RFQ - Development of Modern Silos at 6 Locations in 5 States of India On DBFOT Basis Under PPP Mode

Final RFQ Evaluation Report for
the project “Development of

Modern Silos at 6 locations in 5
states of India on DBFOT basis
under PPP mode
SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited

Development of Modern Silos at 6 Locations in 5 states of India on DBFOT basis under PPP mode
Contents
1. Brief Summary of the Request for Qualification (RFQ) Process ................................................................................................ 4
2. TEST OF ELIGIBILITY and RESPONSIVENESS............................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Eligibility of Applicant – .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
The eligibility of the bidder has been done as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 of the RFQ document. ..................................................................... 7
2.2 Measure of responsiveness - ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 General Observation – ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Reasons of Applications declared Not eligible:........................................................................................................................................................ 9
(i) OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD AND OTHERS ........................................................................................................................................... 9
(ii) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MAYUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & LMJ LOGISTICS LIMITED (CONSORTIUM) ................ 11
2.5 Reasons of Non-responsiveness of the 4 Applications are given below: ............................................................................................................ 12
(i) CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO. AND OTHERS ................................................................................................................................................ 12
(ii) SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD............................................................................................................................................................... 12
(iii) SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13
(iv) NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED ................................................................................................................. 14
3. EVALUATION OF RESPONSIVE APPLICATIONS........................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Common Parameters of Evaluation – .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Evaluation of Responsive Applications – ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
(i) SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED (Individual Application) ............................................................................................... 20
(ii) STAR AGRI WAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS ............................................................... 27
(iii) LT FOODS LIMITED ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
(iv) ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 2

(v) TOTAL SHIPPING & LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ............................................................................................................. 46
(vi) SRI AVANTIKA – SUDHEEKSHA (JV) ................................................................................................................................................................ 51
(vii) ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD (LM, FM AND OMM) AND ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND US (TM) .............................. 69
(viii) PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. ................................................................................................................................. 74
(ix) DINESHCHANDRA R. AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD. ............................................................................................................................. 79
(x) ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD......................................................................................................................................... 89
(xi) OSR INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS ..................................................................................................................................................... 99
(xii) M/S GARWAR – ELL ESS JV ............................................................................................................................................................................. 107
(xiii) JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS .................................................................................................................................. 119
(xiv) SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LTD ................................................................................................................................................................ 125
(xv) SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT. LTD ..................................................................................................................... 139
4. CONCLUSION: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 146

1. Brief Summary of the Request for Qualification (RFQ) Process
Important Dates
nd nd
a) Sale of RFQ document : 22 March 2015 – 2 June 2015
th
b) Pre Application Conference : 5 May 2015
nd
c) Last Date of Receiving Applications : 2 June 2015
nd
d) Date of seeking First Clarification’s by FCI on Applications : 22 July 2015
st
e) Last date of Receiving First Clarification’s by FCI : 31 July 2015
th
f) Date of seeking Second clarification’s by FCI on Applications : 25 Aug 2015
th
g) Last date of Receiving Second Clarification’s by FCI : 28 Aug 2015
Number of Applications Received : 21 nos. (Twenty One Applicants)
Name of Applicants with applied project locations
S.No. APPLICANT Number of Locations applied for
1. ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD (5)
2 ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2)
3 CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED
4 DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
5 GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE NARELA, SAHNEWAL AND CHANGSARI (3)
6 JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED NARELA (1)

7 LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
8 LT FOODS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
9 NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
10 OM METALS INFRAPROJECTS LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
11 ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
12 OSR INFRA PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
13 PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
14 SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
15 SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
16 SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED
17 SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD WHITEFIELD (1)
18 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
19 STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
MANAGEMENT LIMITED
20 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2)
21 TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

The FCI
sThe FCI Sought the clarification’s from the respective Applicants and the evaluation report has been revised based on the evaluation of
the furnished clarification by the applicants.
Review
We are listing out the following areas where deficiencies were observed and brought to notice. Hence further information need to be sought from the
applicants for clarification and justification of their candidature for the captioned project. In this connection FCI sought the clarifications from the
applicants for two times.
a) Details of applicant:
b) Technical capacity of the applicant:
c) Financial capacity of the applicant:
d) Audited Balance sheet for last five years.
e) Details of Eligible project:
f) Power of Attorney/BR for signing of Application:
g) Power of Attorney/BR for lead member of consortium:

2. TEST OF ELIGIBILITY and RESPONSIVENESS

2.1 Eligibility of Applicant –
The eligibility of the bidder has been done as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 of the RFQ document.
2.2 Measure of responsiveness -
The test of Responsiveness of Application shall be carried out as prescribed in clause 2.19.1 of the RFQ. The parameters as mentioned in the
referred clause are as below:-
(a) it is received as per format at Appendix-I;
(b) it is uploaded to Authorities web portal by the Application Due Date including any extension thereof pursuant to Clause 2.14.2;
(c) the 3 hard copies to be submitted within 3 days of Application due date is signed, sealed, bound together in hard cover, and marked as
stipulated in Clauses 2.12 and 2.13;
(d) it is accompanied by the Power of Attorney as specified in Clause 2.2.5, and in the case of a Consortium, the Power of Attorney as specified
in Clause 2.2.6 (c);
(e) it contains all the information and documents (complete in all respects) as requested in this RFQ;
(f) it contains information in formats same as those specified in this RFQ;
$
(g) it contains certificates from its statutory auditors in the formats specified at Appendix-I of the RFQ for each Eligible Project;
(h) it contains an attested copy of the receipt of the Authority towards the cost of the RFQ process as specified in Clause 1.2.1;
(i) it is accompanied by the Jt. Bidding Agreement (for Consortium), specific to the Project, as stipulated in Clause 2.2.6(g);
(j) it does not contain any condition or qualification; and

(k) it is not non-responsive in terms hereof.
Based on the above provisions and subsequent checking, the responsiveness of the 21 received applications are given below in the table
S.No. Applicant Responsiveness

1. ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED Responsive
2. ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD Responsive
3 CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO AND OTHERS Non-responsive
4 DINESH CHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD Responsive
5 GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE Responsive
6 JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED Responsive
7 LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD Not Eligible
8 LT FOODS LIMITED Responsive
9 NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED Non Responsive
10 OM METALS INFRAPROJECTS LTD Not Eligible
11. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD Responsive
12 OSR INFRA PVT. LTD Responsive
13 PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD Responsive
14 SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED Responsive
15 SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED Responsive
16 SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD Non-responsive
17 SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD Non Responsive
18 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD Responsive
19 STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED Responsive
20 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Responsive
21 TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD Responsive
Note: The Table is presented in alphabetical order
From the above table, it is inferred that out of 21 applicants, 15 applicants are to be considered as responsive and out of the remaining 6, the 2 Applications
are non-eligible and 4 are classified as non-responsive applications.

2.3 General Observation –
All the applicants deposited the document fees as confirmed by FCI officials.
2.4 Reasons of Applications declared Not eligible:
(i) OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD AND OTHERS
The following points make the application non-responsive:-
a. The Applicant has added/deleted/modified with Appendix – I, Annexure – I, clause no. 6 Sl no. 1 and Sl no. 3 respectively.
Appendix – I, Annexure – I, clause no. 6 Sl no. 1 and Sl no. 3
No. Criteria Yes No
1. Has the Applicant/ constituent of the Consortium been barred

by the Central/ State Government, or any entity controlled by
it, from participating in any project (BOT or otherwise)?
3. Has the Applicant/ constituent of the Consortium paid

liquidated damages of more than 5% of the contract value in
a contract due to delay or has been penalised due to any
other reason in relation to execution of a contract, in the last
three years?
Appendix – I, Annexure – I, clause no. 6 Sl no. 1 and Sl no. 3 as submitted by M/s. OM Metals JV

The above change impact the provision of the Clause 2.2.7 and Clause 2.2.8 which deals with in-eligibility of Applicant to submit Application.
b. The applicant has not submitted Hard Copy of the Audited Balance of Lead Member i.e. M/s. OM Metal. The Soft Copy of the Balance Sheet is also
incomplete.
c. Further it has been observed in the Annual Financial Report of 2013-14 of M/s Veeraprabhu Marketing Limited (Consortium Member of another
applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others)has also made a non-current investment in LMJ Energy Infralogistic Ltd as well as in LMJ International Limited.
d. It is highlighted from the audited financial statements for FY 2013-14 of M/s LMJ Logistics Limited that M/s Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (Consortium
Member of another applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others) has provided corporate guarantee against the term loan of Rs.10 crore.
e. In view of the above statements, as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 (c) (v), Conflict of Interest amongst the two Applicants viz. M/s Om Metals & Others
and others and M/s LMJ International Ltd is construed
Based on the above the application of M/s Om Metals & Others is not eligible to bid.

(ii) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MAYUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & LMJ LOGISTICS LIMITED (CONSORTIUM)
Name of the Applicant/ Consortium Shareholding Pattern of Consortium Members

Members
1. LMJ International Limited 48%
2. Mayur Construction Company 26%
3. LMJ Logistics Limited 26%
However before evaluating the Financial Capacity & Technical Capacity of the Applicant the eligibility of the applicant has been evaluated and
following are the observations –
a. M/s LMJ International Ltd (48%) has applied as the lead member in consortium with M/s Mayur Construction (26%) and M/s LMJ Logistics Ltd
(26%)
b. It is observed from the Audited Financial Report of 2013-14, LMJ Logistics Limited that the company has made a non-current investment in LMJ
Energy Infralogistic Ltd.
c. Further it has been observed in the Annual Financial Report of 2013-14 of M/s Veeraprabhu Marketing Limited (Consortium Member of another
applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others)has also made a non-current investment in LMJ Energy Infralogistic Ltd as well as in LMJ International
Limited.
d. It is highlighted from the audited financial statements for FY 2013-14 of M/s LMJ Logistics Limited that M/s Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd
(Consortium Member of another applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others) has provided corporate guarantee against the term loan of Rs.10 crore.
Please note that the M/s LMJ Logistics Limited is consortium member in one of the applicant consortium led by M/s LMJ International Limited.
M/s LMJ Logistics has other investments non trade (unquoted) investment in equity instruments (fully paid up) in LMJ Energy Infralogistics
Limited. A similar type of investment in LMJ Energy in LMJ Energy Infralogistics Limited is observed in the balance sheet of M/s Veerprabhu
Marketing Ltd (Consortium Member of another applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others).
e. In view of the above statements, as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 (c) (v), Conflict of Interest amongst the two Applicants viz. M/s LMJ
International Ltd and others and M/s Om Metals & Others is construed.

As per provisions of clause 2.2.1, to the best of our knowledge, the Applicant M/s LMJ International & Others as well as M/s OM metals &
others are in-eligible for prequalification and hence both the applications could not be evaluated further.
2.5 Reasons of Non-responsiveness of the 4 Applications are given below:
(i) CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO. AND OTHERS
a. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2) and it’s Annexures. (The Application)
b. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – II (refer clause 2.13.5), Appendix – III (refer clause 2.13.5), Appendix – IV (refer clause
2.13.2)
The applicant has not submitted the application form pertaining to technical experience; hence the application could not be evaluated further.
Based on the above the application of M/s Chicago Construction Co and Others is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ.
(ii) SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD
a. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2) and all its Annexures. (The Application)
b. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – II (refer clause 2.13.5)
c. The uploaded POA documents are not as per the stipulation of the RFQ clauses.
st
d. The net worth of applicant is Rs.1.67 crore as on 31 March 2014 ( based on the submitted financials for FY13-14), which is not meeting the
minimum financial capacity criteria.
e. The Applicant hard copy of the Application has not been received as per provisions of clause 2.12.2

The applicant has not submitted the application form pertaining to technical experience; hence the application could be evaluated further.
Based on the above the application of M/s Spectoms Engineering Pvt Ltd is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ.
(iii) SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD
a. The Applicant has not uploaded the Annex V ( Statement of Legal Capacity) of Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2)
st
b. The applicant net worth is Rs.7.45 crore as on 31 March 2014 (calculated from the submitted audited financial statements of FY 13-14), which is
less than the minimum net required net worth of Rs.8.00 crore. Therefore the applicant is not meeting the minimum financial capacity eligibility
criteria. However the applicant has stated net worth certificate of Rs.13.51 crore in Annex – III of Appendix – I.
Based on the above the application of M/s SRC Company Infra Pvt Ltd is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ.

(iv) NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
a. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2) Annex III (Financial capacity format) and Appendix – I (refer
clause 2.13.2) Annex V ( Statement of Legal Capacity).
st
b. The applicant’s net worth is Rs.178.66 crore as on 31 March 2014 and able to meet the minimum financial capacity criteria for all the applied project
locations.
c. The applicant stated in the certificate that the applicant’s incurred Rs.132.86 crore of capital expenditure in one eligible project but included
Rs.80.43 crore of FY14-15, which is outside the eligible period i.e. FY 09-10 to FY 13-14.
Technical capacity shown by the Applicant (Rs

Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in crore)
in crore)
Check
Payme if the Payme
nts Paymen Revenu project nts Paymen Revenu
made/ ts made es is made/ ts made es
Applican
receive for appropri Eligibl receive for appropri
t/ Categ
d for develop ated e& d for develop ated
Member Proj ory as Check Check
constru ment of from Experi Comm constru ment of from Experi
S. of ect define on on Tot Remar
ction of Eligible Eligible Total ence ents ction of Eligible Eligible ence
No. Consorti Cod d by owner categoriz al ks
Eligible Projects Projects Score on Eligible Projects Projects Score
um & e Applic ship ation
Project in in Appen Project in in
Name of ant
s in Categori Categor dix - I s in Categori Categor
Project
Categor es 1 ies 1 submit Categor es 1 ies 1
ies 3 and 2 and 2 ted by ies 3 and 2 and 2
and 4 Applic and 4
ant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Provid Yes Unable

ed the Claimed to meet
statuto the exp the
ry in minimu
auditor category m
s 3 thresh
certific factoring hold
National
ate for the technic
Collater
PPP construct al
al
project ion Capacit
Manage
s but experien y
ment
shown ce in criteria
Services 132.86 132. 52.
1 A 3 0.000 0.000 99.645 the warehou 52.43 39.32 consid
Limited 0 860 43
catego sing ering
and
ry 3 domain the
Project
but audited
Name
include financi
not
d the al
given
Rs.80. statem
43 ents
crore only
of FY from
2014- FY
15. 2009-
14
Total
132. 52.
(Rs. In 99.645 39.32
860 43
crore)
Based on the above the application of M/s National Collateral Management Services Limited is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ
and also not meeting the threshold technical capacity criteria.
Recommendations -
Based on the above and to the best of our knowledge and in pursuance of clause 2.2.1 and 2.19 all the 6 Applications may be rejected based on
reasons stated above.

