-9-

(Integrated Finance)
……..
Reference notes from page 5-8/N.

The proposal under consideration relates to setting up of Network Control

Unit at ground floor in Room No.10, Yojana Bhavan premises.

2. The justifications/grounds for the purpose may be seen vide para 2 of the
note on p.5/N.

3. As per para.3 on p.5/N, the CPWD (E) has forwarded estimates for
Electrical and Fire Safety related works for an amount of Rs.22,94,943/- and the
CPWD(Civil) has submitted the estimates for Civil Works costing Rs.10,43,400/-.
The works proposed to be done by CPWD (E) may be seen at para.4 (p.5-6/N)
and by CPWD (Civil) at para.5 (p.6/N).

4. The total expenditure of Rs.33,38,343/- towards the said works would be

met from the head ‘Office Expenses’ under ‘Renovation & Alteration’ of the Plan
Scheme – MOOS for the current financial year. Administrative approval of JS
(Admn.) has been obtained on p.7/N.

5. The proposal has been examined in the light of Rule 126(4) which
stipulates that all original works estimated to cost above Rs.10 lakhs and repair
works estimated to cost above Rs.30 lakhs may be executed through Public Works
Organisations as defined in Rule 126(2) (which include CPWD) after consultation
with the Ministry of Urban Development.

6. However, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance has revised

provisions of Rule 126 of GFR of 2005 vide OM No. 15(1)-E(A)/2010, dated
20.08.2010, according to which a Ministry or Department may, at its discretion,
assign repair works estimated to cost above Rs.30 lakhs and original works of any
value to any Public Works Organisation, such as CPWD. In view of this the
consultation with Ministry of Urban Development referred to in Rule 126 (3)
would not be necessary in such cases.

7. Keeping in view of the above, the proposal may be considered for

concurrence subject to the condition that the provision for the proposed works has
been included in the budget for the financial year 2011-12.

Submitted please.

Director (Finance)
 -88-

(Integrated Finance)
……..
Reference noting from pre-pages.

The proposal relates to extending the Video Conferencing Facility to the

Offices of DGs of Central Para Military Forces under Executive Video
Conferencing System (EVCS) scheme.

2. The project of EVCS is successfully being operated to provide Video

Conferencing Facility to 93 Secretaries to the Government of India, Chief
Secretaries/Administrators of all States/UTs at 35 locations, DGPs of all
States/UTs and at 5 locations in the Planning Commission.

3. The project was initially approved at the total outlay of Rs.2.00 crore only.
Subsequently, it was extended to DGPs of all States and UTs at an additional cost
of Rs.5.00 crore, thereby increasing the total outlay to Rs.7.00 crore. An amount
of Rs.6.30 crore has been released in 6 installments and Rs.70 lakh are proposed
to be released in the current financial year. However, the proposal has been
submitted to the NIC for extending the said facility to DGs of Central Para
Military Forces with an additional budget provision of Rs.1.00 crore as shown at
p. 227/C.

4. Director (Finance) had last seen the file on p.82/N. The SMD had, vide
para 6 on p.81/ante, assured that no further enhancement in the budget provision
beyond Rs.0.70 crore would be made to complete the project within the stipulated
time frame.

5. In this context it has to be mentioned that the approval of SFC/EFC on the

project is not available on the file. Para 7 of the preceding note on p.87/N
explains about the circumstances why the approval of SFC/EFC could not be
obtained.

6. The expenditure on the project would be met from the budget provision of
‘Information Technology’ head under the sub-head ‘Machinery & Equipment’ of
the Plan Scheme – Modernisation of Office Systems which has an adequate
provision during the current financial year.

7. The proposal may be considered for concurrence to para 9 on p.87/N, and

the file may be submitted to AS&FA (Planning), if agreed to please.

Director (Finance)
 (Integrated Finance)
……..
Reference noting from pre-pages.

