revie
Package Submission Reviewed & Compliance wed
Remark
S.No. Section date of Comments by Date by by
s
Contractor Theme HO Contractor Them
e HO
HPC @ 84+576, 85+072,
Package 2 85+284
Reviewed on
1 85+797, 03.08.18
06.08.18
99+064,
125+034
BOX CUlVERTS
103+517, Reviewed on
2 14.08.18
103+767 29.08.18
107+932,
Minor Bridge Asked for
124+720 submission of Approve
123+121, design and staad d on
10.09.18 Pending
3 120+579 file vide mail site by
99+324 dated TL
95+875 18.12.18
88+885
Asked for
submission of
VUP 93.704
design excel and
4 LVUP 97.250 28.08.2018 Pending
staad file vide mail
dated
15.12.2018

15
 Structure Design & Drawings
Status of Submission of Structure drawings of Ahmedabad – Bagodara-Limbdi (Package-II)
(From 83.655 to 126.720)

Package Review
Submission Reviewed & Compliance
ed by Rem
S.No. Section date of Comments by Date by
Theme arks
Contractor Theme HO Contractor
HO

Package 2
Culvert Asked for Appr
106.949 submission of oved
94.453 design and staad on
5 10.09.18
86.632 file vide mail site
93.440 dated by TL
102.326 18.12.2018

16
 Annexure-1 of Plan & Profile
We have reviewed the plan & profile from km 83+400 to km 127+100 and have no comments except at a few locations as indicated below;

Horizontal Alignment
The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:73 clause 9.1.7 “Curve in the same direction separated by short tangents, know as broken-back curves,
should be avoided as far as possible in the interest of aesthetics and safety and replaced by a single curve. If this is not feasible, a tangent length
corresponding to 10 seconds travel time must at least be ensured between the two curves”. These locations are as below which requires
modifications and resubmission - 122463.56

Vertical Alignment
The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:SP:23 clause 7.1. (i) “The vertical alignment should provide for a smooth longitudinal profile consistent with
category of the road and lie of the terrain. Grade changes should not be too frequent as to cause kinks and visual discontinuities in the profile.
Desirably, there should be no change in grade within a distance of 150m” These locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission
LHS –
83876.74, 83999.68, 84573.27, 84833.06, 84913.47, 85029.45, 85155.42, 85987.97, 86077.57, 86170.26, 86250.85, 86349.50,
86459.40, 86545.53, 86631.10, 86731.84, 86994.41, 87281.89, 87705.40, 87830.93, 87940.30, 88175.73, 88792.42, 88872.58,
89418.11, 89507.50, 89593.70, 89708.63, 89967.25, 90070.10, 90173.40, 90258.87, 90550.67, 91330.24, 91624.23, 91717.83,
91947.62, 94185.29, 94465.49, 94546.27, 94792.34, 94876.84, 95170.48, 95255.84, 95381.73, 95509.72, 95632.03, 95753.31,
95840.18, 95938.36, 96633.98, 98046.78, 98314.39, 98606.17, 98719.14, 98847.86, 98939.00, 99165.06, 99472.04, 99710.68,
99811.24, 100065.20, 100192.50, 100806.03, 100895.00, 101930.22, 102197.94, 102494.69, 102798.21, 103212.50, 103320.33, 103436.75,
103517.52, 103604.57, 104069.02, 104154.58, 104250.25, 104830.25, 105059.34, 105139.52, 105426.93, 105542.50, 105812.78, 105926.24,
106189.19, 106682.41, 106781.39, 107050.05, 107994.22, 108125.18, 108248.48, 108845.22, 108927.38, 109053.95, 109136.60, 109382.51,
109471.38, 109560.00, 109665.00, 109760.91, 109836.63, 109915.08, 110019.94, 110442.56, 110537.76, 110906.43, 111335.25, 111425.45,
111516.21, 111618.11, 111876.81, 112250.65, 112343.44, 112455.08, 112981.88, 113074.76, 113199.11, 113314.08, 113422.89, 113672.73,
113759.12, 113843.76, 113927.42, 114051.42, 114171.78, 114461.67, 114552.73, 114638.57, 114896.16, 115003.43, 115085.00, 115166.52,
117317.31, 117413.57, 117501.91, 117592.78, 117674.45, 118581.32, 118688.28, 118809.73, 119320.32, 119423.24, 120390.53, 120711.52,
121853.40, 121956.35, 123241.54, 123360.00, 123471.06, 123765.56, 123863.61, 123951.98, 124237.06, 124333.61, 124423.51, 124545.00,
124629.22, 124709.82, 124830.81, 125501.99, 125604.79, 125730.41, 125858.48, 127008.71

