Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GOVERNMENTOFANDHRAPRADESH
ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT
21
Instructions to Consultants
DATA SHEET
Paragraph
Reference
1.1
Name of the Client: Roads & Buildings Department (RBD) I A.P. Road
Development Corporation (APRDC), Government of
Andhra Pradesh (GoAP)
Method of selection: Q:uality and Cost Based Sel~tion [QCBS]
. 1.2
1.3
'-
1.4 -
1.12
Proposals must remain valid for 90 days after the last date of submission.
22
2.1
Clarifications may be requested not later than 15 days before the submission
date.
The address for requesting clarifications is:
Address:
3.3 (a)
3.3 (b)
3.4
3.4 (g)
3.7
23
.
The above only are to be shown separately in their financial proposal.
3.8
4.3
Consultant must submit the original and 3 copies of the Technical Proposal,
and the original of the Financial Proposal.
4.5
24
5.2 (a)
Criteria, sub-criteria, and point system for the evaluation of Full Technical
Proposals are:
(i)
(ii)
5 Points
15.0
5.0
5.0
Total points for criterion (ii):
25 Points
(iii) Key professional staff qualifications and competence for the assignment:
a)
b)
c)
60 Points
The number of points to be assigned to each of the above positions or disciplines shall
be detennined considering the following three sub-criteria and relevant percentage
weights:
1)
General qualifications
(a) Education:
Ph.D. - 10
Masters Degree -5
Bachelors Degree and Others - 3
Experience:
No. of years of proven experience
Points will be prorated
(c) Position Held:
No ofyrs in current position held
30%
10
(b)
2)
15
5
60%
10%
25-
..
10%
5%
Total weight:
100%
2 Points
2 Points
I Point
5 Points
(v)
5 Points
3 Points
5 Points
100 Points
5.6
The source of official" selling rates is: State Bank oflndia [SBI] B.C. Selling
rate of Exchange ..
The date of exchange rates is: 14 days prior to the last date for submission of
proposals indicated in Clause 4.5 of Data Sheet.
The formula for determining the financial scores is the following:
5.7
-I
6.1
Date: 25.4.2015
Chief Engineer (R&B) CRN, PPP & Managing J;>jrector,
Address:
A.P. Road Development Corporation, D. No. 10-1-1195,
5th Floor, 'R&B Office Complex, Mahaveer Marg,
A. C. Guards, Hyderabad- 500 004, India
I
I
7.2
--
..
44
2.
As part of this project, services over nearly 4300 km of roads under the S~ate's Core
Road Network are being improved through Long-term Performance-based Maintenance
Contracts, which are also known as
Table 1
Output and Performance-based Road
Phase
No. of
Est. Cost
Total
Contracts (OPRC). These contrJlCts
Contract
Length in in Rs. Cr.
are awarded in four lots/pha~es at
Packages
Km
215
7
1288
different times, as indicated in Table Phase I
Phase
IIA
10
1601
379
I (further details are placed in
4
590
113
Annexure I). Where, the remainder of Phase liB
Phase
IIC
5
823
186
the state road network, under the
Total
26
4301
892
aegis of the RBD, continues to be
maintained through traditional annual maintenance practices.
3.
The OPRC contracts are different from the traditional maintenance contracts, in four
notable ways. To begin with, in terms of planning, the objective of the OPRC contracts was
to provide comprehensive maintenance of selected roads over a 5-year period and. thus
includes undertaking Ordinary Maintenance, Initial Rectification Works, Periodic
Maintenance Works, Minor Improvement Works and Emergency Works. Second, from a
procurement perspective, the OPRC contracts are usually encompass longer stretches and
higher outlays. Third, in terms of incentives, the payments under OPRC contracts are mostly
aligned with the achieved pre-specified standards of performance. In line with this, while
Ordinary Maintenance is paid for on a monthly, lump-sum basis, the Minor Improvement
Works are paid for on the basis of actual quantities of work completed. Initial Rectification
and Periodic Maintenance, on the other hand, are paid either on lump-sum basis in case of
contracts in earlier phases or on per-km rates in case of contracts under Phases liB and .IIC.