The PMO had approved the appointment of Sh. Sam Pitroda as Adviser to
the Prime Minister on Public Information, Infrastructure and Innovations in the
rank of Cabinet Minister. The order containing Terms of Reference may be seen
at F/A.

The Office of Adviser to the Prime Minister on PIII has requested to

create, under the scheme, two Object Heads namely –

(1) Grants for creation of Capital Assets (Rs.190 lakh); and

(2) Grants-in-aid General (Rs.60 lakh)

For the above mentioned purpose, Office of Adviser to PM on PIII has

requested that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget
Division) may be approached for Grant of advance of Rs.2.50 crore from the
Contingency Fund of India. The Subject Matter Division had sought the advance
as above to provide funds to the State Government of Rajasthan for the e-
panchayat project for General purposes and also for creation of Assets such as
hardware items etc.

The proposal has been examined and it is observed that as per Rule 57 of
GFR, 2005, no expenditure can be incurred during a financial year on ‘New
Service’ not contemplated in the Annual Budget for the year except after
obtaining a Supplementary Grant or appropriation are an advance from the
Contingency Fund of India during the financial year.

Given the urgent requirements, a loan of Rs.2.50 crore may be drawn from
the CFI pending its approval in the First Supplementary Grant for the year
2011012. It has been stated that the funds under the proposed heads of account
will be met from the Budget Grant of Plan Section provided for the current
financial year.

The Funds would be accounted for under the following heads of accounts –
(Rs.in thousands)
3451 – Secretariat Economic Services (Major Head)
00.090 - Secretariat (Minor Head)
63 - Office of Adviser to the Prime Minister on Public Information,

Infrastructure & Innovations

63.01 - Establishment
63.01.31- Grants-in-aid General 60,00
63.01.35- Grants for creation of capital assets 1,90,00

In view of the above, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic

Affairs (Budget Division) may be requested to consider the proposal for grant of
an advance of Rs.2.50 crore from the Contingency Fund of India for the above
mentioned purpose to the Office of Adviser to PM on PIII.

AS&FA (Planning) may kindly concur with the proposal before it is

forwarded to the Ministry of Finance.

Director (Finance)
No.G-20011/06/2011-IFC
Government of India
Planning Commission
(Integrated Finance)
…….
 - 17 –

(Integrated Finance)
……

Reference note on page 15-16/Ante.

The proposal under consideration pertains to outsourcing of an Evaluation

Study on ‘The Scheme of Assistance to Disabled Persons for Purchase/Fitting of
Aids/Appliances (ADIP).

2. After Evaluation of the technical and financial bids of all the four
responsive Research Institutes, M/s Mott MacDonald Private Limited, Noida was
declared L1 with the quoted amount of Rs.21,82,519/-. The methodology for
evaluation of bids was done as per the Manual of Policies and Procedure of
employment of Consultants. Details may be seen at ‘X’ on page 15/N.

3. The total cost of the evaluation study is proposed to be released in three

installments – (i) 40% (ii) 40% (iii) 20%. The terms and conditions for release of
the installments may be seen at ‘Y’ on page 16/N.

4. The cost of outsourcing of the aforesaid study would be incurred from the
budget provision earmarked for the Plan Scheme – “Strengthening Evaluation
Capacity in Government” for the current financial year 2011-12.

5. The Sanctioning Committee has been requested to sanction the total cost of
outsourcing of the study i.e. Rs.21,82,519/- to M/s Mott MacDonald Private
Limited, Noida.

6. Rule 163 of GFR, 2005 permits the Ministries/Departments to hire external

professionals, consultancy firms or consultants for a specific job which is well
defined in terms of content and time frame for its completion.

7. As per Rule 168(i), where the estimated costs of the work or services upto
Rs.25,00,000/-, preparation of a long list of potential Consultants may be done on
the basis of formal or informal enquiries from other Ministries/Departments/
Organisations involved in similar activities. Rule 169 stipulates that the number
of short listed Consultants meeting the requirements should not be less than three.
Rule 174 explains that technical bids should be analyzed and evaluated by a
Consultancy Evaluation Committee (CEC) constituted by the Ministry or
Department.