3. EVALUATION OF RESPONSIVE APPLICATIONS

3.1 Common Parameters of Evaluation –
The basic evaluation principle adopted as common parameters for evaluation as laid down in various clause of the RFP is as presented below –
1. For purpose of evaluation, the original (uploaded to the web portal on or before RFQ due date) application shall prevail over the copy of the original
application in pursuance of the clause 2.12.2 of the RFQ document. Therefore based on the aforesaid clause, we have evaluated the applications
based on the uploaded Original copy shared by the FCI as a principal document over the shared hard copy of the original.
2. Applicant, its Member or Associate (or any constituent thereof) and any other Applicant, its Member or Associate (or any constituent thereof) should
not have Conflict of Interest in pursuance of 2.2.1 (c), such Applications shall not eligible to apply.
3. The Applicant shall fulfil Threshold Technical Capacity for the project applied for. In case the Applicant applies for multiple projects the applicant shall
qualify for all projects that he has applied for, which has lesser prescribed Threshold Technical Capacity than the Highest Threshold Technical
Capacity of project he is eligible to apply for, in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A)
4. The Applicant shall fulfill Financial Capacity by displaying a Net Worth of 25% of the Indicative Project Cost mentioned in the RFQ. In case the
Applicant has applied for more than 1 project the Applicant shall have to display a Net Worth of 25% of the Sum of Indicative Project Cost of all the
projects applied for in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (B).
5. As per the Companies Act 2013, the net worth definition
“Net worth means the aggregate value of the paid-up share capital and all reserves created out of the profits and securities premium
account, after deducting the aggregate value of the accumulated losses, deferred expenditure and miscellaneous expenditure not
written off, as per the audited balance sheet, but does not include reserves created out of revaluation of assets, write-back of
depreciation and amalgamation”
As per the RFQ, the net worth definition
“Net worth (the "Net Worth") shall mean the sum of subscribed and paid up equity and reserves from which shall be deducted the
sum of revaluation reserves, miscellaneous expenditure not written off and reserves not available for distribution to equity
shareholders”

As per sec 52 of the Companies Act 2013
Where a company issues shares at a premium, whether for cash or otherwise, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of the premium
received on those shares shall be transferred to a “securities premium account” and the provisions of this Act relating to reduction of
share capital of a company shall, except as provided in this section, apply as if the securities premium account were the paid-up share
capital of the company.
2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the securities premium account may be applied by the company—
(a) towards the issue of unissued shares of the company to the members of the company as fully paid bonus shares;
(b) in writing off the preliminary expenses of the company;
(c) in writing off the expenses of, or the commission paid or discount allowed on, any issue of shares or debentures of the company;
(d) in providing for the premium payable on the redemption of any redeemable preference shares or of any debentures of the company; or
(e) for the purchase of its own shares or other securities under section 68.
(3) The securities premium account may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), be applied by such class of
companies, as may be prescribed and whose financial statement comply with the accounting standards prescribed for such class of
companies under section 133 :—
(a) in paying up unissued equity shares of the company to be issued to members of the company as fully paid bonus shares; or
(b) in writing off the expenses of or the commission paid or discount allowed on any issue of equity shares of the company; or
(c) for the purchase of its own shares or other securities under section 68.
As per the definition of Company’s Act 2013, the share premium account should be part of net worth. However the definition of the net worth as per
the issued RFQ document, the net worth estimation shall exclude the revaluation reserves, miscellaneous expenditure not written off and reserves
not available for distribution to equity shareholders. Hence as per Companies Act regarding uses of share premium account and the definition of the
net worth, the share premium account shall be considered as part of net worth unless the same has been deducted considering as reserves not
available for distribution to equity shareholders.
6. For purpose of any Application latest financial shall be Financial Year 2013-2014 in case of entities finalizing there Accounts under Indian Law. For
Applicant finalizing there Accounts under Foreign Law the standards adopted by the Country where the Applicant is incorporated shall be adopted.
This is in pursuance with 2.2.12

7. Projects eligible as per clause 3.2.1 has only be considered for evaluation. Further, the eligibility has be vetted against clause 3.2.3 and 3.2.4
8. Experience score has been calculated as per provisions of clause 3.2.6 Table 3.2.6. For projects situated in developed countries which are member
of OEDC has been multiplied by factor 0.50 in pursuance of clause 3.2.7
9. In case of Consortium credentials of members with proposed stake of at least 26% subjected to a max of 4 members has been evaluated in
pursuance of clause 2.2.2 and 2.2.6.
10. In cases where the experience has been claimed before Start date or after End date of project as declared by applicant in Annexure – IV, Appendix –
I, Authority at its discretion may sought clarification in form of Certificate from client attested by Statutory Auditor if such experience may be
considered under the provisions of the Concession/Development/Contract Agreement under which the project has been executed and also the copy
of the agreement need to be called for review.
The clarification’s sought from the respective applicants in this regard and evaluated the application based on the Clarification’s
furnished by the applicants.
The Threshold Technical Capacity evaluated and Experience Score of Applicant is finalized based on clarification furnished and in
accordance to various clause of the RFQ.
Further, in pursuance of clause 2.2.12 of the RFQ only experience b/w FY 2009-10 and 2013-14 has been and shall be considered for evaluation.
11. Category - 1 projects as defined in clause 3.2.1 are projects in Warehousing/Storage sector and further as per Clause 3.2.3 a it should have been
executed in PPP mode. Further as per 3.2.3 d (ii) to consider the revenue appropriated the revenues from users availing of non-discriminatory access
to project fixed asset or revenue from user’s use of project fixed asset. However revenue from sale or provision of goods or services, fare/freight
charges, and other income of the company owning the Project.
Warehousing/Storage Sector in additions to use of Project Fixed Asset for Storage of Materials includes activities like loading / unloading, stacking of
goods, keeping inventory of goods, security arrangement, providing insurance cover, etc. and hence is under the umbrella of service sector and
therefore its revenue is from providing services as a whole and as per clause 3.2.3 d (ii) revenue from services shall not been be considered for the
purpose of this RFQ.

Further, in cases where it can be identified without reasonable doubt that the revenue is purely rent revenue for providing a
shed/structure/building/infrastructure for carrying out warehousing/storage activities, such revenue has been considered provided such revenue has
been appropriated b/w FY 2009-10 and 2013-14 in pursuance of clause 2.2.12.
However to clarify the above issue pertaining to eligibility of warehouse revenues as a eligible project, a meeting was held with FCI officials (
th
Chaired by ED Silos, FCI) dated 29 June 2015 and it was clarified by the FCI officials that the revenues from warehousing sector shall be
considered as eligible component factoring the similar nature of the storage project and the revenue’s generated over the years from the creation
of the fixed project assets in form of storage facility
12. Each application individually and jointly (to ascertain conflict of interest) has been evaluated under all applicable clauses of the RFQ document.
13. The evaluation of responsive Applications have been done in random basis without following any order and no preference has been given to any
application.
14. For all the 6 locations for which the RFQ has been floated separate rank has been given to each Application based on the merit of the application.
The key eligibility requirement of each project is as per Table A 1.
Table – A 1 (Rs. in crore)
Minimum Thresh Technical Individual Project Cost (10% of the

S.No Locations with Capacity Total Project Cost Financial Capacity
Capacity threshold technical capacity)
1 Kotakapura (25000MT) 34.00 68.00 8.50 6.80

2 Sahnewal (50000MT) 45.00 90.00 11.25 9.00
3 Narela (50000MT) 46.00 92.00 11.50 9.20
4 Kathiar (50000MT) 45.00 90.00 11.25 9.00
5 Changsari (50000MT) 47.00 94.00 11.75 9.40
6 Whitefield (25000MT) 32.00 64.00 8.00 6.40
3.2 Evaluation of Responsive Applications –

(i) SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED (Individual Application)
The applicant has applied for the following locations –
Table 1.1: Applied Locations
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Katihsar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.62.25 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 94.00
crore.
However before evaluating the Financial Capacity & Technical Capacity of the Applicant the eligibility of the applicant has been evaluated and it is
observed that the Application is eligible for evaluation.
Submitted Documents Review:
S. No. Particulars Type of Document Comments

Proof of Purchasing RFQ
1 Submitted ( NEFT HDFC Bank) (Page 1)
Documents
2 Appendix I Application for Pre-Qualification Submitted (Page 3 to Page 6)
3 Appendix I - Annexure I Details of the Applicant Submitted (Page 7 to Page 9)
Incorporation, Memorandum and
3a Submitted (Page 113 to Page 134)
Articles of Association
No material non-performance and
3b Declaration in form of NA ( Page 9)
contractual non-compliance

4 Appendix I - Annexure II Technical Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 10)

Financial Capacity of the Applicant (Net
5 Appendix I - Annexure III Submitted (Page 11 to page 12)
Worth)
Submitted for five years from (FY14-15 ( unaudited) to FY10-11) Page
5a Audited five years annual reports
27 to 111) audited from FY13-14 to FY10-11
Submitted by statutory auditor for FY 14-15 (Page 23). No considered
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate
beyond FY13-14
6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 13 to page 22)
Statutory Auditors/ Clients
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor for. (Page 18 to Page 22)
Certificate
Statutory auditor/company
6b Not applicable
secretary certificate for Associate
7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 24 )
Power of Attorney for signing of
8 Appendix II Submitted (Page 136 to 138). BR not submitted
Application (Board Resolution)
Power of Attorney for Lead Member of
9 Appendix III Not applicable
Consortium
10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement Not applicable
Guidelines of the Department of
11 Appendix V
Disinvestment
Application signed by authorized
12. Yes
signatory
Discrepancy in Uploaded and
13.
submitted hard copies
Evaluation of Financial Capacity & Threshold Technical Capacity –
Financial Capacity –
The evaluation of Financial Capacity based on the Audited Financial Reports of FY 2013-14 is as presented below –
Table 1.2: Financial Capacity Status

Net worth as
Applicant / st
on 31 March Statutory
S.No. Member of Remarks
2014 (Rs. in Certification
Consortium
crore)
1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is based on unaudited figures of FY
14-15 and hence not considered.
Submitted for FY
1 SPWPL -3.41
14-15
2. FY 13-14 Net Worth calculated from balance sheet has been presented. Also the applicant
has submitted the financial statements from FY2010 to 2015 (unaudited).
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Soma Punjab is negative and is not meeting the Financial Capacity for any one of the
locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ
Threshold Technical Capacity –
The Applicant has failed to display Financial Capacity for any one of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination and the
Threshold Technical Capacity need not be evaluated. However the detail of technical experience submitted by the applicant is given below:
Table 1.3
Technical capacity shown by the Applicant

(Rs in crore)

Payme Payme
Payme Payme
nts nts
nts Reven nts Reven
made/ made/
made ues made ues
receive receive
Cate for approp Check if the for approp
d for d for
Applicant/ gory develo riated project is develo riated
Proj constr Check Check constr
S. Member of as pment from Experi Eligible & pment from Experi
ect uction Tot on on uction To Remark
No Consortiu defin of Eligible ence Comments of Eligible ence
Cod of al owner categori of tal s
. m& Name ed by Eligible Project Score on Appendix Eligible Project Score
e Eligible ship zation Eligible
of Project Appli Project s in - I submitted Project s in
Project Project
cant s in Catego by Applicant s in Catego
s in s in
Catego ries 1 Catego ries 1
Catego Catego
ries 1 and 2 ries 1 and 2
ries 3 ries 3
and 2 and 2
and 4 and 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SPWL & 1. The As per As per
Agri capital cost auditor Annexur
Warehous of all the 5 's e - IV,
e of 46.7 projects as certific Appendi
Th MT in 24. certified by ate the x I all
1 a 1 17.88 6.37 30.31 0.00 0.00 0 0
Tapa 25 Statutory all the projects
Mandi, Auditor is 5 are
under more than project under
PEG 10% of the s are 10
scheme Threshold constr years
SPWL & Capacity ucted PEG
Agri (TC) and / scheme
Warehous required by or of FCI &
e of 78.37 applicant as owned Pungrai
50.
2 Th MT in b 1 39.43 11.16 63.24 per by the n. 0.00 0.00 0 0
59
Muktsar-II, provisions applica
under of clause nt Docume
PEG 2.2.2(A) of ntary
scheme RFQ and in Clarific Evidenc

SPWL & agreement ation e such

Agri to the regardi as PEG
Warehous provision of ng the agreem
e of 144 clause 3.2.3 above ent b/w
74.
3 Th MT in c 1 69.82 4.96 93.48 (c) of RFQ situatio the part 0.00 0.00 0 0
78
Muktsar-I, and hence n may is
under is a eligible be required
PEG project sought for
scheme subject to for confirm
SPWL & fulfilment of ation of
Agri other the
Warehous provisions same
e of 197.5 of RFQ
104 130.4 Client
4 Th MT in d 1 96.32 8.01 0.00 0.00 0 0
.33 1 2. It is not Certifica
Malout,
under clear from te is
PEG Appendix I, also
scheme Annex - IV required
and from
Statutory
Auditors
Certificate
the
Financial
Years in
which the
SPWL & Constructio
Agri n expenses
Warehous were made.
e of 197.5 Clarification
138 173.1
5 Th MT in e 1 132.92 5.56 may be 0.00 0.00 0 0
.48 0
Patti, sought for.
under
PEG 3. It is not
scheme clear from
Appendix I,
Annex - IV
and from
Statutory
Auditors
Certificate
the

Financial
Years in
which the
revenue
were
appropriate
d.
Clarification
may be
sought for. It
is not clear
from the
balance
sheet
provided the
source of
these
revenue.
Client
Certification
and
Agreement
is required
for clarity.
Score
shall be
conside
red for
Total (Rs. 392 490.5 0. projects
0.00
In crore) .43 4 00 at
Kotkapu
ra &
Whitefie
ld

Pre-qualification –
In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ, the Applicant may not be considered for pre-qualification for any location.
Table – 1.4: Pre-qualification Status
Aggregate
Pre-qualified
S.No Locations TTC Required Corrected TTC Experience
(yes/no)
Score
1 Kotakapura 68.00 N.A. N.A. N.A.

N.A.
2 Sahnewal 90.00 N.A. N.A.
N.A.
3 Narela 92.00 N.A. N.A.
N.A.
4 Kathiar 90.00 N.A. N.A.
N.A.
5 Changsari 94.00 N.A. N.A.
N.A.
6 Whitefield 64.00 N.A. N.A.
FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (Not meeting the financial capacity criteria)

(ii) STAR AGRI WAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS
The applicant has submitted the application in form of consortium.
Name of the Applicant/ Consortium Members Shareholding Pattern of Consortium Members
1. Star Agri Warehousing and Collateral Management Limited 74%

2. Central Railside Warehouse Company (CRWCL) 26%
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs 62.25 Crores and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 94.00
Crores.
observed, to the best of our knowledge so far, that the Application is eligible for evaluation.


1 Submitted ( SBI Bank) (Page 5)
Documents
3b Declaration Submitted ( Page 9 and 10 for both the parties)
4 Appendix I - Annexure II Technical Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 11 to page 16)
5 Appendix I - Annexure III Submitted (Page 17, 21 and 22)
Worth)
Submitted for five years audited financial statements from ( FY09-10 to
5a Audited five years annual reports FY13-14) Page 331 to 598)
Submitted by statutory auditor for both members for FY 13-14 (Page 19

to 20)
6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page23 to page 45)
Certificate
6b Submitted by Company secretary Page 25
7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 46 to 52 )
8 Appendix II Submitted POA and BR (Page 53 to page 77)
9 Appendix III Submitted (Page 78 to page 95 )
Consortium
10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement Submitted (Page 96 to page 125)
11. Yes
signatory
12.