Lastly, from an implementation and monitoring perspective, although OPRC contracts too
are administered by the respective field units of RBD, such administering encompasses
measurement and recording of various road service performance indicators and also an
additional layer of review by third-party monitoring consultants. Since January 2012, the
OPRC contracts under APRSP are being examined a Third-Party Monitoring Consultant
engaged by APRDC, with the objective of monitoring as well as facilitating seeding and ,
exchange of various best practices.
4.
GoAP/APRDC now seeks to review the experience of implementation of OPRC
contracts and draw lessons, by engaging a consulting ~- un.det;.~!ae..~~is ~- .~ -SP.
2.0
OBJECTIVES and TERMS of REFERENCE
5.
This study aims to review the experience of implementation of OPRC contracts and
draw lessons to improve the overall approach to providing.better maintenance of state road
network. Towards this end, specifically, the consultants are expected to do the following:
6.
Undertake a comprehensive assessment of how OPRC contracting structure has
performed with regard to addressing the following key issues that it had set out to achieve,
on its own and vis-a-vis traditional item-rate annual maintenance contracts, viz:,
Monitoring and Evaluation: (a) Generating data on the road inventory and condition on
a regular basis; and (b) its analysis and use for future planning and contracting.
Scope for improv{!ment in OPRC in all key areas including planning, procurement,
documentation, contract management, payments and monitoring.
7.
Such a comprehensive assessment shall be based inter alia on the following list of
sub-tasks/activities, viz.,
{~~
.r , ~
46
Bidding Documents Review and Analysis: (i) Review key provisions/changes in the
procurement documents used for OPRC contracts (original and revised versions); (ii)
Analyze whether and how such provisions/changes have impacted the costs and
performance outcomes under respective sets of contracts; and (iii) Recommend
changes to future OPRC documents.
;;.:
. .
. '
47 .
any remedial action I changes in the contract clauses and systems for their
monitoring.
Analyze critically the clauses pertaining to environmental and safety aspects and
suggest improvements, if required. Also, assess the efficacy of implementation and
any changes required towards ensuring better compliance to these.
3.0
8.
The selection of Consultant for this shall be based on QCBS, as explained in the
Request for Proposal (RfP), with lump-sum payment against acceptance of key deliverables
by APRDC. The assignment shall be completed within 5 months of issue of notice to
commence the.services. The key deliverables expected, along with the respective timelines,
are tabulated belowe
Item
. . ........
Due date
(from start of
. Services)
Draft: 1 month
Final: 1.5 months
Payment
Milestones
Draft: 10%
Final: 5%
'
2 Months
Draft: 3 Months
Final: 3.5 Months
4Months
15%
Draft: 20%
Final:IO%
10%
Draft: 4 Months
Draft:20%
Final: 5 Months
Final:10%
Note: The Consultants shall arrange for a soft-copy and five hard-copies of each key
deliverable/report in their draft as well as final forms.
'
48
9.
The Client shall forward their observations, if any, on the Draft Reports within 7 days
of their receipt and the Consultants shall submit the Final Reports duly complying with the
observations communicated, if any.
4.0
10.
.>"
<Jo..r"\. ~
'f
~
11.
In addition to the above key personnel, which shall be considered for the purposes of
evaluation, the assignment may require the Consultant to intermittently mobilize specialists
with requisite expertise to deal with issues related to various disciplines such as, for example,
Environment, Drainage and Cross Drainage structures. Ac.:ordingly, the Consultants may
include such requirements and related resource plans in their proposal.
i;
:,_,:
:
: ~
.:-
49.:
,.;1
borne by the Consultant. APRDC shall not provide any office space or any other logistical
support.
J
J
'-.j\
,}