RHS -
84016.20, 84270.97, 85099.91, 85188.44, 85294.67, 85429.40, 85541.31, 85811.15, 86062.20, 86191.38, 86457.35, 86768.12,
87156.81, 87406.76, 87530.27, 87620.35, 87946.99, 88046.24, 91262.50, 91364.35, 91448.18, 91532.70, 91629.06, 91724.03,
91804.55, 92078.48, 92382.09, 92472.55, 92708.29, 92793.55, 93253.75, 93356.20, 94376.01, 96960.86, 97671.62, 97803.17, 97925.99,
98589.13, 98682.98, 98767.06, 99168.89, 99264.53, 99375.99, 99461.12, 99812.53, 99906.75, 99994.27, 100086.70, 101181.14,
101854.35, 101945.67, 102322.26, 102904.43, 103010.51, 103091.99, 103191.46, 103675.88, 103765.36, 104016.25, 104121.83, 105275.56,
105364.48, 106169.67, 106287.28, 106419.34, 106504.17, 106960.75, 107058.78, 107179.79, 107893.98, 108196.96, 108294.69, 108425.00,
108978.28, 109560.44, 109670.59, 109922.78, 110007.01, 110099.10, 110184.14, 110279.30, 111659.75, 111760.45, 113337.50, 113457.75,
113571.72, 113652.69, 113767.06, 114737.39, 114979.21, 115087.37, 117511.24, 117601.91, 117951.97, 118257.51, 118482.36, 118609.48,
118739.05, 118840.04, 118930.83, 119056.98, 119152.21, 119239.60, 119885.18, 119993.16, 120073.46, 120155.00, 120279.23, 120379.47,
120484.50, 121858.11, 121959.19, 123247.76, 123362.60, 123496.88, 125527.77, 125853.32, 126816.01, 126913.65, 126999.66
17
 Annexure-1 of Plan & Profile
The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:SP:87 clause 2.9.5 “The safe stopping sight distance and desirable minimum sight distance for divided
carriageway for various design speed are given in Table 2.7. The desirable values of sight distances shall be adopted throughout unless specified in
schedule. A minimum of safe stopping sight distance shall be available throughout.”
These locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission
LHS -
93708.20, 95255.84, 97250.20, 104154.58, 105059.34, 106781.39, 109836.63, 110906.43, 111208.75, 112603.16, 112875.19, 115085.00, 117592.78,
121215.50, 121430.50, 121853.40, 122590.50, 122805.50, 123471.06, 124333.61, 125730.41, 126149.50, 126364.50
RHS -
93708.20, 96834.22, 97250.20, 106960.75, 110865.13, 111243.50, 112579.12, 112903.31, 115087.37, 115556.65, 116988.29, 117601.91, 118840.04,
121215.50, 121430.50, 122590.50, 122805.50, 123496.88, 125853.32, 126149.50, 126364.50, 126999.66
Design FRL shall be maintained as per clause 4.1 of Schedule-B.
Chainage Chainage
Diff LHS Diff RHS Diff LHS Diff RHS
From To (Design-CA) (Design-CA) From To (Design-CA) (Design-CA)
83000 84000 0.001 -0.08 104000 105000 -0.243 0.098
105000 106000 -0.145 -0.065
84000 85000 -0.09 -0.107
106000 107000 -0.168 -0.153
85000 86000 -0.118 -0.122 107000 108000 -0.053 -0.11
86000 87000 -0.107 -0.097 108000 109000 -0.029 -0.157
87000 88000 -0.138 -0.113 109000 110000 0.07 -0.064
88000 89000 -0.077 0.204 110000 111000 -0.184 0.367
89000 90000 -0.091 0.384 111000 112000 -0.905 0.386
90000 91000 -0.145 0.473 112000 113000 -0.872 1.198
91000 92000 -0.161 -0.094 113000 114000 -0.214 -0.036
92000 93000 -0.146 -0.115 114000 115000 -0.287 -0.083
93000 94000 -0.428 -0.467 115000 116000 -1.197 2.13
116000 117000 0.515 4.229
94000 95000 0.051 -0.027
117000 118000 -0.343 0.229
95000 96000 0.05 0.367
118000 119000 0.054 -0.109
96000 97000 -0.04 -0.063 119000 120000 -0.04 -0.108
97000 98000 -0.409 -0.508 120000 121000 -0.018 -0.251
98000 99000 -0.127 -0.13 121000 122000 -0.293 -0.397
99000 100000 -0.117 -0.113 122000 123000 -0.296 -0.405
100000 101000 -0.252 -0.136 123000 124000 -0.174 -0.35
101000 102000 -0.214 -0.122 124000 125000 0.019 0.055
102000 103000 -0.13 -0.114 125000 126000 -0.17 -0.161
103000 104000 -0.154 -0.11 126000 127040 -0.175 -0.398
18
 Annexure-3 of Plan & Profile
We have reviewed the plan & profile from km 126.720 to km 142+000 and have no comments except at a few locations as indicated below;

