Project Name: Agenda: Date of Meeting: Venue:

Development of Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) System in Ranchi Pre-Bid Meeting for the clarifications on the RfQ Document September 15, 2010 Office of Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi

List of Participants from Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi 1. Mr. Dipankar Panda. Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation 2. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation 3. Mr. Amar Prasad, Public Health Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Representatives from Project Management Consultant cum Transaction Advisor (Tetra Tech India Limited) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Mr. B.B. Uppal, Advisor Mr. Sudhir Malik, Chief Consultant- Finance, PPP Mr. Ganesh Singh, Deputy Project Manager Mr. Govind M.P, Senior Environmental Engineer Mr. Manu Shankar Malhotra, Financial Analyst Mr. Priyanshu Baliyan, Project Coordinator

The Pre bid meeting was attended by representatives from 11 firms: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A2Z Infrastructure Private Limited Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Limited Gujarat Enviro Protection & Infrastructure Limited Jamshedpur Utility & Service Company Ltd (JUSCO) Jindal Urban Infrastructure Limited KMC Construction Limited KRL Infratech (India) Limited IL&FS Waste Management & Urban Service Limited SMS Infrastructure Limited

10. SPML Infra Limited 11. Sylvania Green Energy

Points discussed in the meeting are summarized below: It was suggested the company desirous of submitting queries even during the meeting could submit their queries in writing. The representatives were informed; no verbal queries will be entertained while furnishing the reply unless the queries are made in writing.

S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Page No. 6 4 6 7

Clause No. 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.7 1.1.7.3

5. 6.

7 7

1.1.7.4 1.1.7.4

Queries/Suggestions Provide copy of DPR Provide the details of existing dumpsites Scope of work should be divided into two or more packages Will there be any upfront capital grant be available for the development of project, if yes kindly gives details and bifurcations of the same. User charges to be collected by RMC Is it mandatory to utilize existing municipal employee, tools, machinery and equipments available with RMC? What is the condition of tools and machineries. As the project fund is based on the estimated cost of DPR. If there is a revision in the estimated cost the fund should be raised accordingly

Response of RMC DPR to be provided at RFP stage To be provided at the RFP stage. No Change To be provided at the RFP stage.

User charges to be collected by the private party List and condition of existing collection & transportation infrastructure would be declared at the time of RFP stage. The issue would be fully clarified in RFP document. The DPR is approved under JnNURM. In case of increase in cost, additional funding would be contributed by the successful bidder.

7.

1.1.7.7

8.

1.2.4

Bid security of 1% of which project cost Bid security of 1% of the project cost as i.e the project cost as mentioned in the mentioned by the RMC in the RFP document document or the project cost the bidder has calculated will be taken into account. What is the Concession period for the project Technical presentation may be considered only for technical qualification only. What weightage would be assigned for technical & financial proposal in the bid stage. RMC should specify the negotiation methodology to ensure competitive bidding Extend due date for submission of RfQ To increase maximum number of consortium members from 3 Concession period would be declared at the time of RFP stage Exact criteria would be given at the time of RFP stage. Weightage of technical & financial proposal would be separate. Exact criteria would be given at the time of RFP stage. Negotiation will be done to achieve best bargain for RMC. Exact criteria would be given at the time of RFP stage. 07.10.2010 No Change

9. 10.

8 8

1.2.7 1.2.7

11.

1.2.7

12.

1.2.7

13. 14.

9 11

1.3 2.2.1(A), 2.2.5(a)

15.

11

2.2.2(A)

Ongoing project (similar project as Ongoing projects will be considered. specified in clause 2.2.2) should be given weight age for evaluation criteria. Request to dilute the technical criteria No Change has been suggested 1. To reduce minimum equity holding in 1. No Change entity claiming past experience for technical and financial eligibility from 35%.

16. 17.

11 11

2.2.2(A) 2.2.2( A) , ( B)

2. No Change 2. In case of consortium, to reduce minimum equity holding of those whose qualification is considered for 3. Net worth criteria reduced to 60 Cr. qualifying from 35%. 3. To dilute net worth criteria from 4. RfQ already allows it. Refer Clause 2.2.8 for 75Cr. calculating Technical Capacity, Turnover and Net Worth 4. Net worth of the parent company to be considered for calculating 5. Experience of only design, construction & Applicants net worth. operation & maintenance of hazardous waste would be considered. 5. Whether experience for the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Hazardous waste 6. Turnover from projects only ISWM projects landfills/ Biomedical waste landfill would be considered would be a valid experience. 6. Turnover should be from any project and not mandatory from Solid Waste Management projects as mentioned.