Net worth as
Applicant / st
on 31 March Statutory
S.No. Member of Remarks
2014 (Rs. In Certification
Consortium
crore)
1.Share Holding proposed in Consortium 26%Share
1 M/s Star Agri 85.99 Present 2.Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14
submitted
1.Share Holding proposed in Consortium 26% share

2 M/s CRWCL 92.37 Present 2.Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14
submitted
3 Jointly 178.36
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Star Agriwarehousing & others is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of
the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ
The evaluation of Threshold Technical Capacity based on the performances of the Applicant in the last five financial years (FY 2009-10 to 2013-14) is
as presented below:
Table 2.3: Threshold Technical Capacity (TTC) Status


(Rs in crore)
Paym
ents Paym
Paym Paym
made Reve ents Reve
ents ents
/ nues made/ nues
made made
recei appro receiv appro
for for
ved priate Ch ed for priate
Cate devel devel
Applicant/ for d eck constr d
gory opme opme
Member Proj const from Experi on Chec Check uction from
S. as nt of nt of Experi
of ect ructio Eligibl ence proj k on on of Eligibl
No defin Eligibl TTC Eligibl TTC ence Remarks
Consortiu Cod n of e Score* ect owne categor Eligibl e
. ed by e e Score
m& Name e Eligib Proje * is rship ization e Proje
Appli Proje Proje
of Project le cts in eligi Projec cts in
cant cts in cts in
Proje Categ ble ts in Categ
Categ Categ
cts in ories Categ ories
ories ories
Cate 1 and ories 1 and
1 and 1 and
gorie 2 3 and 2
2 2
s 3 4
and 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Figures of b/w
FY 09-10 and FY
13-14 considered
(Not considered for
Star Agri
Yes, FY 14-15)
& Kota
1 1a 3 10.34 10.34 7.76 Yes Yes Catego 0 0 0.00 2. 10% of TTC as
Silo
ry 3 per clause 3.2.3 c
Project
or 3.2.4 considered.
The mentioned
experience is for
FY 14-15
1. Figures of b/w
Star Agri FY 09-10 and FY
Yes,
& Bikaner 13-14 considered.
2 1b 3 10.13 10.130 7.598 Yes Yes Catego 0 0 0.00
Warehous (Not considered for
ry 3
e FY 14-15)
2. 10% of TTC as

per clause 3.2.3 c

or 3.2.4 considered
1. Figures of b/w
FY 09-10 and FY
Star Agri 13-14 considered.
Yes,
& Jodhpur (Not considered for
3 1c 3 10.71 10.710 5.355 Yes Yes Catego 0 0 0.00
Warehous FY 14-15)
ry 3
e 2. 10% of TTC as
per clause 3.2.3 c
or 3.2.4 considered
1. Figures of b/w
FY 09-10 and FY
Star Agri 13-14 considered
Yes,
& Kota (Not considered for
4 1d 3 8.84 8.840 4.420 Yes Yes Catego 7.23 7.23 5.42
Warehous FY 14-15)
ry 3
e 2. 10% of TTC as
per clause 3.2.3 c
or 3.2.4 considered
1. Figures of b/w
Yes, can be considered under

FY 09-10 and FY
CRWCL & 13-14 considered.
5 Korukkup 2a 1 15.22 22.5 37.72 47.15 15.22 15.22 11.42
Category 3 . Not eligible

2. 10% of TTC as
et I & II per clause 3.2.3 c
or 3.2.4 considered
1. Figures of b/w
CRWCL & FY 09-10 and FY
Pune 13-14 considered
6 Railside 2b 1 12.38 35.19 47.57 59.46 12.38 12.38 9.29 2. 10% of TTC as
Warehous per clause 3.2.3 c
Yes
e or 3.2.4 considered

1. Figures of b/w
FY 09-10 and FY
13-14 considered
CRWCL &
2. 10% of TTC as
Dankuni
per clause 3.2.3 c
7 Railside 2c 1 9.19 6.74 15.93 19.91 9.19 9.19 6.89
or 3.2.4 considered
Warehous
3. Cannot be
e
considered for
Yes
Changsari and
Narela
1. Figures of b/w
CRWCL & FY 09-10 and FY
Dehri-on- 13-14 considered
sone 2. 10% of TTC as
8 2d 1 7.13 11.32 18.45 23.06 7.13 7.13 5.35
Railside per clause 3.2.3 c
Warehous or 3.2.4 considered
e 3. For Kotkapura
and Whitefield only
1. Figures of b/w
FY 09-10 and FY
CRWCL &
13-14 considered
Jogeshwa
2. 10% of TTC as
9 ri Railside 2e 1 6.79 0.00 6.79 8.48 6.79 6.79 5.09
per clause 3.2.3 c
Warehous
or 3.2.4 considered
e
3. For Kotkapura
and Whitefield only
1. Figures of b/w
FY 09-10 and FY
CRWCL &
13-14 considered
Mysore
2. 10% of TTC as
10 Railside 2f 1 6.87 2.54 9.41 11.76 6.87 6.87 5.15
per clause 3.2.3 c
Warehous
or 3.2.4 considered
e
3. For Kotkapura
and Whitefield only
1. Figures of b/w
FY 09-10 and FY
CRWCL &
13-14 considered
Hatia
2. 10% of TTC as
11 Railside 2g 1 6.67 0.73 7.40 9.25 6.67 6.67 5.00
per clause 3.2.3 c
Warehous
or 3.2.4 considered
e
3. For Whitefield
only

Total (Rs. FOR ALL OTHER

36.79 27.59
In crore) SITES
FOR CHANGSARI
Total (Rs.
27.60 20.70 and NARELA
In crore)
ONLY
Total (Rs. FOR KOTKAPURA

64.81 48.61
In crore) ONLY
Total (Rs. FOR WHITEFIELD

183.29 204.22 71.48 53.61
In crore) ONLY
**Experience Score has no unit
***Revenues are not considered project no 5 to no 11 considering the correction in the category of the projects from 1&2 to 3. The revenues are not
applicable in case of non PPP projects.
It is observed from the above table that M/s Star Agri warehousing & others meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for Whitefield only as per
provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ
Based on the examination of the clarification submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be
considered for pre-qualification for Whitefield location only.
.Table – 2.4: Pre-qualification Status
S.No Locations TTC Required Corrected TTC Pre-qualified Aggregate Experience

(yes/no) Score
64.81 no N.A.
1 Kotakapura 68.00
36.79 no N.A.
2 Sahnewal 90.00
27.60 no N.A.
3 Narela 92.00
36.79 no N.A.
4 Kathiar 90.00
27.60 no N.A.
5 Changsari 94.00
71.48 yes 53.61
6 Whitefield 64.00

Clarifications sought:
1. The Statutory Certificate for net worth is not matching with the audited financial statements submitted by your company therefore clarification needs
to be furnished by you so as to ascertain the figures of Statutory Certificate for both the consortium members.
Clarifications furnished
st
1. The applicant vide letter dated 31 July 2015 has furnished the clarification that the statutory auditors of both the companies have not considered
the security premium as part of net worth which is as per the methodology defined in the RFQ document for net worth calculation.
FINAL STATUS: PRE QUALIFIED

(iii) LT FOODS LIMITED

S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
crore.
observed, that declaration regarding non-performance material or contractual has not been disclosed as per sl no. 7 of Annex – I of
Appendix – I and the same may be sought for. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for
evaluation.

1 Submitted
Documents


3b Not Submitted
5 Appendix I - Annexure III Submitted (Page 7 to 8)
Worth)
Submitted the five years balance sheet and P/L account for FY 2009 to
5a Audited five years annual reports FY 2014 (Page 11 to 20) repeated from Page 31 to 40. Not submitted the
detailed financial statements.
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for FY 13-14 (Page 9 to 10)
Certificate
6b Not applicable
8 Appendix II Submitted PoA and BR (Page 87 to page 89)
Consortium
11 Yes
signatory
12

Applicant / Net worth as on

Statutory
S.No. Member of 31st March 2014 Remarks
Certification
Consortium (Rs. In crore)
1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is as per RFP
document.
2. The Subscribed and paid up equity & reserves considered for calculation
1 LTFL 274.97 Present is as per the Audited Balance Sheet of FY 13-14
3. The reserve calculated is as per balance sheet of FY 13-14, however
there is a minor discrepancy amounting to Rs 37,000 (thirty seven
thousand).
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s LT FOODS LIMITED is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of the
locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.
as presented below –

in crore)
S. Applicant/ Pro Cat Pay Payme Revenue TTC Experien Ch Ch Che Paym Paym Reve TTC Experie Remarks
N Member of ject ego men nts s ce eck eck ck ents ents nues nce
o. Consortiu Co ry ts made appropri Score** on on on made made appro Score
m& Name de as mad for ated pro ow cate / for priate
of Project defi e/ develo from ject ner goriz recei devel d
ned rece pment Eligible is shi ation ved opme from
by ived of Projects elig p for nt of Eligibl
Ap for Eligibl in ible const Eligibl e
plic cons e Categori ructio e Proje
ant truct Project es 1 and n of Projec cts in
ion s in 2 Eligib ts in Categ
of Categ le Categ ories
Eligi ories 1 Proje ories 1 and
ble and 2 cts in 1 and 2

Proj Cate 2
ects gorie
in s 3
Cate and 4
gori
es 3
and
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Capital Expenditure
as per Auditors
LTFL & Certificate b/w FY 09-
1 STORAGE a 1 36.52 22.47 58.99 73.74 yes yes yes 24.66 12.21 36.87 46.09 10 and 13-14. Beyond
SILO the stipulated period
revenues shall not be
considered
1. No cost incurred b/w
LTFL & FY 09-10 and 13-14.
2 STORAGE b 1 17.51 17.51 21.89 yes yes yes 0 0 0 0 Beyond the stipulated
SILO period revenues shall
not be considered
1. No cost incurred b/w
LTFL &
FY 09-10 and 13-14.
WHEAT
3 c 1 18.14 18.14 22.68 yes yes yes 0 0 0 0 Beyond the stipulated
STORAGE
period revenues shall
SILO
not be considered
1. Only meets 10% of
LTFL & TTC for Whitefield and
GRAIN Kotakapura. Beyond
4 d 3 7.42 7.42 5.57 yes yes yes 7.42 7.42 5.57
STORAGE the stipulated period
SILO revenues shall not be
considered
Total (Rs.
5 36.87 46.09 For all Other Sites
In crore)
Total (Rs. For Kotakapura &

6 102.06 123.87 44.29 51.65
In crore) Whitefield only

It is observed from the above table that M/s LT FOODS LIMITED do not meet the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project location
applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ
In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant may not be considered for pre-qualification based on the reason cited above.
Pre-qualified Aggregate
S.No Locations TTC Required Corrected TTC
(yes/no) Experience
Score
44.29 no N.A.
1 Kotakapura 68.00
36.87 no N.A.
2 Sahnewal 90.00
36.87 no N.A.
3 Narela 92.00
36.87 no N.A.
4 Kathiar 90.00
36.87 no N.A.
5 Changsari 94.00
44.29 no N.A.
6 Whitefield 64.00
FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBE (Not meeting the technical capacity criteria of the RFQ document)

(iv) ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED

S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Whitefield
To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs. 50.50 Crores and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 92.00
Crores.
observed. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for evaluation.

1 Submitted (Page 6)
Documents
3b Declaration in form of NA


5 Appendix I - Annexure III Submitted (Page 10)
Worth)
Submitted the audited financial statements for FY 2009 to FY 2014
(Page17 to 149).
st
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor as on 31 March 2014 (Page 16)
6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 11)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page 15)
Certificate
6b Not applicable
8 Appendix II Submitted PoA only. (Page 13 to page 14). BR not submitted
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12
The evaluation of Financial Capacity based on the Audited Financial Reports of FY 2013-14 is as presented below:

st Statutory
S.No. Member of 31 March 2014 Remarks
Certification

1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is as per RFP document.
2. The Subscribed and paid up equity considered and reserves considered for
calculation is as per the Audited Balance Sheet of FY 13-14
1 AALL 69.67 Present
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s ADANI AGRI LOGISTIC LIMITED is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for
all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.
as presented below:
Technical capacity shown by the Applicant (Rs in Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in
crore) crore)
Paym
Rev
ents
enu
made Paym
Payme es
Payme / ents
nts Revenu appr
nts recei made
made/ es opri
Cate made ved for
Applican receive appropr Che Ch Che ated
gory for for develo
t/Membe d for iated ck eck ck from Expe
Proj as develop const pment
S. r of constru from for on on Eligi rienc
ect defi ment of Experien ructio of
N Consorti ction of Eligible TTC Proj ow cate ble TTC e Remarks
Cod ned Eligible ce Score n of Eligibl
o. um& Eligible Project ect ner gori Proj Scor
e by Project Eligib e
Name of Project s in Eligi shi zatio ects e
Appl s in le Projec
Project s in Categor bility p n in
icant Categor Proje ts in
Categor ies 1 Cate
ies 1 cts in Categ
ies 3 and 2 gori
and 2 Cate ories 1
and 4 es 1
gorie and 2
and
s 3
2
and 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. The Capital cost
incurred as claimed
by applicant b/w FY
09-10 and FY 13-14
has not been
considered since
Project
commissioning date
is June 2008. Based
on the second
clarifications sought
by the authority from
the applicant, the
AALL & applicant has
Bulk submitted the copy of
Food the supplementary
Grain agreement along with
Handling the previous
No,
, agreement. Based on
cate
Storage the terms of
gory 122.7
1 and a 1 122.75 459.27 582.02 727.53 yes yes 122.75 0.00 92.06 supplementary
revis 5
Transpo agreement submitted
ed
rtation and statutory
to 3
under certification, the
BOO capital expenditure in
arrange the project is
ment for Rs.122.75 crore,
FCI therefore considering
the same.
However the project

is not implemented
on PPP mode as
confirmed from the
submitted copy of the
agreements, hence
the claimed project
category 1 revised to
project category 3
For category 3
projects, the

revenues shall not be

considered.
Total
122.7
2 (Rs. In 582.02 727.53 92.06
5
crore)
It is observed from the above table that M/s ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED meeting the Technical Threshold Capacity as per provisions of clause
2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ.
For capital cost consideration, further details of signed agreement between the applicant and client related to the aforesaid project need to be
furnished by the applicant to assess the eligibility of capital investment after project commissioning date.
considered for pre-qualification subject to clarification.
S.No Locations TTC Required Corrected TTC (yes/no) Experience
Score
122.75 Yes 92.06
1 Kotakapura 68.00
122.75 Yes 92.06
2 Sahnewal 90.00
122.75 Yes 92.06
3 Narela 92.00
122.75 Yes 92.06
4 Kathiar 90.00
122.75 Yes 92.06
5 Whitefield 64.00

First Clarifications sought:
1. The submitted POA has not been supported by Board Resolution.
2. Clarification is required with respect to the capital expenditure incurred for the mentioned project in the Agreement with the client to ascertain the capital
expenditure in the project after project commissioning date
First Clarifications furnished:

th
1. The applicant vide letter dated 28 July 2015 has submitted the Board Resolution in support of PoA.
2. The applicant has not submitted the signed agreement with the client to ascertain that the capital expenditure is permissible in the project after project
commissioning date. Therefore, from the submitted documents, it is not possible to derive the conclusion regarding the capital expenditure on the same.
Therefore the authority may seek clarifications from the applicant.
Second Clarifications Sought:
1. Kindly furnish the copy of the contract/concession/charter agreement for the mentioned project (project code 1 a in annex IV of Appendix) executed
between entity (project owner) and applicant. Please furnish all the relevant documents pertaining to the executed agreement.
th
Second Clarifications furnished: The applicant vide letter dated 28 August 2015 has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s
1. The copy of signed agreement with the Authority along with supplementary agreement executed with the authority. The observations on the same
are given below:
a) The category of the project has been revised from 1 to 3 after examination of the submitted copy of the agreement. The project was not
implemented on PPP mode and it is not the concession agreement signed with the authority as claimed by the applicant in their second
clarification. Hence based on above, the revenues shall not be considered for category 3 projects.
b) Based on the supplementary agreement submitted, the capital expenditure of Rs.122.75 cr incurred on the project may be considered and also
the same was certified by statutory auditor of the applicant.
Therefore based on the above clarification’s, the applicant is able to meet the technical capacity as per the provisions of the RFQ document
FINAL STATUS: Pre Qualified (Meeting the financial and technical capacity criteria)

(v) TOTAL SHIPPING & LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
Crores.
Appendix – I and the same may be sought for. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far,
the Application is eligible for evaluation.