Horizontal Alignment

The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:73 clause 9.1.5 “Short curves give appearance of kinks, particularly for small deflection angle and should be
avoided. The curves should be sufficiently long and have suitable transition to provide pleasing appearance. Curve length should be at least 150 meters for
a deflection angle of 5 degrees and this should be increased by 30 meters for each one degree decrease in the deflection angle. For deflection angle less
than one degree, no curve is required to be designed” These locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission –
127+151.95 (256.614m required instead of 126.201m)
130+974.19 (214.515m required instead of 99.467m)
138+884.19 (207.801m required instead of 115.456m)

Vertical Alignment

The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:SP:23 clause 7.1. (i) “ The vertical alignment should provide for a smooth longitudinal profile consistent with
category of the road and lie of the terrain. Grade changes should not be too frequent as to cause kinks and visual discontinuities in the profile. Desirably,
there should be no change in grade within a distance of 150m” These locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission
LHS –
127+395.08, 130+531.58, 130+660.69, 131+200.00, 131+676.00, 132+009.60, 133+762.76, 134+830.00, 135+440.39, 135+637.61, 137+410.91,
137+691.02, 137+870.00, 138+150.00, 139+030.00, 139+470.00, 140+900.16
RHS –
127+741.85, 128+617.27, 130+660.75, 131+100.63, 131+743.02, 133+040.80, 133+762.83, 133+970.81, 135+200.22, 135+509.60, 136+580.00,
137+291.88, 138+040.00, 138+195.48, 139+246.80

The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:SP:87 clause 2.9.5 “The safe stopping sight distance and desirable minimum sight distance for divided
carriageway for various design speed are given in Table 2.7. The desirable values of sight distances shall be adopted throughout unless specified in
schedule. A minimum of safe stopping sight distance shall be available throughout.”

These locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission

LHS - 129+407.48, 131+676.00, 132+009.60, 140+145.00

RHS - 126+987.00, 129+407.55, 131+743.02, 140+145.00

19
 Annexure-3 of Plan & Profile
Design FRL shall be maintained as per clause 4.1 of Schedule-B.

Chainage
Diff LHS Diff RHS
From To (Design-CA) (Design-CA)
126720 127000 0.166 -0.095
127000 128000 -0.098 -0.109
128000 129000 -0.21 -0.161
129000 130000 -0.301 -0.189
130000 131000 -0.148 -0.17
131000 132000 -0.218 -0.082
132000 133000 -0.202 -0.081
133000 134000 -0.069 -0.083
134000 135000 0.009 -0.1
135000 136000 -0.076 -0.051
136000 137000 0.043 -0.059
137000 138000 -0.145 -0.105
138000 139000 -0.066 -0.064
139000 140000 -0.211 -0.184
140000 141000 -0.238 -0.305
141000 142000 -0.039 -0.1

20
 Annexure-4 of Plan & Profile

21
 Annexure-4 of Plan & Profile

22
 Annexure-4 of Plan & Profile

23
 Annexure-5 of Plan & Profile
We have reviewed the plan & profile from km 142 +000 to km 148+ 000 and have no comments except at a few locations as
indicated below;

Horizontal Alignment
The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:73 clause 9.1.5 “Short curves give appearance of kinks, particularly for small deflection
angle and should be avoided. The curves should be sufficiently long and have suitable transition to provide pleasing appearance.
Curve length should be at least 150 meters for a deflection angle of 5 degrees and this should be increased by 30 meters for each
one degree decrease in the deflection angle. For deflection angle less than one degree, no curve is required to be designed” These
locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission -

144+695, 144+895, 145+102,

The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:73 clause 9.1.7 “Curve in the same direction separated by short tangents, know as
broken-back curves, should be avoided as far as possible in the interest of aesthetics and safety and replaced by a single curve. If
this is not feasible, a tangent length corresponding to 10 seconds travel time must at least be ensured between the two curves”.
These locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission -
144+694, 144+895, 145+101.

