| |
| |
| Status of ORR Project Work » |
| |
| |
Phase -1
The consultants MIs Aarvee associates submitted Detailed Project Report for the Phase I of the project. The salient features of the project being as follows: |
| |
| |
i. |
ORR to have a eight lane divided carriageway with a design speed of 120 Kmph and one emergency lane for break down vehicles. |
| |
ii. |
The link road from Gachibouli intersection to ORR is designed as a six lane with ROW 75m with design speed of 100 Kmph. |
| |
iii. |
| The carriageway will have the following: |
| Width of Fast lanes |
- |
3.5m |
| Width of Outer lanes |
- |
3.75m |
| Hard shoulder |
- |
3.0m |
| Earthern shoulder |
- |
3.0m |
| Median width |
- |
5.0m |
|
| |
iv. |
Access is being proposed at 5 locations, that is, at Gachibouli, Namakrama-guda ORR link road Junction, APPA, and Shamshabad by providing interchanges of type trumpet, diamond or cloverleaf interchanges. |
|
| |
| |
| Awarding of Phase-I works of Outer Ring Road Project |
| |
Procurement for Phase-I works of Outer Ring Road Project was commenced in January' 2006 in respect of both Supervision Consultancy as well as Civil
works divided into two Contract Packages. |
| |
| |
| 1. Supervision Consultancy Contract:- |
| |
| 9 Nos Consultancy firms were shortlisted based on the Expression of Interest proposals (EOI) submitted by the firms. Only 4 Nos out of the above submitted their Bids in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by Hyderabad Growth Corridor Ltd (HGCL).
The selection of Consultancy firm as per RFP shall be on Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) with 80% weightage for the Technical score and 20% weightage for the Financial Score. The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) constituted by the Government, on evaluation of the proposals, recommended the bid of M/s BCEOM - Aarvee (JV) as the best value bid. The High Level Committee (HLC) constituted by the Government approved the above recommendation to award the work to M/s BCEOM - Aarvee (JV) for an amount of Rs 14,50,63,438/- |
| |
| |
| 2. Civil Works Contracts:- |
| |
| The Phase-I of ORR Project was divided into two Contract Packages with Package-I from Km 0.000 to 11.000 (Gachibowli to APPA) and Package-II from Km 11.000 to 24.380 (APPA to Shamshabad).
Procurement for these works was commenced in January' 2006. 22 Nos Contracting firms were pre-qualified by the HGCL based on the proposals submitted by them.14 Nos Contracting firms out of the above purchased the bid documents for both the Packages and only 10 Nos firms submitted the bids by the due date.
In view of the importance of work and requirement to adhere to the stiff time schedules for completing the work, it was decided not to award both the packages to the same firm. Accordingly, a clause was included in the bid document specifying that "If a Contractor/JV has been qualified for both the packages and eventually lowest in both the packages, only one package will be chosen by the Employer in such a way that it is most economical to Employer". The agencies, M/S Corporation Transstroy OSJC, Russia and M/S Continental Engineering Corporation, Taiwan are 1 st and 2 nd lowest respectively in both the Contract Packages. As per the above clause, both packages cannot be awarded to M/S Corporation Transstroy OSJC eventhough they
are lowest.
As such the alternatives available for awarding the contracts to M/S Corporation Transstroy and M/S Continental Engineering Corporation, the lowest tenderers for both the Packages, are as under. |
| |
| |
| Comparative Statement of Alternatives of Allotting Phase-I works |
| |
| Alternative |
Name of the firm/Quoted Amount |
Total Cost of Phase-I works |
Package-I
Estimated Contract value Rs.273,32,63,220/- |
Excess or less |
Package-II
Contract value
Rs.311,49,61,580/- |
Excess or less |
| 1. |
M/S Corporation Transstroy Rs 219,74,04,207 |
-19.61 |
M/S Continental Engineering Corporation. (CEC)
Rs.295,08,86,571 |
-5.27 |
Rs.514,82,90,778 |
| 2. |
M/S CEC Rs.251,95,53,908 |
-7.82 |
M/S Corporation Transstroy Rs.271,40,52,699 |
-12.87 |
Rs.523,36,06,607 |
|
| |
| As such, it would be economical and advantageous to the Government, if Alternative 1 indicated above is considered for approval. Accordingly, the Technical Evaluation Committee recommended to award the works as per the Alternative-I. and the High Level Committee, after careful examination, approved the same. |
| |
| The contracts are awarded to the above companies as per Alternative I and works are in progress. |
| |
|
| |
| |
|