Documents
3a Submitted by all three members (Page 329 to Page 407)


3b Not Submitted by any member
Worth)
Submitted for five years by all three members from (FY09-10 unaudited
to FY13-14) Page 61 to 328)
st
Submitted by statutory auditors for all three members as on 31 March
2014 (Page 15 to 17)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor for. (Page 19 to 24)
Certificate
6b Not applicable
7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page25)
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12.

Net worth as on
Applicant / Member of st Statutory
S.No. 31 March 2014 Remarks
Consortium Certification
(Rs. In crore)
1 TSLPL 9.66 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

2 BLA Power 154.18 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted
3 Surat Goods Transport 77.46 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted
241.3
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Total Shipping & Logistic Private Limited and Others is positive and is meeting the
Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.
Technical capacity shown by the Applicant (Rs in

crore)
Paym Pay Payme Paym Rev

Reven
ents men nts ents enu
ues
made/ ts made/ made es
appro Che
Cate receiv mad receive for appr
priated ck if
Applicant/ gory ed for e for Chec d for devel opri
Proj from the Check
S. Member of as constr dev k on constru opme ated
ect Eligibl Experienc proj on Experienc
No Consortiu defin uction elop TTC categ ction of nt of from TTC Remarks
Cod e e Score ect owner e Score
. m& Name ed by of men orizat Eligible Eligib Eligi
e Projec is ship
of Project Appli Eligibl t of ion Projects le ble
ts in Eligi
cant e Eligi in Proje Proj
Categ ble
Projec ble Categor cts in ects
ories 1
ts in Proj ies 3 Cate in
and 2
Categ ects and 4 gorie Cat

ories 3 in s 1 egor
and 4 Cat and 2 ies
egor 1
ies and
1 2
and
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Total 1. Figures
Shipping & Pertaining to
logistics FY14-15 and
Private hence not
Limited - 14.8 admissible
1 1a 1 14.85 18.56 Yes Yes Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehousi 5
ng &
Storage-
PPP
Project
BLA
Power
Private
Limited-
2 2a 4 618.89 618.89 309.45 Yes Yes Yes 618.89 618.89 309.45
Core
Sector-
Power
Project
Surat
Goods
Transport
Private
3 Limited - 3a 4 3.81 3.81 1.91 Yes Yes Yes 3.81 3.81 1.91
Core
Sector -
Power
Project
Total (Rs.
5 637.55 329.91 622.70 311.35
In crore)

It is observed from the above table that M/s Total Shipping & Logistic Private Limited and Others meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of
the project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ
In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be considered for pre-qualification subject to the clarification regarding non-
performance declaration.
(yes/no) Experience
Score
622.70 Yes 311.45
1 Kotakapura 68.00
622.70 Yes 311.45
2 Sahnewal 90.00
622.70 Yes 311.45
3 Narela 92.00
622.70 Yes 311.45
4 Kathiar 90.00
622.70 Yes 311.45
5 Changsari 94.00
622.70 Yes 311.45
6 Whitefield 64.00
1. The applicant has not furnished the non- performance declaration for all three members of consortium.
th
Clarification Furnished: The applicant vide letter dated 26 August 2015 has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s:
1. Submitted the declaration regarding non-performance by all three members of consortium
FINAL STATUS: PRE QUALIFIED (The applicant is meeting the financial capacity and technical capacity in pursuance of the clauses of the RFQ
document)

(vi) SRI AVANTIKA – SUDHEEKSHA (JV)
S.No Locations
1 Narela
2 Whitefield
Crores.
Appendix – I and the same may be sought for. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far,
the Application is eligible for evaluation.

1 Submitted (Page )
Documents
3a Submitted for Avantika (Page 20 to Page 60)
3b Not Submitted by any member


Worth)
Submitted for five years for M/s Avantika (FY09-10 to FY13-14) (Page
66 to 262 )
st
Submitted by statutory auditor for M/s Avantika Contractor as on 31
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net worth
March 2014 (Page 65)
6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 290 to page 349)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page290 to 349)
Certificate
6b
7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 351 and 352)
8 Appendix II Submitted PoA (Page 354 to page 355). BR not submitted
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12
Net worth as on
Applicant / Member of st
S.No. 31 March 2014 Statutory Certification Remarks
Consortium
(Rs. In crore)

1. No supporting document provided. No Financial Capacity has been

claimed
1 Sudheeksha (LM) 0 NO 2. Partnership Firm incorporated in 22nd May 2015
1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is as per

RFP document and also reflects in the Audited Balance Sheet of
2 Avantika (FM + TM) 91.07 Yes 2013-14
3 Jointly 91.07
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Sri Avantika – Sudheeksha (JV) is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all
of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.
Technical capacity shown by the Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in

Applicant (Rs in crore) crore)

Pay
men
Paym Paym
ts
ents Paym ents
mad Reve
made ents Reven made
e for nues
/ made ues /
dev appro
Cat receiv for appro receiv
elop priate
egor ed for devel priate ed for
Check Che men d
y as constr opme d from Exp Check constr Exp
if the ck t of from
Applicant/Membe defi uction nt of Eligibl erie on uction erie
Projec project on Eligi Eligib
S.No. r of Consortium& ned of Eligibl e TTC nce catego of TTC nce Remarks
t Code is own ble le
Name of Project by Eligibl e Projec Sco rizatio Eligibl Sco
Eligibl ershi Proj Proje
Appl e Projec ts in re n e re
e p ects cts in
ican Proje ts in Categ Proje
in Cate
t cts in Categ ories cts in
Cat gorie
Categ ories 1 and Categ
egor s 1
ories 1 and 2 ories
ies and 2
3 and 2 3 and
1
4 4
and
2
1 2 3 4 5.00 6 7 8.00 9.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. The Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
project
company is
I&CAD
Department,
AP. However
the applicant
AVANTIKA & Yes was engaged
138.4 138. 69.
1 Construction of a 4 Yes Yes 0 0 0 by Sabir-Sew-
9 49 25
Tunnel Prasad JV and
not directly by
the project
company. To
understand the
nature iof
association with
the said JV
document from
the JV

regarding
nature of
association of
Applicant need
to be reviewed.
Certificate /
Document
regarding
revenue receipt
by applicant
shall also need
review.
1. The Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
project
company is Abir
Infrastructure
Pvt Limited, and
AVANTIKA &
Yes the Project is
Construction road 124.0 124. 62.
2 b 4 Yes Yes 0 0 0 1200 MW
at Hydle Power 5 05 03
Teesta Stage -
Project
III HE Project
which is a core
sector project in
Power and not
in roads as
mentioned in
the certificate.
1. Revenue for
year 09-10 till
13-14
AVANTIKA & considered to
Strengthening of 34.5 17. Yes 5.0 arrive at
3 c 4 34.55 Yes Yes 10.10 10.1
Runway at 5 28 5 corrected score
Agartala Airport

1. Revenue for
year 09-10 till
AVANTIKA & 13-14
Strengthening Yes considered to
46.5 23. 19.
4 extension of d 4 46.51 Yes Yes 37.99 37.99 arrive at
1 26 00
Runway at corrected score
Vijaywada Airport
AVANTIKA &
Improvement of 33.2 16. Yes 16.
5 e 4 33.24 Yes Yes 33.24 33.24
Sopore 4 62 62
Bandipore Road
AVANTIKA &
Strengthening of 29.8 14. 14.
6 f 4 29.88 Yes Yes Yes 29.88 29.88
NH - 39 at 8 94 94
Manipur
AVANTIKA &
Construction of
26.0 13. 5.7
7 Tunnel for HNSS g 4 26.00 Yes Yes Yes 11.44 11.44
0 00 2
Irrigation Project
Pk 6
AVANTIKA &
Construction of
20.9 10. 6.2
8 Tunnel for HNSS h 4 20.90 Yes Yes Yes 12.42 12.42
0 45 1
Irrigation Project
Pk 10
AVANTIKA &
Construction of
20.6 10. 3.5
9 Tunnel for HNSS i 4 20.64 Yes Yes Yes 7.02 7.02
4 32 1
Irrigation Project
Pk 15

1. The
Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
project
company is
I&CAD
Department,
AP. However
the applicant
was engaged
by Sabir Dam &
Waterworks
Construction
Company and
not directly by
Package No.
the project
06/06: Earthwork
company. To
excavation of
understand the
GNSS Main 21.6 10. Yes
10 j 4 21.69 Yes Yes 0 0 0 nature iof
canal from KM 9 85
association with
161.250 to KM
the said project
203.850 including
company
CM & CD Works
document from
the JV
regarding
nature of
association of
Applicant need
to be reviewed.
Certificate /
Document
regarding
revenue receipt
by applicant
from the project
company shall
also need a
review.

1. The
Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
project
company is
Sri
I&CAD
Narasimharaya
Department,
Sagar Dam:
AP. However
Investigation,
the applicant
designing and
was engaged
construction of
by Sabir-Sew-
dam with a live
Prasad JV and
storage of 10.29
not directly by
TMC of F.R.L (+)
the project
261 M with over
company. To
flow
Yes understand the
arrangements to 176.2 176. 88.
11 k 4 Yes Yes 0 0 0 nature iof
discharge 5 25 13
association with
848cumecs of
the said JV
surplus water, in
document from
take canal with a
the JV
flood flow
regarding
discharge of
nature of
140.45 cumecs
association of
and an outlet
Applicant need
arrangements for
to be reviewed.
a discharge pf
Certificate /
67.96 cumecs to
Document
connect SRBC
regarding
revenue receipt
by applicant
shall also need
a review.

1. The
Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
Indira Sagar Lift
project
Irrigation Project
company is
(Polavaram):
I&CAD
Package 21:
Department,
Laying of
AP. However
pressure mains
the applicant
from koya
was engaged
madaram to peda
by ZVSTROY-
vagu project
GDCL JV and
including surge
not directly by
protection against
the project
transient, out fall
company. To
structure at peda Yes
142.8 142. 71. understand the
12 vagu project, l 4 Yes Yes 0 0 0
6 86 43 nature iof
approach
association with
channel at koya
the said JV
madaram,
document from
improvements to
the JV
existing peda
regarding
vagu project and
nature of
construction of
association of
distributory
Applicant need
syatem for
to be reviewed.
irrigation an
Certificate /
Ayacut of 7929
Document
Acres including
regarding
CM & CD works
revenue receipt
by applicant
shall also need
a review.

1. The Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
Indira Sagar Lift project
Irrigation Project company is
(Polavaram): I&CAD
Package 22: Department,
Laying of AP. However
pressure mains the applicant
frompeda vagu to was engaged
Bandarugudem by ZVSTROY-
tank including GDCL JV and
surge protection not directly by
against transient, the project
formation of New company. To
tank at understand the
Bandarugudem nature iof
341.1 341. 170
13 and out fall m 4 Yes Yes 0 0 0 association with
6 16 .58
structure, the said JV
construction of document from
staff quarters at the JV
peda vagu regarding
project at koya nature of
madaram and at association of
bandarugudem Applicant need
and construction to be reviewed.
of distributory Certificate /
system for Document
irrigation and regarding
Ayacut of 12000 revenue receipt
Acres including by applicant
CM & CD works shall also need
a review.
1. The Statutory
Auditor has
Construction of
certified the
Storm Water
61.6 30. project
14 Drainage for n 4 61.67 Yes Yes Yes 0 0 0
7 84 company is
Imphal City under
I&CAD
of JNNURM
Department,
AP. However

the applicant
was engaged
by ZVSTROY-
GDCL JV and
not directly by
the project
company. To
understand the
nature iof
association with
the said JV
document from
the JV
regarding
nature of
association of
Applicant need
to be reviewed.
Certificate /
Document
regarding
revenue receipt
by applicant
shall also need
a review.
Construction of
Inter State Bus
24.4 12. 12.
15 Terminus at o 4 24.46 Yes Yes Yes 24.46 24.46
6 23 23
Dewlahland,
Imphal, Manipur
1. This project
only includes
leveling of land,
Township site i.e. earth work
24.1 12. 0.0
16 levelling package p 4 24.18 No Yes No 0.00 0 and cannot be
8 09 0
for Barh STPP classified under
Infrastructure
Project

1. This project
Site levelling only includes
works for balance leveling of land,
area of plant & i.e. earth work
39.7 19. 0.0
17 township q 4 39.76 No Yes No 0.00 0 and cannot be
6 88 0
package for Barh classified under
STPP - Stage - II Infrastructure
(2x660 MW) Project
Civil works
package - II for
1x125 mw lignite
based thermal 26.9 13. 7.4
18 r 4 26.90 Yes Yes Yes 14.79 14.79
power plant at 0 45 0
Giral state - II in
Barmer Distt,
Rajasthan
Construction of
new BG line from
Nandyal to
25.9 12. 12.
19 Yerraguntla s 4 25.98 Yes Yes Yes 25.98 25.98
8 99 99
stations - Earth
work in formation,
construction
1. Quarrying
Rock quarrying and
and Transportation
transportation for 157.4 157. 78. 0.0 could not be
20 t 4 No Yes No 0.00 0
construction of 6 46 73 0 classified as
breakwater and EPC
groins works Infrastructure
project

1. This project
Site Levelling &
only includes
Infrastructure
levelling of land,
works package
63.6 31. 0.0 i.e. earth work
21 for Kudgi Super u 4 63.60 No Yes No 0.00 0
0 80 0 and cannot be
Thermal Power
classified under
Project, Stage-I
Infrastructure
(3x800 MW)
Project
Earthwork
excavation,Buildi
ng works (RCC
Frame
Structures)
Formation of
Internal
Roads,External 86.2 43. 43.
22 v 4 86.25 Yes Yes 86.25 86.25
Water supply 5 13 13
system and
External
Electrification
works at our
Plant Anrak
Aluminium
Limited
1. The Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
Expansion and project
modification of 58.9 29. 29. company is
23 w 4 58.90 Yes Yes 58.90 58.9
existing terminal 0 45 45 AAI, and the
building Project is under
Airport sector

1. The Statutory
Balance work for Auditor has
Construction of certified the
New Terminal project
37.0 18. Yes 18.
24 building Complex x 4 37.06 Yes Yes 37.06 37.06 company is
6 53 53 AAI, and the
at Khajuraho
Airport (Risk & Project is under
Cost) Airport sector
Construction of 1. Project
Admin/ Training/ Could not be
Communication considered
Block, 540 Men under
Barrack Go's 26.4 13. No 0.0 Infrastructure
25 y 4 26.47 Yes No 0.00 0 Sector
Mess & Quarter 7 24 0
Guard for 4th
Ballalion of CISF
at Sivagangai
(Tamil Nadu)
Construction of
concrete Barrage
and Earthen
Bund across Yes
40.9 20. 20.
26 Kanhan River at z 4 40.97 Yes Yes 40.97 40.97
7 49 49
Kochi, TA Saoner
Distt.Nagpur,
Maharashtra
State

Construction of
Mini Secretariat, 22.3 11. Yes 11.
27 aa 4 22.36 Yes Yes 22.36 22.36
Chuchandrapur, 6 18 18
Manipur
Construction of
Civil and Yes
34.8 17. 17.
28 Structural Works ab 4 34.86 Yes Yes 34.86 34.86
6 43 43
for OSL Hospital
at Gurgaon
KTPS-O&M-
Formation of 1. Project Could
Northern Ash not be
Pond-II upto EI considered
23.8 11. No 0.0
29 +92.00 M ac 4 23.80 Yes No 0.00 0 under
0 90 0 Infrastructure
including well and
Barrel etc, at Sector
Paloncha,
Khammam Distt.