8. It appears that the proposal meets all the requisite provisions of relevant
rules and, therefore, may be considered for concurrence, if agreed to please.

Director (Finance)
Discussed with AS&FA.

The following observations may be made by IFD:

(i) The initial empanelment of legal firms, that was done with the approval of
the Sanctioning Committee for the Scheme “50th Year Initiative for
Planning” in 2006, did not specify the time period of its validity. The
empanelment was done prior to the issue of the ‘Manual of Policies and
Procedure of Employment of Consultants’ by Ministry of Finance in
August 2006. It is suggested that the empanelment of legal firms by
Infrastructure Division to be effective after 31.03.2011, may be done in
accordance with the Manual issued by MoF through an open/limited tender
based on the anticipated quantum of work proposed to be outsourced on
the basis of the empanelment.

(ii) If the total cost of the work that is proposed to be outsourced to the
empanelled legal firms during the empanelment period exceeds Rs.25 lakh,
the procedure as prescribed in GFR Rule 168(ii), requiring an
advertisement in at least one National News Paper, may be followed.

(iii) A Consultancy Evaluation Committee may also be constituted for the

purposed in conformity with para 1.6 of the MoF Manual.

(iv) The period of empanelment needs to be clearly stated, and the number of
law firms to be empanelled should be increased to eight or ten. The firms
that were empanelled earlier should also participate in the tender for the
fresh empanelment.

(v) Instead of fixing remuneration & inviting bids for empanelment, bids
should be invited with remuneration or fee as a variable, from pre-qualified
firms, under the two bid system.

AS&FA may kindly approve as proposed above.

( V.K.Singh )
Director (Finance)

AS&FA
 1. A decision was taken in the Internal Planning Commission Meeting held
on 10th December, 2010 that ‘a scheme for outsourced/external consultancy
work should be framed and notified soon’, under the scheme “50th Year
Initiative for Planning”. Subsequently, PC Division has prepared the Draft
‘Guidelines for Outsourced/External Consultancy Work in Planning
Commission’. The Guidelines have been tentatively approved by DCH,
and are required to be put up to the next IPC meeting for confirmation and
approval. The file put by the PC Division vide notings at p-3/N was
marked by Member Secretary to Adviser (FR) for taking appropriate
actions, who has forwarded it to IFD.

2. The Draft Guidelines lay down the procedure for external consultancy
work for specific time-bound jobs, for providing high quality services to
the Planning Commission, which would be in addition to the existing
engagement of consultants in the Planning Commission under the Scheme
“Expertise for Planning Process”. An allocation of Rs.1.00 crore per year
is to be placed at the disposal of the Member concerned under the Scheme.
Pr. Adviser (PC) has indicated, in his note at p-3/N, that it may be possible
to provide a maximum of Rs.50 lakh per member in 2011-12, and it may
become possible to provide Rs.1.00 crore per member in 2012-13.

3. GFR, 2005 Rules 163 to 176 contain the fundamental principles

applicable to all Ministries and Departments regarding engagement of
Consultants. In addition, MoF has issued the ‘Manual of Policies and Procedure
of Employment of Consultants’ in conformity with the applicable directives
contained in the GFR, 2005. MoF has also advised the Ministries/Departments to
supplement the Manuals by issuing instructions to serve as practical instructions
for their offices, evolve checklist to ensure completeness of examination in cases
and customize the formats to suit local/specialized needs. Planning Commission
has already framed its own Guidelines for hiring of Consultants, in conformity
with GFR, 2005 and the MoF Manual. As indicated in the preceding paragraph,
the present proposal is to be in addition to the existing engagement of
Consultants, and is to have its own Guidelines. The proposed Guidelines also
need to be in conformity with GFR, 2005 provisions and the MoF Manual.