Vertical Alignment
The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:SP:23 clause 7.1. (i) “The vertical alignment should provide for a smooth longitudinal
profile consistent with category of the road and lie of the terrain. Grade changes should not be too frequent as to cause kinks and
visual discontinuities in the profile. Desirably, there should be no change in grade within a distance of 150m” These locations are as
below which requires modifications and resubmission
LME-
143+260, 143+353,143+435,143+495,144+195,144+610,145+737,145+872,145+950.
RME-
143+540,143+849,144+130,144+570,144+688,145+180,145+270,145+348,145+442,145+832,145+979,146+044,146+381.

The drawings are not satisfying as per IRC:SP:87 clause 2.9.5 “The safe stopping sight distance and desirable minimum sight
distance for divided carriageway for various design speed are given in Table 2.7. The desirable values of sight distances shall be
adopted throughout unless specified in schedule. A minimum of safe stopping sight distance shall be available throughout.”

These locations are as below which requires modifications and resubmission

LME - 142+708.
RME - 142+708.
24
 Annexure-5 of Plan & Profile
Design FRL is not matching with Concession Agreement FRL-

Sr. N. From To Length(m)

1 142+000 143+020 1020

2 143+220 144+200 980

3 144+380 144+820 440

4 145+060 145+120 60

5 145+340 145+800 460

6 145+900 146+220 320

7 146+520 146+920 400

8 147+100 148+000 900

25
 Annexure-6 of Plan & Profile

26
 Annexure-6 of Plan & Profile

27
 Annexure-6 of Plan & Profile

28
 Mobilization Status
Key Expert
S. No. Position Name of Key Expert Status of working Remarks

Mr. Shriwastava requested

extension of leaves on health
1 Team Leader V.K.Shriwastava Joined,presently on Leave
ground, therefore replacement
CV Submited

2 Resident Engineer Suresh Kumar Gupta Working

Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi Fallan
3 Resident Engineer Rajesh Dwivedi Nitin Kumar V Rathod Sick, Replacement CV
Submitted
4 Sr. Contract Specialist R.S.Bairagi working

Not coming forward,

5 Senior Quantity Surveyor Rakesh Prakash Gupta Avijit Saha
replacement CV submitted

6 Bridge/Structural Engineer-I Ram Sumiran Singh Working

7 Bridge/Structural Engineer-II Inder Pal Singh Working
8 Material Engineer-I Satyendra Kumar Singh Working
9 Material Engineer-II Ashok Kumar Working
10 Highway Design Specialist Ravindra Kumar Singh Working
11 Road Saftey Expert R.K.Jana Working
12 Bridge Design Specialist T.M.Murli Working
Intermittent input, mobilize as
13 Toll Management Specialist Bharat Goel To be Mobilized
and when required

29
 Mobilization Status
Sub- Professional

S.
Position Name of Sub-Professional Status of working
No.

1 Quantity Surveyor-1 Kalpesh patel Working

2 Quantity Surveyor-2 Mansuri saleem Working

3 Assistant Highway Engineer-1 Sachin Kumar Working

4 Assistant Highway Engineer-2 Vishal A.Patel CV under approval

5 Assistant Bridge Engineer-1 Harish kumar Srivastava Working

6 Assistant Bridge Engineer-2 Jaymin Kumar Patel CV under approval

7 Survey Engineer-1 Ajit Singh Chauhan working

8 Survey Engineer-2 Dinesh Patel working

9 Lab Technician-1 Mitul Rabari working

10 Lab Technician-2 Pithiya Ajaykumar CV under approval

11 Site Engineer-1 Shah Dhruvit Pankajkumar working

12 Site Engineer-2 Moriya Samir Moh.Siddik working
13 Site Engineer-3 Jigar Patel Working
14 Site Engineer-4 Bhupendra Singh CV under approval
15 Electric Engineer-1 Jibesh kumar karan CV under approval
16 Electric Engineer-2 Akash Kumar CV under approval
Mobilize as an when
17 Toll Manager TBN
required
30
 THANKS

31