18.

11

2.2.2(B)

To allot separate marks for financial net No Change worth as well beside Technical parameters. Brick making should be removed from The clause is suitably amended. Refer response the criteria at S.no. 20.

19.

12

2.2.2(C)

20.

12

2.2.2(C)

21.

12

2.2.3

22. 23.

13 13

2.2.5 2.2.5

Reduce qualifying experience of O & M The clause is now read as The Applicant shall, in of Sanitary landfill, Compost Plant, Brick the case of a Consortium, include a Member who shall subscribe and continue to hold at making plant and other MSW projects. least 10% (ten per cent) of the subscribed and paid up equity of the SPV for a period of 5 (five) years from the date of commercial operation of the Project, and has either by itself or through its Associate, experience of 2 (two) years or more in operation and maintenance (O&M) of landfill, Compost Processing Plant and other facilities for handling MSW projects which have an aggregate capital cost equal to the Estimated Project Cost. Can the experience certificates which Experience certificates from the municipal are desired should be from the corporation and/or sub-contractual certificates Municipal Corporation or sub contractor would be valid. But in case there is a tie of a large Collection & Transportation between the companies at the RFP stage, the firm certificate will be valid? preference will be given to that company having more experience as a direct contractor for a municipal corporation Is SPV formation mandatory SPV formation is mandatory To reduce minimum equity holding No Change suggested criteria for Lead Member from 35%

24.

14

2.2.5(iv)

In case of consortium, to reduce No Change minimum equity holding of those whose qualification is considered for qualifying from 35%. Consortium members to collectively hold The clause is deleted

25.

14

2.2.5(v)

26.

15

2.2.10

27.

22

2.19.1

28. 29.

22 23

2.19.1 3.2 S.No 3 read with Clause 1.1.7.4 3.2

atleast 51% equity for 5 years Allow foreign firms for joint bidding because latest & better technology is available outside India which is far superior to the existing Indian technologies & moreover they are environmentally safe also. Kindly provide the details of the payment mode of the cost of the RFQ document. Whether fee of Rs. 10,000 is to be paid for attending pre-bid meeting % of total MSW brought to the sanitary landfill. Is it the project waste from Compost plant? If not, then it is very low as per Indian waste scenario. What is the distinctive advantage of Brick making and rational for allotting 35 marks for brick making. Why other options such as conversion of Plastic to Granule not considered for evaluation.

Foreign firms are allowed to be joint bidders. But for qualifying criteria, entities resident/ incorporated in India would only be considered.

Refer Clause 2.19.1 (h) of the RfQ

Yes It is not project waste from compost plant. Not more than 20% of the total waste received at the site is expected to go in to sanitary landfill. Brick making is an example given for processing of construction & demolition waste. Other technologies like plastics processing, paper recycling, etc. will also be given equal weight age. The clause 3.2 is suitably amended.

30.

23

31.

23

3.2

32.

23 & 24

3.2

Is separate certificate required for each Yes parameter, mentioned in the Table under clause 3.2? It is requested to revaluate the marking No Change system. Preference to be given to those having Yes experience in Bihar & Jharkhand

33.

24

3.2.1.3

34.

42

APPENDIX-II, Clause 2.2.4

35.

36.

Request for modification in POA so that two separate POA are taken, one for Pre Bid and another for Bid Stage Does the landfill site selected meets the site selection criteria as per MSW (M&H) Rules, 2000 Can we assume that all necessary clearance/ approvals/NOC have been taken by RMC from relevant authorities e.g. MoEF, Pollution Control Board, Airport Authority of India etc.

To be considered, if adequate reason is provided. Landfill site having the required clearances will be made available to the selected party All necessary clearance/ approvals/NOC would be taken before start of the project.

37.

Kindly provide the soft copies of the No soft copies would be provided formats. Waste characterization is not provided in This detail would be provided at the RFP Stage the RFQ document. To allot separate marks for road No Change sweeping Elaborate the paragraph of O & M No change experience Please allocate the project cost and This detail would be provided at the RFP stage O&M cost It appears that RFQ is designed to favor one party. Not agreed (These allegations will lead to the blacklisting of the concerned firm)

38.

39. 40. 41.

42.