4. The following observations/suggestions of the IFD on the Guidelines with

reference to GFR 2005, Delegation of Financial Power Rules 1978 and the
MoF Manual are submitted for consideration:

(i) As per GFR Rule 168 (ii):

“Where the estimated cost of the work or service is above Rupees twenty-
five lakhs, in addition to (i) above, an enquiry for seeking ‘Expression of
Interest’ from consultants should be published in at least one national daily
and the Ministry’s website. The website address should also be given in the
advertisements”.

Para 3 of the Draft Guidelines provide that ‘for empanelment of external

consultant, an advertisement may be placed on the website of the Planning
Commission’. As the cost of the work that will be outsourced on the basis of the
proposed empanelment will be significantly high.

(ii) GFR Rule 176:

“Under some special circumstances, it may become necessary to select a
particular consultant where adequate justification is available for such
single-source selection in the context of the overall interest of the Ministry
or Department. Full justification for single source selection should be
recorded in the file and approval of the competent authority obtained before
resorting to such single-source selection”.
 Para 3 of the Guidelines provide that Consultancy work upto Rs.25 lakhs may be
assigned to an empanelled consultant by the subject matter division with the
approval of the Member concerned. The Procedure for assigning of the
consultancy even to an empanelled firm should be in conformity with GFR Rule
167 to 175. The process of Consultancy by Nomination under GFR Rule 176,
which is to be used under special circumstances, may not be laid down as the
norm in the Guidelines.

(iii) Para 1.6 of the Manual of Policies:

“For all cases having financial implications of more than Rs. Ten lakh, a
CEC comprising of at least three members at appropriate level including
Financial Adviser or his representative and also a representative of the
user shall be constituted by the employer in order to carry out the
consultant selection procedure. The CEC shall be responsible for all
aspects and stages of the consultants, deciding Terms and Reference,
issuance of RFP, evaluation of technical and financial proposals,
negotiations and final selection of the consultant. Even in case of
selection of consultant by direct negotiations having financial implication
of more than Rs. 10 lakh, the CEC shall negotiate with the consultant on
technical and financial aspects.”
The Guidelines may provide for the constitution of the Consultancy Evaluation
Committee (CEC) for consultancy proposals having financial implications of
more than Rs. 10 lakh. It may be mentioned that the Planning Commission
Guidelines on hiring of Consultant also has a provision for constitution of CECs
which are to be headed by DCH/Member/Adviser-in-charge of the Division for
senior Consultant/Consultants/Young Professionals respectively.

(iv) DFPR Rule 21. Indents, Contracts and purchases:

(a) Subject to the provisions of these rules and the provisions of the
General Financial Rules, 1963, governing the purchase of stores for the
public service, a Department of the Central Government shall have full
powers to sanction expenditure for purchases and for execution of
contracts, including agreements or contracts for technical collaboration
or consultancy services.
(b) The powers under this rule shall be exercised up to rupees twenty
crore for open or limited tender contracts, up to rupees five crore for
negotiated or single tender or proprietary contracts and up to rupees
two crore for agreements or contracts for technical collaboration and
consultancy services by the Secretary of the Department concerned and
contracts or the categories stated, shall require the approval of the
Minister in-charge of the Department.
Planning Commission, as a Department of the Central Government has full
powers to sanction expenditure relating to consultancy services subject to the
rules and the provision of GFR 2005. As per Rule 13(2) of DFPR, 1978, a
Department of the Central Government may confer powers, not exceeding those
vested in the Department, upon an Administrator or Head of Department or any
other subordinate authority in respect of any matter covered under DFPR Rule
3(1)(n) defines subordinate Authority as a Department of the Central Government
or any authority subordinate to the President. As such the powers available to
Planning Commission under DFPR Rule 21 may be delegated as per the
requirements of the scheme in conformity with these rules.
5. The observations of the IFD on the Draft Guidelines with reference to GFR
2005, DFPR 1978, and the Manual of Policies and Procedure of
Employment of Consultants may kindly be approved by AS & FA before
the file is returned to Adviser (FR) for necessary action and approval.

( V.K. Singh )
Director (Finance)

AS &FA