1. The
Statutory
Auditor has
certified the
project
company is
I&CAD
Department,
AP. However
the applicant
was engaged
by Sabir Dam &
Package 5: Waterworks
Excavation of Construction
Main Canal, Company and
Formation of not directly by
Banks including the project
Canal Lining and company. To
Construction of understand the
CM & CD works 60.3 30. Yes nature iof
30 ad 4 60.39 Yes Yes 0 0 0
from km 93.70 to 9 20 association with
km 111.00 of left the said project
Main Canal of company
Indira Sagar document from
Project (Name of the JV
Project) for Core regarding
Sector - Irrigation nature of
Project association of
Applicant need
to be reviewed.
Certificate /
Document
regarding
revenue receipt
by applicant
from the project
company shall
also need a
review.

Total (Rs. In 1971 985 243

487.72
crore) .29 .65 .86
It is observed from the above table that M/s Sri Avantika – Sudheeksha JV and Others meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project
location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ
Pre-qualification:
Based on the examination of the clarification’s submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be
considered for pre-qualification for the below mentioned locations.
Score
902.14 yes 451.07
1 Narela 92.00
902.14 yes 451.07
2 Whitefield 64.00
1. The submitted POA has not been supported by Board Resolution.
2. The declaration regarding non-performance has not been submitted.
3. Clarification is required regarding the nature of association with the employer wherein the project owner is not the employer.
Clarifications furnished:
The applicant vide letter dated has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s:

2. Submitted the Board resolution in support of PoA

3. Submitted the declaration regarding non performance
4. The explanation given by the applicant in the furnished document is not sufficient enough to address the query raised, therefore not possible to
consider the project experience for these projects. However the applicant is able to meet the technical capacity without these projects, but the total
experience score of the applicant is decreased.
document.

(vii) ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD (LM, FM AND OMM) AND ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND US (TM)
S.No Locations
1 Narela
2 Whitefield
To qualify for applied projects locations the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.19.50 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of
Rs 92.00 Crore.
observed, that the application not signed by authorized signatory and stated unknown for material non-performance or contractual
compliance in past projects.

Documents
Submitted ADM agro (Page 5 to Page 6) and Archer Midland (Page 7 to
3 Appendix I - Annexure I Details of the Applicant
Page 10)
Incorporation, Memorandum and Submitted for Archer (Page 28 to Page 35) &(Page 210 to Page 235)
3a
Articles of Association MOA & AOA has submitted by Lead member ADM
No material non-performance and Declaration in form of NA for ADM agro. (Page 6) Declared unknown
3b
contractual non-compliance (9&10) by Archer
4 Appendix I - Annexure II Technical Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 11 to Page 12)


Worth)
Submitted for five years audited financials (Partial) for Archer from
5a Audited five years annual reports (Page 36 to page 59) and for ADM s agro submitted audited ( Page 60 to
200)
st
Submitted by statutory auditor for 31 March 2015 (FY14-15 not
considered (Page 15 )
6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted, but not signed by authorized signatory (Page 16 to Page 20)
Statutory Auditors/ Clients Submitted by internal audit department (Page 21) (Not submitted by
6a Project Experience certification
Certificate Statutory auditor/auditor
6b Not applicable
Power of Attorney for signing of Submitted PoA & BR (Page 201 to page 203), Apostille certificate (Page
8 Appendix II
Application (Board Resolution) 26 to 27
9 Appendix III Submitted (Page 204 to page 209) with apostille certificate
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12

Statutory
Certification

The statutory auditor submitted the certificate for unaudited FY14-15 stating
st
Rs.246.93 crore as on 31 march 2015.
1 ADM Agro 170.83 For FY 14-15
The Applicant has not provided Net Worth certificate from Statutory Auditor for the year 2013-14 and hence the Net Worth of the Applicant could not
be verified with the figures from the Financial Statements of the same year.

in crore)
S. Applicant/ Pro Cat Pay Payme Reven TTC Experien Ch Ch Che Paym Payme Rev TTC Experie Remarks
N Member of ject ego men nts ues ce eck eck ck ents nts enu nce
o. Consortiu Co ry ts made approp Score** on on on made made es Score
m& Name de as mad for riated pro ow cate / for appr
of Project defi e/ develo from ject ner goriz recei develo opri
ned rece pment Eligibl is shi ation ved pment ated
by ived of e elig p for of from
Ap for Eligibl Project ible const Eligibl Eligi
plic cons e s in ructio e ble
ant truct Project Categ n of Project Proj
ion s in ories 1 Eligib s in ects
of Categ and 2 le Categ in
Eligi ories 1 Proje ories 1 Cate
ble and 2 cts in and 2 gori
Proj Cate es 1
ects gorie and
in s 3 2
Cate and 4

gori
es 3
and
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Not certified by
Archer 138. statutory auditor/
a 3 138.450 51.92
1 Daniels 450 - - - auditor who audit the
midland accounts, but certified
by internal audit team.
Total (Rs. 138.450 51.92

In crore)
It is observed from the above table that M/s ADM Agro do not meet the Technical Threshold Capacity due to non-compliance of certificate from
statutory auditor or auditor who audit the accounts for any of the project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ.
The authority may ask the clarification regarding the details of statutory auditor or auditor.
Based on the examination of the clarification submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may not be
considered for pre-qualification.
(yes/no) Experience
Score
1 Narela 92.00 Unable to verify No N.A.
2 Whitefield 64.00 Unable to verify No N.A.

1. Project experience certificate is given by Internal Audit Department whereas the same was required from Statutory Auditor as per Appendix –I, Annex-IV.
2. The consortium member Archer Daniels Midland stated unknown against non -performance declaration.
3. Only partial audited Financial Statement have been submitted.
1. The explanation given by the applicant not supported by statutory auditor’s certificate/ auditor’s certificate, therefore the claimed project experience
shall not be considered. Hence the applicant is not meeting the threshold technical capacity.
2. The explanation given by the applicant not supported by non- performance declaration
3. The explanation given by the applicant not supported by the complete audited financial statements
FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (The applicant is not meeting technical capacity criteria and has not submitted the documents as per the terms of
the RFQ document).

(viii) PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Table 8.1
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
crore.
Submitted Documents Review

Documents
3b Declaration in form of NA
Worth)
5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years from (Page 1 to page 84)

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for 31 March 2014(Page 266)
6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 267 to Page 269)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page 270 to Page 272)
Certificate
6b Submitted by company secretary (need to be verified) (Page 278)
7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 273)
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12

Statutory
Certification
Presented by Submitted the statutory auditor’s certificate and audited financial statements. The
the earlier applicant is meeting the minimum net worth criteria.
statutory
1 Pristine 71.20 auditor i.e.
Marodia
Khanna &
Associate

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Pristine is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied
for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.

(Rs in crore)
Payme Payme Paym Reve

Payme
nts nts ents nues
nts Reven
made/ made/ made appro
made ues
receive receive for priate
Applicant Pr Cate for approp
d for d for develo d
/ Member oj gory develo riated Check
constr Chec Check constr pment from
S. of ec as pment from Exper if the Exper Re
uction k on on uction of Eligibl
N Consortiu t defin of Eligible Total ience project Total ience mar
of owner categori of Eligibl e
o. m & C ed by Eligible Project Score is Score ks
Eligible ship zation Eligible e Proje
Name of od Appli Project s in Eligible
Project Project Projec cts in
Project e cant s in Catego
s in s in ts in Categ
Catego ries 1
Catego Catego Categ ories
ries 1 and 2
ries 3 ries 3 ories 1 1 and
and 2
and 4 and 4 and 2 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Pristine
Logistics No,
and categor
1 Infrastruc A 2 0.000 35.94 53.58 89.52 89.52 Yes Yes y 35.94 35.94 17.97
ture revised
Logistics to 4*
Limited

and
Inland
Containe
r Depot
and
Private
Freight
Terminal
at Panki,
Kanpur
Inland Not
Containe con
r Depot side
and No, red
Private categor figur
Freight B 2 0.000 48.41 0.00 48.41 48.41 Yes Yes y 0.00 0.0 0.00 es
Terminal revised after
at Chawa to 4 FY1
Payal, 3-14
Ludhiana
, Punjab
Inland Not
Containe con
r Depot No, side
and categor red
Private C 2 0.000 13.170 0.16 13.33 13.33 Yes Yes y 0.00 0.00* 0.00 figur
Freight revised es
Terminal to 4 after
at Bihta, FY1
Bihar 3-14
Total
151.2 151.2
(Rs. In 35.94 17.97
60 60
crore)
*Revenues shall not be applicable in case of projects falls in category 4 as per the provisions of the RFQ document.

S.No Locations TTC Required Corrected TTC (yes/no) Experience Score
1 Kotakapura 68.00 35.94 No 17.97

2 Sahnewal 90.00 35.94 No 17.97
3 Narela 92.00 35.94 No 17.97
4 Kathiar 90.00 35.94 No 17.97
5 Changsari 94.00 35.94 No 17.97
6 Whitefield 64.00 35.94 No 17.97
1. Clarification is required regarding the tenure of the shareholding in the associates for eligible projects.
2. Company Secretary Certification needs to be verified for associate
1. The applicant shared the period of the shareholding in the associate through certificate duly certified by earlier statutory auditor and the present
statutory auditor of the associate firms. However the claimed projects are unable to meet the technical capacity
2. The applicant confirmed the company secretary details along with supported document from Ministry of Company Affairs.
FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (The applicant is not meeting minimum threshold technical capacity criteria)

(ix) DINESHCHANDRA R. AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD.
S.No. Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
Crores.
observed that in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for evaluation.
Submitted documents review

Documents
3a Submitted (Page16, 64 to Page 84)


3b Declaration in form of NIL
Worth)
Submitted for five years from (FY13-14 partial audited ) to FY 09-
10(Page 89 to page 245)
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor(Page 26)
6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 29 to 47)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor for. (Page 30 to 48)
Certificate
6b Not applicable
Consortium
11 Yes
signatory
12

Net worth as on
Applicant / Member st Statutory
of Consortium Certification
(Rs. in crore)
Dineshchandra R.
1 138.52 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted
Agrawal
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Dineshchandra R. Agrawal Infracon Private Limited is positive and is meeting the
Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.
Threshold Technical Capacity

crore)
P Re
Paym a ve
Paym
Payme ents y nu
ents Reve
nts made/ m es
made nues
made/ receiv e ap
for appro Ch
receive Ch ed for nt pr
devel priate eck
Categ d for Che eck constr s op
opme d from if
Applicant/Memb ory as constr ck on uction m ria
Projec nt of Eligibl the
er of define uction Experien on cat of a te Experienc Remar
S.No. t Eligibl e TTC proj TTC
Consortium& d by of ce Score own eg Eligibl d d e Score ks
Code e Projec ect
Name of Project Applic Eligible ers ori e e fro
Projec ts in is
ant Project hip zati Projec fo m
ts in Categ Elig
s in on ts in r Eli
Categ ories ible
Catego Categ d gib
ories 1 and
ries 3 ories e le
1 and 2
and 4 3 and v Pr
2
4 el oje
o cts

p in
m Ca
e te
nt go
of rie
E s1
li an
gi d
bl 2
e
P
r
oj
e
ct
s
in
C
at
e
g
o
ri
e
s
1
a
n
d
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18
4

1. The
certifie
d
Estima
ted
Project
Four Lanning of
Cost is
Km0+500 to
Rs
Km 52+700 of
295.82
Kolaghat-Haldia
Cr. It
Section of NH-
is
41 in the state
comm
of West Bengal
Ye 349.1 on in
1 -Balance work a 4 349.16 349.16 174.58 Yes Yes 349.16 174.58
s 6 constr
and
uction
Improvement of
EPC
HPL Link Road
contra
at Haldia (West
ct that
Bengal) from
the
Km.0+150 to
Actual
Km.6+275
Cost is
higher
than
Estima
ted
cost.
Six Laning of
DhanKuni to
Kharagpur
section NH-6
from Km 17.600
to Km 129.00 Ye 282.6
2 b 4 282.69 282.69 141.35 Yes Yes 282.69 141.35
(Length s 9
111.400 Km)in
the State of
West Bengal
under NHDP
Phase-V

1. The
certifie
d
Estima
ted
Project
Cost is
Upgardation of Rs
Mehrauli- 107.85
Gurgaon Cr. It
Section is
(Andheria More comm
to Ye 110.2 on in
3 c 4 110.23 110.23 55.12 Yes Yes 110.23 55.12
Delhi/Haryana s 3 constr
border) from uction
33.300 to EPC
40.755 of NH- contra
236 in the NCT ct that
of Delhi the
Actual
Cost is
higher
than
Estima
ted
cost.
Provision of
Resurfacing of
Ye 114.0
4 Runway and Air d 4 114.68 114.68 57.34 Yes Yes 114 57.00
s 0
Craft areas at
AF station NAL
Improvement
and
Strengthening
of roads of Ye 125.1
5 e 4 125.18 125.18 62.59 Yes Yes 125.18 62.59
Okhla Industrial s 8
Area Phase-I &
II in Central
zone

Constructions
of new Bridges
/Structures,
repair of
existing Four
Lane Highway
from Kharagpur
to Bleshwar
Section of NH-
60 from Km
0.000 to Km
Ye 155.8
6 119.300 in the f 4 155.85 155.85 77.93 Yes Yes 155.85 77.93
s 5
State of Orissa
and West
Bengal and its
operation and
maintained
under NHDP
Phase I to be
executed as
BOT (Toll) on
DBFOT Pattern
(EPC Contract)
Four Laning 1. 50%
and shareh
Strengthening olding
of NH-45B from in
Tovarankrichi consor
Bypass End KM tium
60.950 (Existing hence
Km60.00 of 50% of
NH45B) to Ye revenu
7 g 4 95.79 95.79 47.90 Yes Yes 95.79 95.79 47.90
Othakkadai s e
Bypass End Km receiv
124.840 ed
(Existing consid
Sivaganga ered.
Intersection at
Inner Ring
road) (Contract
Package-VIIB)

1. 50%
Four laning and
shareh
strengthening of
olding
the Existing two
in
lane National
consor
Highway -45B
tium
from Trichy
Ye hence
8 Bypass End to h 4 84.38 84.38 42.19 Yes Yes 84.38 84.38 42.19
s 50% of
Tovarankrichi
revenu
(From KM 0.0
e
to 60.95 in
receiv
Tamil Naidu
ed
(Contract
consid
Package -VIIA))
ered.
1.
97.50
%
shareh
Construction of
olding
Grade
in
Separator at
consor
Dabri
tium
Intersection of Ye
9 i 4 84.13 84.13 42.07 Yes Yes 84.13 84.13 42.07 hence
Pankha road s
97.50
and Road
% of
leading to
revenu
Dawarka near
e
Janakpuri,Delhi
receiv
ed
consid
ered.

Widening and 1. 50%

strengthening of shareh
existing olding
National in
Highway from consor
Km 1065.00 to tium
Km 1040.30 of hence
Nalbari to Bijni 50% of
Ye
10 section of NH- J 4 81.04 81.04 40.52 Yes Yes 81.04 81.04 40.52 revenu
s
31 in Assam on e
East West receiv
corridor under ed
Phase - II consid
programme of ered.
NHDP
(package -AS-
6)
Total (Rs. In
1483.13 741.57 1483.13 741.57
crore)
It is observed from the above table that M/s Dinesh Chandra R. Agrawal Private Limited meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the
project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ
In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant may be considered for pre-qualification any location applied for.
(yes/no) Experience
Score
1 Kotakapura 68.00 1483.13 yes 741.57
2 Sahnewal 90.00 1483.13 yes 741.57

3 Narela 92.00 1483.13 yes 741.57
4 Kathiar 90.00 1483.13 yes 741.57
5 Changsari 94.00 1483.13 yes 741.57
6 Whitefield 64.00 1483.13 yes 741.57
document.

(x) ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.62.25 Crores and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 94.00
Crores.
observed that in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for evaluation.

1 Submitted
Documents
3b Litigation History submitted (Page 10 to Page 11)


5 Appendix I - Annexure III Financial Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 13)
Submitted for five years (Page 92 to Page 319) for FY 2009-10 to FY
2013-14
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate Submitted (Page 13)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor and client (Page 20 to Page 52)
Certificate
6b
8 Appendix II POA submitted (Page 54 to page 55), BR submitted (Page 56)
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12
Financial Capacity
Net worth as on
Applicant / Member st Statutory
of Consortium Certification
(Rs. In crore)
Oriental Structural
1 1099.06 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted
Engineers Pvt. Ltd

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited is positive and is meeting the Financial
Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.

(Rs in crore)
Paym
Payme Reve Payme Reve
Payme ents
nts nues nts nues
nts made
made/ appro made/ appro
made for
receive priate Che receive priate
Cate for develo
d for d ck if d for d
Applicant/ gory develo pment
Proj constr from the Chec Check constr from
S. Member of as pment Experi of Experi
ect uction Eligibl proj k on on uction Eligibl Rem
N Consortiu defin of Total ence Eligibl Total ence
Co of e ect owner categori of e arks
o. m& Name ed by Eligible Score e Score
de Eligible Proje is ship zation Eligible Proje
of Project Appli Project Projec
Project cts in Eligi Project cts in
cant s in ts in
s in Categ ble s in Categ
Catego Categ
Catego ories Catego ories
ries 1 ories
ries 3 1 and ries 3 1 and
and 2 1 and
and 4 2 and 4 2
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Strengthe
ning and
widening
of existing
2-lane
Road to 4-
Lane dual
carriagew
ay from
Km 18.000
- Km 101.7 101.7 101.7
1 a 2 14.93 86.79 Yes Yes Yes 14.93 86.79 101.72
63.000 of 2 2 2
NH-11
(Agra
Bharatpur
section) in
the states
of Uttar
Pradesh &
Rajasthan
on BOT
basis
Strengthe
ning and
widening
of existing
2-lane
Road to 4-
Lane dual
carriagew
ay from
Km 387.6 469.5 469.5 387.6 469.5
2 b 2 81.94 Yes Yes Yes 81.94 469.58
12.600- 5 9 9 4 8
Km84.700
of NH-3
(Indore
khalghat
section) in
the state
of Madhya
Pradesh
on BOT

basis
4-laning of
madhya
pradesh
/Maharash
tra border
Nagpur
section of
NH-7 from
Km.652.00
0(New Km
653.225)
to Km.
729.000
including
1580.8 162.4 1743. 1743. 1580. 162.4 1743. 1743.2
3 constructio c 2 Yes Yes Yes
3 4 27 27 83 5 28 8
n of
Kamptee-
Kanhan
Bypass
and
Nagpur
Bypass
and
maintance
of already
4-laned
section
from
Km14.585

to Km
36.600 of
NH-7
(Nagpur-
Hyderaba
d Section)
in the
state of
maharasht
ra under
NHDP
Phase-II
on
Design,bui
lt,finance
,operate
and
transfer
(DBFOT)
basis
4-laning of
Hungund-
Hospet of
NH-13
from
Km202.00
0 to Km.
299.000 i
in the
state of
Karnatka 877.5 877.5 801.5 877.5
4 d 2 801.52 76.02 Yes Yes Yes 76.03 877.55
under 4 4 2 5
NHDP
Phase-III
on
Design,bui
lt,finance
,operate
and
transfer
(DBFOT)
basis

6-laning of
Etawah-
Chakeri of
NH-2 from
Km
323.475to
Km.
483.687 i
in the
state of
Uttar
177.5 1012. 1012. 835.3 177.5 1012. 1012.9
5 pradesh e 2 835.38 Yes Yes Yes
9 97 97 8 9 97 7
under
NHDP
Phase-IV
on
Design,bui
lt,finance
,operate
and
transfer
(DBFOT)
toll basis
Constructi Value
on from
contract client
for certifi
saleem- cate
Ulundurpe consi
388.2 194.1 382.6
6 t section f 4 388.21 Yes Yes Yes 382.62 191.31 dered
1 1 2
from Km
62.250 to
Km 136.70
on NH-68
in Tamil
Naidu

Constructi
on of Rigid
pavement
and
Granular
layers for
921.9 460.9 921.9
7 Yamuna g 4 921.92 Yes Yes Yes 921.92 460.96
2 6 2
Expressw
ay
between
110.225 to
Km.
165.537
Constructi
on of 4-
laning of
pune-
sholapur
section of
NH-9 from 444.6 222.3 444.6
8 h 4 444.64 Yes Yes Yes 444.64 222.32
Km.93.700 4 2 4
to Km.
144.400 in
the state
of
Maharasht
ra

4-laning of
Nagpur-
Betul of
NH-69
from Km
257.00in
the state
of Madhya
Pradesh
and from
Km.
59.300 to
Km3.000 i
2861.3 2861. 1430. 2861. 1430.6
9 in the i 4 Yes Yes Yes 2861.3
1 31 66 31 6
state of
Maharasht
ra under
NHDP
Phase-IV
on
Design,bui
lt,finance
,operate
and
transfer
(Annuity)
basis
Total (Rs. 8821. 6513. 8815. 6510.3

In crore) 17 13 59 5
It is observed from the above table that M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the
project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ
In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, The Applicant may be considered for pre-qualification

Score
1 Kotakapura 68.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35
2 Sahnewal 90.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35
3 Narela 92.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35
4 Kathiar 90.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35
5 Changsari 94.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35
6 Whitefield 64.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35
document)

(xi) OSR INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS
1. OSR Infra Pvt Limited 74%
2. ADSTEEL l Limited 26%
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
Crores.
observed that the Appendix – II (PoA for signing Application and Bid) is not supported by proper charter document. Clarification in this
regard need to be sought from the applicant. Further, The LM representative have not signed and sealed all the pages of the document
submitted. In pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far, the Application is eligible for evaluation.


Documents
3b Not submitted ( Page 7)
5 Appendix I - Annexure III FC submitted (Page 10 to Page 11)
Worth)
OSR INFRA PVT LTD Submitted for four years (Page 17 to Page 70) for
FY 2010-11 to FY 2013-14
ADC ENERGY SYSTEM Submitted for six years (Page 71 to Page 165)
for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13, for FY 2013-14 the audit is in process
Submitted by statutory auditor for OSR Infra (Page 12 to Page 16). Not
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate
submitted by statutory auditor for ADC energy
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by auditor, not by statutory auditor(Page 182 to Page 183)
Certificate
6b Submitted by auditor, not by statutory auditor (Page 184 to Page 189)
8 Appendix II POA submitted (Page 191 to page 193). BR not submitted
9 Appendix III Submitted (Page 194 to Page 196 )
Consortium
10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement Submitted (Page 197 to Page 201)
11. Yes
signatory
12

Net worth as
st
Applicant / on 31
Statutory
S.No. Member of March 2014 Remarks
Certification
Consortium (Rs. In
crore)
1 OSR Infra 16.93 Provided 1. Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted
1. Audited Balance sheet of Year ending December 2014 not provided.

2. The Balance Sheet provided is of ADC Energy Systems LCC who is an associate.
2 Adsteel Limited 92.99 Provided However document provided to establish more than 50% voting shareholding, in
pursuance of 2.2.9 is not wholly translated by translator and further it is attested by Govt.
of U.A.E. or embassy of India.
3 Total 109.92
It is observed from the above table that the clarification need to be sought from the applicant regarding the net worth of M/s ADSTEEL Limited to
ascertain the Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the
RFQ. **
**Subject to clarification on Financial Statements of Adsteel Limited and its Associate


in crore)
Paymen Paymen
ts Paymen Revenu ts Paymen Revenu
made/ ts made es made/ ts made es
Che
receive for appropr receive for appropri
Categ ck if
Applicant/M d for develop iated Exp d for develop ated
Proj ory as the Check Check
ember of constru ment of from erie constru ment of from Experi
S. ect define proj on on Tota Rem
Consortium ction of Eligible Eligible Total nce ction of Eligible Eligible ence
No. Cod d by ect owner categoriz l arks
& Name of Eligible Projects Project Sco Eligible Projects Projects Score
e Applic is ship ation
Project Projects in s in re Projects in in
ant Eligi
in Categori Categor in Categori Categor
ble
Categor es 1 ies 1 Categor es 1 ies 1
ies 3 and 2 and 2 ies 3 and 2 and 2
and 4 and 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Adsteel
Do not meet C-4

Limited and
West Bay
criteria
(District 75.0
1 2a 4 150.00 150.00 Yes Yes
Cooling 0
Plant #3@
37,500 TR
Capacity)

Saraya
Corniche
Developme
nt (EPC- 30.0
2 2b 4 60.00 60.00 Yes Yes
District 0
Cooling
Plant of
52,000 TR)
Marina
Phase 1
(EPC-
District 82.5
3 2c 4 165.00 165.00 Yes Yes
Cooling 0
Plant @
90,000 TR
Capacity)
Saadiyat
Island
(District
65.0
4 Cooling 2d 4 130.00 130.00 Yes Yes
0
Plant #3@
35,000 TR
Capacity)
New York
University
(EPC-
District 72.0
5 2e 4 144.00 144.00 Yes Yes
Cooling 0
Plant @
16,000 TR
Capacity)
Abu Dhabi
National
Exhibition
Co (EPC-
69.0
6 District 2f 4 138.00 138.00 Yes Yes
0
Cooling
Plant @
25,000 TR
Capacity)

Dragon
Mart
Expansion
(EPC-
Modular 80.0
7 2g 4 160.00 160.00 Yes Yes
District 0
Cooling
Plant @
10,000 TR
Capacity)
Shams
(Modular
District
12.0
8 Cooling 2h 4 24.00 24.00 Yes Yes
0
Plant @
10,000 TR
Capacity)
King Saud
University
Endowment
(EPC-
33.0
9 District 2i 4 66.00 66.00 Yes Yes
0
Cooling
Plant @
15,000 TR
Capacity)
Saadiyat
Island
(EPC -
District 63.0
10 2j 4 126.00 126.00 Yes Yes
Cooling 0
Plant # 2 @
12,500 TR
Capacity)
Dubai
Investment
Park (EPC-
District 32.5
11 2k 4 65.00 65.00 Yes Yes
Cooling 0
Plant # 3 @
37,500 TR
Capacity)

Rheem
Island
(EPC-
District 34.0
12 2l 4 68.00 68.00 Yes Yes
Cooling 0
Plant @
90,000 TR
Capacity)
Total (Rs. 648.

1296 0.00 0.00
In crore) 00
The applicant has submitted the consolidated auditor’s certificate for all projects in the annexure.
It is observed from the above table that the applicant is not meeting the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project location applied for, as
per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ.
(yes/no) Experience
Score
1 Kotakapura 68.00 No
2 Sahnewal 90.00 No
3 Narela 92.00 No

4 Kathiar 90.00 No
5 Changsari 94.00 No
6 Whitefield 64.00 No
1. The submitted POA is not supported by Board Resolution/ Proper Charter Document.
2. The declaration regarding non-performance is not submitted. As per point 7 of Annex– I of the Appendix I of the RFQ document, the same needs to be
supported by declaration from the applicant.
3. The project experience certificate is submitted by Audited only whereas the same was required to be submitted duly certified by Statutory Auditor
2. Provided the copy of the Board Resolution in support of POA
3. The applicant has not furnished the non- performance declaration
4. The explanation given by the applicant has not been supported by document, therefore the claimed experience cannot be considered.
FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (The applicant is not meeting the technical capacity criteria and has not submitted the documents as per the RFQ
document)

(xii) M/S GARWAR – ELL ESS JV
1. ELL ESS 60%
2. Garwar Construction Limited 40%
S.No Locations
1 Sahnewal
2 Narela
3 Changsari
Crores.
However before evaluating the Financial Capacity & Technical Capacity of the Applicant the eligibility of the applicant has been evaluated and in
pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far, the Application is eligible for evaluation.

1 Submitted (page 294)
Documents
3 Appendix I - Annexure I Details of the Applicant Submitted (Page 4 to Page 5 for ELL and page 14 to 15 for Gawar)

Incorporation Certificate Submitted (Page 6 to Page 25)

3a MOA & AOA Submitted (Page 26 to Page 82) only for GAWAR. Not
submitted for ELSS
3b Declaration given by both the members ( Page 5 and Page 15)
5 Appendix I - Annexure III submitted (Page 243)
Worth)
GAWAR CONST LTD Submitted for five years (Page 91 to Page 242) for
FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate Submitted by auditor ( Not by statutory auditor) (Page 84 to Page 90)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted (Page 244 to Page 291)
Certificate
6b
7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 292 to Page 293 )
8 Appendix II POA submitted (Page 296 to page 301), BR submitted (Page 302)
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12

st
Applicant / Member of Net worth as on 31 March 2014 (Rs. Statutory
S.No. Remarks
Consortium In crore) Certification
Net worth certificate provided based on 31st march 2015 which

1 Elss 0 Yes cannot be considered
st Provided statutory auditor and audited financial statements
Yes as on 31
2 Garwar 199.39
March 2014
3 Total 199.39
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Garwar – Ess JV is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of the locations
applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.
as presented below:

in crore)

Reve
Payme Payme nues
nts Paymen Revenu nts Paymen appr
made/ ts made es made/ ts made opria
Che
receive for appropri receive for ted
Categ ck if
Applicant/M d for develop ated d for develop from
Proj ory as the Check Check
S. ember of constru ment of from Experi constru ment of Eligib Experi
ect define proj on on Rem
No Consortium ction of Eligible Eligible Total ence ction of Eligible le Total ence
Cod d by ect owner categoriz arks
. & Name of Eligible Projects Projects Score Eligible Projects Proje Score
e Applic is ship ation
Project Projects in in Projects in cts in
ant Eligi
in Categor Categori in Categor Cate
ble
Categor ies 1 es 1 Categor ies 1 gorie
ies 3 and 2 and 2 ies 3 and 2 s 1
and 4 and 4 and
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Gawar
Constructio
n Limited
and
Constructio
n of Master
Roads
Sector-75
to 89,
Faridabad.
"Supply &
Laying of 173.
1 A 4 173.36 0.000 0.000 86.68 Yes Yes Yes 173.36 173 86.68
Earth Work 36
in
embankme
nt, Granular
Sub Base,
Wet Mix
Macadam,
Dense
Bituminous
Macadam,
Bituminous
Concrete

M-20 Cast
in Situ Kerb
&
Channel,Re
inforced
Cement
Concrete
drain,
Culverts &
all other
work
contingent
(Including
one year
free defect
liability
period &
further 4
year paid
maintainanc
e after
successful
completion
of work &
free
maintainanc
e period.
Improveme
nt by
raising,
widening
strengtheni
ng and
providing
151.
2 side B 4 151.85 0.00 0.00 75.93 Yes Yes Yes 151.85 152 75.93
85
drains,CC
Pavement
on various
roads in
Jhajjhar
Distt.
(Package

No
HSRDC/NC
R/C-22 of
2010)
Four Laning
Rohtak
Bhiwani
Road (Km
91.6 to
113.91) &
four lanning
of Rohtak
Hisar road
from drain
126.
3 No. 8 to C 4 126.28 0.00 0.00 63.14 Yes Yes Yes 126.28 126 63.14
28
Bahujamalp
ur (Km 79.2
to 86.80) in
Rohtak
Distt.
(Package
No.
HSRDC/NC
R/C-
23/2009)
Improveme
nt of
Bahadurgar
79.7
4 h-Jhajjar D 4 79.78 0.00 0.00 39.890 Yes Yes Yes 79.78 80 39.89
8
road Km
0.00 to Km.
28.300
Widening
with raising
and
Strengtheni
68.0
5 ng to two E 4 68.08 0.00 0.00 34.04 Yes Yes Yes 68.08 68 34.04
8
lane with
geometric
improveme
nt and

construction
/
reconstructi
on of C.D.
work from
Km. 0/0 to
Km. 5/0,
Km 11/0 to
Km. 31/0,
Km 50/0 to
51/0, Km
57/0 to Km
59/100 and
Km 64/250
to Km
88/500 on
NH-90
(Baran-
Atru-
Chhipabaro
d-Aklera
Road) in
Rajasthan
State under
special
project
scheme
(Job nk
90/RJ/2009
-10/06)
Constructio
n of 75 mtr.
(2x14) and
60 mtr
(2x12.5)
wide 63.9
6 F 4 63.99 0.00 0.00 32.00 Yes Yes Yes 63.99 64 32.00
sectors 9
roads
sector
between
sector-99 to
115

gurgaon
manesar
urban
complex
2025 AD
Widening
and
Strengtheni
ng of road
from
Bahalgarh
Chowk
(NH-1) to
46.2
7 Sonepat to G 4 46.23 0.00 0.00 23.12 Yes Yes Yes 46.23 46 23.12
3
Gohana to
Sonepat
District
Boundary
on Jind
road from
Km 11.600
to 74.000
Constructio
n of 60 mtr
wide master
roads
between
sec 66/67,
65/54, 44.5
8 H 4 44.52 0.00 0.00 22.26 Yes Yes Yes 44.52 45 22.26
65/66, 2
64/67,
62/65,
63/64,
62/63,
61/60,
58/61,

59/61,
59/60,
58/59 and
outer of
Sector-58
Gurgaon
Improveme
nt of
Punhana
Jurhera
road and
providing
service lane
& Drains on
Gurgaon
70.9
9 Nuh Alwar I 4 43.95 0.00 26.95 35.45 Yes Yes Yes 43.95 44 21.98
0
Road in
Gurgaon &
Mewat
Distt.
(Package
No
HSRDC/NC
R/C-
26/2009)
Improveme
nt &
Strengtheni
ng of
Dhansa
42.4
10 Road from J 4 42.48 0.00 0.00 21.24 Yes Yes Yes 42.48 42 21.24
8
Najafgarh
Town to
Dhansa
Border,
NGZ

Widening of
NH-10
(Delhi
Rohtak
Road) from
6/7 lanes to
8 lanes
38.3
11 from RD K 4 38.32 0.00 0.00 19.16 Yes Yes Yes 38.32 38 19.16
2
12.300 km
(Punjabi
Bagh) to
RD 24.00
km
(Mundaka)
in Delhi
Improveme
nt of 4 nos
road in
Kaithal
Distt. (i) 4
Lane on old
bye pass
connecgting
Kaithal
Ambala
Patiala road
(City
Portion) (ii)
34.4
12 6 lane on L 4 34.43 0.00 0.00 17.22 34.43 34 17.22
3
Kaithal
Ambala
road from
Pehowa
Chowk to
New bye
pass in city
portion km
123.18 to
125.28 (iii)
6 lane on
Karnal
Kaithal road

upto
Pehowa
Chowk (Km
69.40 to
72.00) (iv) 6
lane on
Kaithal
Kurukshetra
road (Km
41.50 to
44.00)
Upgradatio
n of
Saharanpur
32.6
13 Kurukshetra M 4 32.60 0.00 0.00 16.30 32.60 33 16.30
0
road Km
55.00 to
76.150
Up-
gradation of
Master
Road from
32.3
14 HUDA City N 4 32.31 0.00 0.00 16.16 32.31 32 16.16
1
centre to
Subhash
Chowk
Gurgaon
Improveme
nt of road
by way of
Widening /
Strengtheni
ng on
Kalunaur
31.8
5 Basana O 4 31.87 0.00 0.00 15.94 31.87 32 15.94
7
Meham
road from
Km 0.00 to
Km 18.184
in Rohtak
Distt. (Road
ID no.

1764, 1758
& 1759)
Total (Rs. 1037

518.50 1010.05 505.03
In crore) .00
It is observed from the above table that Garwar – ELL ESS Construction JV meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project location
applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ
In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant may be considered for pre-qualification.
(yes/no) Experience
Score
1 Sahnewal 90.00 1010.05 Yes 505.03
3 Narela 92.00 1010.05 Yes 505.03
5 Changsari 94.00 1010.05 Yes 505.03
FINAL STATUS: PRE-QUALIFIED (The applicant is meeting the financial capacity and technical capacity in pursuance of the clauses of the RFQ
document.

(xiii) JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
Name of the Applicant/ Consortium Shareholding Pattern of Consortium Members

Members
1. JKG Infratech Private Ltd 26%
2. Ahuja and Anand Buildwell Pvt Ltd 26%
3. SSR Buildcon Pvt Ltd 26%
4. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta 11%
5. Mr. Vipul Mittal 11%
The applicant has applied for the following location –

Table 13.1
S.No Locations
1 Narela
To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.11.50 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 92.00
crore.

Documents

JKG INFRATECH PVT LTD Submitted MOA & AOA (Page 206 to Page
247) and BR (Page 248)
Incorporation, Memorandum and AHUJA & ANAND BUIDWELL PVT LTD Submitted MOA & AOA (Page
3a
Articles of Association 249 to Page 288) and BR (Page 289)
SSR INFRABUIDCON PVT LTD Submitted MOA & AOA (Page 290 to
Page 314) and BR (Page 315)
3b Declaration in form “Not applicable” for all three members
5 Appendix I - Annexure III FC submitted (Page 17)
Worth)
JKG INFRATECH PVT LTD Submitted for five years (Page 52 to Page
113) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14
AHUJA & ANAND BUIDWELL PVT LTD Submitted for five years (Page
5a Audited five years annual reports 114 to Page 174) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14
SSR INFRABUIDCON PVT LTD Submitted for five years (Page 175 to
Page 205) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 (Partial audited documents
without notes to financial statements)
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate Submitted (Page 18 to Page 22)
6a Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page 28 to Page 31)
Certificate
6b NA
Power of Attorney for signing of POA submitted (Page 33 to page 36). BR 248. 289 and 315 for all
8 Appendix II
Application (Board Resolution) members
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12

Net worth as on
S.No. Applicant / Member of Consortium 31st March 2014 Statutory Certification Remarks
(Rs. in crore)
Submitted the statutory auditors certificate and audited
1 JKG Infratech Private Limited 4.517 Submitted
financial statements
2. Ahuja and Anand Buildwell Pvt. Ltd 4.827 Submitted
3. SSR Infra Buildcon Pvt Ltd 2.387 Submitted
Total 11.73
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of the applicant is meeting the Financial Capacity for applied location (Narela) as per
provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.

crore)

Check
Payme if the Payme
Applican
receive for appropri Eligible receive for appropri
t / Categ
d for develop ated & d for develop ated
Member Proj ory as Check Check
constru ment of from Experi Comm constru ment of from Experi
S.N of ect define on on Tota Rema
ction of Eligible Eligible Total ence ents ction of Eligible Eligible ence
o. Consorti Cod d by owner categoriz l rks
Eligible Projects Projects Score on Eligible Projects Projects Score
um & e Applic ship ation
Project in in Appen Project in in
Name of ant
s in Categori Categor dix - I s in Categori Categor
Project
Categor es 1 ies 1 submitt Categor es 1 ies 1
ies 3 and 2 and 2 ed by ies 3 and 2 and 2
and 4 Applic and 4
ant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
JKG
Infratech
Pvt Ltd
and Six
Laning
of
Gurgaon
-
Kotputli-
26.9 26.9
1 Jaipur 1a 2 0.000 0.000 26.950 26.950 Yes Yes 4 26.950 13.48
50 50
Section
of NH-8
(DBFOT
-Design
Build
Finance
Operate
Transfer
)
Develop No Yes
ment of
Land 14.9
2 1b 4 14.980 0.000 0.000 7.490
(For 80
Real
State)

Work of
Regiona
l water
supply
scheme
of 199
villages 11.1 11.1
3 1c 4 11.180 0.000 0.000 5.590 Yes 4 11.180 5.59
and their 80 8
habitatio
ns. Sub
Head:-
Restorat
ion of
Road
Ahuja Yes 4
and
Anand
Buidwell
Pvt Ltd
and
World 153.46 153. 153.46 153.
4 2a 4 0.000 0.000 76.730 Yes 76.73
Square 0 460 0 46
Mall
Constru
ction
(Real
State
Project)
Total
206. 116.76 191.
(Rs. In 95.80
570 0 59
crore)

(yes/no) Experience
Score
1 Narela 92.00 191.59 Yes 95.80
Clarifications Sought:
1. Kindly clarify the Net Worth claimed in the Statutory Auditors certificate vis a vis the Financial Statements for M/s SSR Buildcon.
1. The applicant has furnished the statutory auditor certificate with net worth calculation details.
FINAL STATUS: PRE QUALIFIED

(xiv) SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LTD

Table 14.1
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.62.25 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs. 94.00
Crore

1 Submitted (page 344)
Documents
Incorporation, Memorandum and Submitted MOA & AOA (Page 110 to Page 205) for Sree Shubham
3a
Articles of Association Not submitted for Kalpataru Transmission
3b Submitted (Page 8)
5 Appendix I - Annexure III Financial Capacity of the Applicant FC submitted (Page 10 to Page 12)
Submitted for five years (Page 209 to Page 338) for FY 2009-10 to FY
2013-14
5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate submitted (Page 12 to 13)


6a Project Experience certification Submitted (Page 14 to Page 105)
Certificate
6b submitted by company secretary ( but not from company) (Page 106)
Power of Attorney for signing of POA submitted (Page 206 to page 208), BR submitted (Page 343 to
8 Appendix II
Application (Board Resolution) Page 345)
9 Appendix III NA
Consortium
10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement NA
11. Yes
signatory
12

Statutory
Certification
Shree Shubham Submitted the statutory auditor’s certificate and audited financial statements. The
1 82.08 Present applicant is meeting the minimum net worth criteria.
Logistics Ltd
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Shree Shubham Logistics Ltd is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of
the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.


in crore)
Check
Payme if the Payme
Applicant Cate receive for appropr Eligibl receive for appropr
/ Member gory d for develop iated e & d for develop iated
Proj Check Check
of as constru ment of from Experi Comm constru ment of from Experi
S. ect on on Rem
Consortiu defin ction of Eligible Eligible Total ence ents ction of Eligible Eligible Total ence
No. Cod owner categori arks
m & ed by Eligible Projects Project Score on Eligible Projects Project Score
e ship zation
Name of Appli Project in s in Appen Project in s in
Project cant s in Categor Categor dix - I s in Categor Categor
Catego ies 1 ies 1 submit Catego ies 1 ies 1
ries 3 and 2 and 2 ted by ries 3 and 2 and 2
and 4 Applic and 4
ant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Shree
Shubham
Logistics
and
Constructi
1 on of a 1 0.000 20.56 1.44 22.00 27.50 Yes Yes Yes 0.00 20.56 1.44 22.00 27.50
Warehou
se at
Devas,
Madhya
Pradesh
Constructi
b 1 0.000 12.990 0.870 13.86 17.325 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 12.990 0.870 13.86 17.32
on of
Warehou

se at
Harda,
Madhya
Pradesh
Constructi
on of
Warehou
c 1 0.000 11.15 1.06 12.21 15.263 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 11.150 1.060 12.21 15.263
se at
Itarsi,
Madhya
Pradesh
Constructi
on of
Warehou 15.35
d 1 0.000 14.880 0.470 19.188 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 14.880 0.470 15.35 19.188
se at 0
Neemuch
, Madhya
Pradesh
Constructi
on of
Warehou 12.59 12.59
e 1 0.000 12.220 0.370 15.738 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 12.220 0.370 15.738
se at 0 0
Vidisha,
Madhya
Pradesh
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply, 85.74 85.74
f 4 85.740 0.000 0.000 42.870 Yes Yes Yes 85.740 0.000 0.000 42.870
installatio 0 0
n and
erection
of Bina-
Pichore
Transmis
sion Line.

EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
installatio 195.88 195.8 195.88 195.8
g 4 0.000 0.000 97.940 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 97.940
n and 0 80 0 80
erection
of
Krishnapa
tnam-
Gooty
Transmis
sion Line.
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply, 159.63 159.6 159.63 159.6
h 4 0.000 0.000 79.815 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 79.815
installatio 0 3 0 30
n and
erection
of Silwar-
Satna
Transmis
sion Line.
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower 183.98 183.9 183.98 183.9
i 4 0.000 0.000 91.990 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 91.990
supply, 0 80 0 80
installatio
n and
erection
of Satna-
Bina

Transmis
sion Line.
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply, 94.86 94.86
j 4 94.860 0.000 0.000 47.430 Yes Yes Yes 94.860 0.000 0.000 47.430
installatio 0 0
n and
erection
of Gaya-
Sasaram
Transmis
sion Line.
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply, 66.22 66.22
k 4 66.220 0.000 0.000 33.110 Yes Yes Yes 66.220 0.000 0.000 33.110
installatio 0 0
n and
erection
of Kaithal-
Meerut
Transmis
sion Line.
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line 93.16 93.16
l 4 93.160 0.000 0.000 46.580 Yes Yes Yes 93.160 0.000 0.000 46.580
tower 0 0
supply,
installatio
n and
erection

of
Champa
Pooling
Station
(PS)-
Kurukshet
ra
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
installatio
n and 146.06 146.0 146.06 146.0
m 4 0.000 0.000 73.030 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 73.030
erection 0 60 0 60
of
Subhansir
i-
Biswanat
h
Chariyali
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
156.89 156.8 156.89 156.8
installatio n 4 0.000 0.000 78.445 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 78.445
0 90 0 90
n and
erection
of
Gopalgan
j-
Gorakhur
Transmis

sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
to
wer
supply,
installatio
n and
erection
ofVidhyac
al-Korba
for 400KV
335.25 335.2 167.62 335.25 335.2 167.62
D/C o 4 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000
0 50 5 0 50 5
Transmis
sion Line
from
2*600
MW
Mahan
TTP
(Madhya
Pradesh)
to Sipat
(Chattisg
arh)
Transmis
sion Line.
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
298.71 298.7 149.35 298.71 298.7 149.35
sion Line p 4 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000
0 10 5 0 10 5
tower
supply,
installatio
n and

erection
of Akola-
Aurangab
ad
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
96.35 96.35
installatio q 4 96.350 0.000 0.000 48.175 Yes Yes Yes 96.350 0.000 0.000 48.175
0 0
n and
erection
of
Koldam-
Ludhiana
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
73.54 73.54
installatio r 4 73.540 0.000 0.000 36.770 Yes Yes Yes 73.540 0.000 0.000 36.770
0 0
n and
erection
of
Chamrad
ol-Satna
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for 140.19 140.1 140.19 140.1
s 4 0.000 0.000 70.095 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 70.095
Transmis 0 90 0 90
sion Line
tower

supply,
installatio
n and
erection
of Angul
Pooling
Station-
Jharsugu
da
Pooling
Station
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
75.72 75.72
installatio t 4 75.720 0.000 0.000 37.860 Yes Yes Yes 75.720 0.000 0.000 37.860
0 0
n and
erection
of
Gwalior-
Jaipur
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply, 347.97 347.9 173.98 347.97 347.9 173.98
u 4 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000
installatio 0 70 5 0 70 5
n and
erection
of
Babhales
hwar-
Kudus

and
Padhghe-
Tarapur
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply, 235.22 235.2 117.61 235.22 235.2 117.61
v 4 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000
installatio 0 20 0 0 20 0
n and
erection
of Raipur-
Wardha
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
installatio 164.50 164.5 164.50 164.5
w 4 0.000 0.000 82.250 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 82.250
n and 0 00 0 00
erection
of
Kanpur-
Jhatikara
(Part-1)
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
171.06 171.0 171.06 171.0
Transmis x 4 0.000 0.000 85.530 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 85.530
0 60 0 60
sion Line
tower
supply,

installatio
n and
erection
of
Kanpur-
Jhatikara
(Part-11)
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
installatio
n and 121.57 121.5 121.57 121.5
y 4 0.000 0.000 60.785 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 60.785
erection 0 70 0 70
of Vapi-
Navi
Mumbai
and
Navsari-
Boisar
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
249.83 249.8 124.91 249.83 249.8 124.91
installatio z 4 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000
0 30 5 0 30 5
n and
erection
of
Gwalior-
Jaipur
Transmis
sion Line

EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
installatio
165.16 165.1 165.16 165.1
n and aa 4 0.000 0.000 82.580 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000 82.580
0 60 0 60
erection
of
Kurnool-
Thiruvala
m (Part-
11)
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
for
Transmis
sion Line
tower
supply,
installatio
200.29 200.2 100.14 200.29 200.2 100.14
n and ab 4 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000
0 90 5 0 90 5
erection
of
Kurnool-
Thiruvala
m (Part-
111)
Transmis
sion Line
EPC
Project
"Supply
and 1089.2 1089. 544.61 1089.2 1089. 544.61
ac 4 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 0.000
Installatio 30 230 5 30 230 5
n of extra
high
voltage

transmissi
on
overhead
lines"
Total (Rs. 5023. 2568.5 5023. 2568.5

In crore) 020 18 02 18
(yes/no) Experience
Score
5023.02 Yes 2568.51
1 Kotakapura 68.00
5023.02 Yes 2568.51
2 Sahnewal 90.00
5023.02 Yes 2568.51
3 Narela 92.00
5023.02 Yes 2568.51
4 Kathiar 90.00
5023.02 Yes 2568.51
5 Changsari 94.00
5023.02 Yes 2568.51
6 Whitefield 64.00
1. Please clarify the shareholding of the associate M/s Kalaptaru Power transmission in the claimed EPC Project.
th
1. The applicant vide letter dated 27 July 2015 has clarified the same that shareholding is not required in case of category 4 projects.
document)

(xv) SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT. LTD

Table 15.1
S.No Locations
1 Kotakapura
2 Sahnewal
3 Narela
4 Kathiar
5 Changsari
6 Whitefield
crore.
Review of Submitted Documents

Documents
3a Submitted (Page 289 to Page 308) Not submitted for Leap energy
3b Declaration in form of Not Applicable
5 Appendix I - Annexure III Financial Capacity of the Applicant (Net Submitted (Page 9 to page 11)

Worth)
Submitted five years audited financial statements for Si Karthikeay and

associate Leap Energy for FY 09-14) (Page 40 to page 288)
st
Submitted by statutory auditor for M/s Karthikeya 31 March 2014(Page
10) and Auditor certificate for associate

Submitted by statutory auditor for (Page 20)
6a Project Experience certification Self-attested by parent company (Page 21 to Page 27). Need to be
Certificate
certified by statutory auditor
6b Submitted (Page 31 to 35)
7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 28)
8 Appendix II Submitted (Page 36 to page 37) Board Resolution not submitted
Consortium
11. Yes
signatory
12
The applicant (Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited) using the net worth credentials of an associate M/s Leap Green Energy Private
Limited along.


Statutory
Certification
Submitted the statutory auditor’s certificate and last five years audited financial
Sri Karthikeya statement for Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited
Statutory
Spinning and
1 13. 85 Auditors
Weaving Mills
certificate
Private Limited
The applicant has submitted the auditors certificate of an associate i.e. Leap Green
Energy Private Limited and also submitted last five years audited financial statements
Associate: M/s
Leap Green
3. 684.22 Submitted
Energy Private
Limited.
st
It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited is Rs.13.85 crore as on 31
march 2014 based on the statutory auditor certificate and audited financial statements. The associate i.e Leap Energy’s net worth of Rs.684.22 crore
st
as on 31 march 2014 as per the auditor’s certificate,
Based on the verified net worth of Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited and associate i.e M/s Leap Energy, the applicant
fulfilling the financial capacity for all the applied locations


(Rs in crore)
Check
Payme if the Payme
Reven
nts Paymen project nts Payment
ues Revenue
Applica made/ ts made is made/ s made
approp s
nt / receive for Eligible receive for
Categ riated appropria
Membe d for develop & Chec d for develop
Proj ory as from Check ted from
r of constru ment of Experi Comm k on constru ment of Exper
S.N ect define Eligibl on Eligible
Consor ction of Eligible Total ence ents categ ction of Eligible Total ience Remarks
o. Cod d by e owner Projects
tium & Eligible Projects Score on orizat Eligible Projects Score
e Applic Project ship in
Name Project in Appen ion Project in
ant s in Categori
of s in Categori dix - I s in Categori
Categ es 1 and
Project Categor es 1 submitt Catego es 1 and
ories 1 2
ies 3 and 2 ed by ries 3 2
and 2
and 4 Applic and 4
ant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
FY14-15
Wind not
1 a 2 0.000 54.690 0.000 54.69 54.69 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 considere
Mill
d
No
Wind 25.48
2 b 4 25.480 0.000 0.000 12.74 Yes Yes 4 25.480 0.000 0.000 25.48 12.74
Mill 0
Wind 18.72
3 c 4 18.720 0.000 0.000 9.36 Yes Yes 4 18.72 0.000 0.000 18.72 9.36
Mill 0

Wind 27.72 13.86

4 d 4 27.720 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes 4 27.720 0.000 0.000 27.72 13.86
Mill 0 0
Wind 28.04 28.04

5 e 4 56.090 0.000 0.000 56.09 Yes Yes 4 56.090 0.000 0.000 56.09
Mill 5 5
Wind 25.29 25.29

6 f 4 50.590 0.000 0.000 50.59 Yes Yes 4 50.590 0.000 0.000 50.59
Mill 5 5
Wind 64.64 32.32 32.32

7 g 4 64.640 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes 4 64.640 0.000 0.000 64.64
Mill 0 0 0
Wind 58.02 29.01 29.01

8 h 4 58.020 0.000 0.000 Yes Yes 4 58.020 0.000 0.000 58.02
Mill 0 0 0

Total
355.9 205.3 301.2 150.6
(Rs. In
5 2 6 3
crore)
It is observed from the above table that from M/s Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private as an applicant is meeting the Technical
Threshold Capacity criteria
Based on the examination of the clarifications submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be
(yes/no) Experience
Score
310.26 Yes 150.63
1 Kotakapura 68.00
310.26 Yes 150.63
2 Sahnewal 90.00
310.26 Yes 150.63
3 Narela 92.00
310.26 Yes 150.63
4 Kathiar 90.00
310.26 Yes 150.63
5 Changsari 94.00
310.26 Yes 150.63
6 Whitefield 64.00
1. The submitted POA is not supported by Board Resolution.
2. As per the provisions of the RFQ document, if the Applicant owns the project the Statutory Auditor should certify as per the provisions of Instruction no. 14
(special notes to the instruction mentioned) of Annex-IV of Appendix – I whereas the experience certificate submitted by the parent company is self-attested

th
The applicant vide letter dated 30 July 201 has furnished the documents against the mentioned Clarification’s;
1. Furnished the copy of the board resolution in support of PoA.

2. The applicant has provided the statutory certification for the claimed projects.
document.

4. CONCLUSION:
The RFQ application submitted by the 21 applicants against the RFQ floated for the project “Development of Silos at 6 locations in 5 states of India
on DBFOT basis under PPP mode” and subsequently clarifications were sought from the applicant for finalization of the RFQ evaluation process.
Based on the evaluation of the clarifications submitted by the applicant, the final status of 21 applicants are presented in the table given below:
Table A
S.No. APPLICANT Number of Locations applied for Result

1. ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL,
WHITEFIELD (5) KATIHAR and WHITEFIELD (5)
2. ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2) Not qualified
LTD
3. CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED Not qualified
4. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL,
INFRACON PVT.LTD WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6) KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
5. GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE NARELA, SAHNEWAL AND CHANGSARI (3) Prequalified NARELA, SAHNEWAL AND CHANGSARI (3)
6. JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED NARELA (1) Pre-qualified for NARELA
7. LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Not qualified
WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
8. LT FOODS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Not qualified
9. NATIONAL COLLATERAL KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Not qualified
MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
10. OM METALS INFRAPROJECTS LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Not qualified
11. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL,
PVT. LTD WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6) KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
12. OSR INFRA PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Not qualified
13. PRISTINE LOGISTICS & KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Not qualified
INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
14. SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL,
WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6) KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
15. SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Not qualified
PRIVATE LIMITED WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

16. SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED Not qualified
17. SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD WHITEFIELD (1) Not qualified
18. SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL,
WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6) KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
19. STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Prequalified for WHITEFIELD only
COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
20. SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2) Prequalified for NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2)
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
L 21. TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL,
LTD WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6) KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)
Location Wise Prequalification Details
S.NO. APPLICANT KOTAKAPURA NARELA SAHNEWAL KATHIAR CHANGSARI WHITEFIELD

1. ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3. GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE Yes Yes Yes
4. JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED Yes
5. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6. SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7. SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL
8. MANAGEMENT LIMITED Yes
9. SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Yes Yes

10. TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
FINAL LIST OF PREQUAIFIED APPLICANTS FOR EACH LOCATION 6 9 7 6 6 8

Location wise ranking details of the pre-qualified applicants are given below:
1. Kotakapura
S.NO. APPLICANT Score Ranking

1 ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD 6510.35 1
2 SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED 2568.51 2
3 DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD 741.57 3
4 TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD 311.45 4
5 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD 150.63 5
6 ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED 92.06 6
2. Narela

4 GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE 505.03 4
5 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 451.07 5
8 JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED 95.8 8

3. Sahnewal

4. Katihar

5 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT 150.63 5
LTD

5. Changsari

6 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT 150.63 6
LTD
6. Whitefield

4 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 451.07 4
STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT

8 8
LIMITED
53.61

RFQ - Development of Modern Silos at 6 Locations in 5 States of India On DBFOT Basis Under PPP Mode

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RFQ - Development of Modern Silos at 6 Locations in 5 States of India On DBFOT Basis Under PPP Mode

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final RFQ Evaluation Report for

the project “Development of

SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 2

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 3

1. Brief Summary of the Request for Qualification (RFQ) Process

Number of Applications Received : 21 nos. (Twenty One Applicants)

Name of Applicants with applied project locations

S.No. APPLICANT Number of Locations applied for

3 CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED

6 JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED NARELA (1)

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 4

16 SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED

17 SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD WHITEFIELD (1)

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 5

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 6

2. TEST OF ELIGIBILITY and RESPONSIVENESS

2.2 Measure of responsiveness -

(a) it is received as per format at Appendix-I;

(f) it contains information in formats same as those specified in this RFQ;

(j) it does not contain any condition or qualification; and

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 7

(k) it is not non-responsive in terms hereof.

S.No. Applicant Responsiveness

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 8

2.3 General Observation –

2.4 Reasons of Applications declared Not eligible:

(i) OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD AND OTHERS

The following points make the application non-responsive:-

No. Criteria Yes No

1. Has the Applicant/ constituent of the Consortium been barred

3. Has the Applicant/ constituent of the Consortium paid

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 9

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 10

Name of the Applicant/ Consortium Shareholding Pattern of Consortium Members

2. Mayur Construction Company 26%

3. LMJ Logistics Limited 26%

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 11

2.5 Reasons of Non-responsiveness of the 4 Applications are given below:

(i) CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO. AND OTHERS

The following points make the application non-responsive:-

(ii) SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD

The following points make the application non-responsive:-

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 12

(iii) SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD

The following points make the application non-responsive:-

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 13

(iv) NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED

The following points make the application non-responsive:-

Technical capacity shown by the Applicant (Rs

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 14

Provid Yes Unable

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 15

3. EVALUATION OF RESPONSIVE APPLICATIONS

5. As per the Companies Act 2013, the net worth definition

As per the RFQ, the net worth definition

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 16

As per sec 52 of the Companies Act 2013

(b) in writing off the preliminary expenses of the company;

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 17

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 18

Table – A 1 (Rs. in crore)

Minimum Thresh Technical Individual Project Cost (10% of the