Electric Bus Procurement Under Fame-Ii:: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations For Phase-Ii

1
REPORT
ELECTRIC BUS
PROCUREMENT UNDER FAME-II:
LESSONS LEARNT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE-II
JULY | 2020
Electric Bus Procurement under FAME-II: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations for Phase-II
ELECTRIC BUS
PROCUREMENT UNDER FAME-II:
LESSONS LEARNT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE-II
JULY | 2020
2
Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation seeks to facilitate India’s transition to asustainable energy future
by aiding the design and implementation of policies in the following areas: clean power, energy efficiency,
sustainable urban transport, climate change mitigation, and clean energy finance.
Contact: The Capital Court, 104B/2 Left Wing, 4th Floor, Munirka Phase III, New Delhi 110067, Delhi
Tel: +91 11 47474000 | Fax: +91 11 47474043 Website: www.shaktifoundation.in
About UITP:
International Association of Public Transport (UITP) is a non-profit organisation headquartered in Belgium
with a global network of offices, including in Delhi and Bangalore. UITP is the only worldwide platform for
cooperation on public transport, with more than 1,800 members from 100+ countries representing public
transport authorities, operators, policy decision-makers, scientific institutions, and the public transport
supply and service industry. We undertake research, advocacy, and capacity building initiatives and provide
networking platforms to advance public transport systems.
Contact: Ninety Ten Eventures Office Space, F-322, Lado Sarai, New Delhi 110030, Delhi
Website: www.uitp.org
Authors:
Ravi Gadepalli (ravi.gadepalli@uitp.org)
Lalit Kumar (lalit.kumar@uitp.org)
Rupa Nandy (rupa.nandy@uitp.org)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Mr. Aman Garg from Foton-PMI, Mr. Naga Satyam from Olectra-BYD and other
industry representatives for their valuable feedback and insights, which helped improve the report. We would
also like to thank Ruchir Shukla, Vivek Chandran and Chetna Nagpal from Shakti Foundation for their critical
inputs during project design and report development.
Disclaimer:
The views/ analysis expressed in this report/ document do not necessarily reflect the views of Shakti Sustainable
Energy Foundation. Furthermore, the Foundation does not guarantee the accuracy of any data included in
this publication or accept any responsibility for the consequences of its use.
*For private circulation only.
3
Contents
1 Electric bus procurement under FAME II: The story so far........................................................................4

1.1 Objective of the report and data limitations................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Summary of tenders closed and sanctioned for subsidy
by DHI under phase-I of FAME-II................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Suppliers of e-buses sanctioned for subsidy................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Cost of procurement of e-buses under FAME-II....................................................................................... 6
2 Potential improvements in procurement to reduce costs............................................................................ 9

2.1 Procurement process under FAME II........................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Review of RfPs and MCAs issued under FAME-II...................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Eligibility criteria for service providers.................................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 Contractual obligations on the authority and the service provider..................................................11
2.2.3 Payment terms and penalties.............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.4 Functional and technical specifications.............................................................................................14
3 Recommendations to improve e-bus procurement under FAME-II..........................................................15

3.1 Recommended measures to address high cost of electric buses..............................................................15
3.2 Improve readiness of States and Cities to induct electric buses.............................................................. 17
3.3 Exploring alternative models of procurement and incentives...................................................................18
3.4 Performance monitoring and evaluation.....................................................................................................19
3.5 Concluding remarks.......................................................................................................................................19
Annexure 1: Procurement specifications of FAME II e-bus tenders............................................................. 20
4
Electric bus procurement under FAME-II:

The story so far
The transition to electric buses (e-buses) presents 1.1 Report objective and data limitations
the opportunity to convert the maximum passenger-
kilometre (km) of travel to zero-emission transport This report is intended to provide insights to policy
in Indian cities and has the potential to yield a variety makers and authorities tendering out e-buses,
of benefits, including improved energy efficiency based on learnings from tenders carried out under
and air quality, along with longer-term climate FAME-II. We present the summary of data from
change mitigation benefits. Despite these benefits, the latest publicly available FAME-II tenders and
the financial considerations, such as the higher feedback collected by UITP India through various
costs associated with the transition to e-buses, have secondary data sources and interviews. Annexure
so far limited the pace of electrification of the bus 1 presents the comparison of key specifications
transport sector. The Government of India (GoI) from the Requests for Proposal (RfPs) and Model
is working to address this and accelerate e-bus Concession Agreements (MCAs) for about 3,500
deployment; since 2015, it has been implementing buses tendered thus far under FAME-II, based on
the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid the analysis carried out by our team. The finalised
and) Electric Vehicles (FAME) subsidy scheme to rates per km are also included for cities/ states that
facilitate this transition. The second phase of the have completed the tendering process and got the
scheme, FAME-II, is currently under way. subsidy sanctioned by DHI. However, cities have
been constantly updating their terms of operations
In addition to the higher cost of e-buses, the and contracts in order to reduce their cost of
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) induced financial operations, and, hence, some of the data points may
constraints have caused Indian bus agencies to have changed since we collected the data. We may
postpone their plans to pilot and scale up e-buses have also missed out on some tender documents from
under FAME-II. However, before the COVID-19 certain cities that floated tenders under FAME-II.
lockdown began in March, many urban and intercity Hence, we only present aggregated findings across
bus agencies had made significant progress in e-bus cities in this report, without comparing each of the
procurement under the scheme. Department of terms across agencies. At the same time, some of the
Heavy Industries (DHI), which administers this cities that Final Report: Electric bus procurement
scheme, has sanctioned a total of 5,595 e-buses under FAME-II cancelled these earlier tenders and
in Phase-I of FAME-II. Out of these, the tenders are in the process of re-tendering. Higher than
for about 3,500 buses have been placed, while anticipated quotes during initial rounds of tenders
the procurement process for about 2,450 buses and lack of active participation from bidders are the
has already been completed and approved for the key reasons for such cancellation of tenders.
subsidy by DHI. The contracting and deployment of
these buses are likely to be taken up in the second
half of 2020 or early 2021, as India recovers from 1.2 Overview of tenders sanctioned for
COVID-19, and normal activities resume. subsidy in FAME-II Phase-I
This interim period gives us the opportunity to learn There are tenders for 2,450 e-buses that have been
from the procurement efforts carried out so far and closed and sanctioned for subsidy by DHI, covering bus
incorporate learnings into future e-bus procurement agencies across 13 states. This includes 2,270 buses to
under Phase-II of FAME-II and beyond. This report be deployed in urban services across 30 cities and 180
examines the status of e-bus deployment under buses for intercity operations across 4 State Transport
FAME-II, presenting the lessons learnt from the Undertakings (STUs). Midi-buses (9m long) were the
procurement carried out thus far under the scheme, most preferred model across cities, with 81% of the
and identifies potential measures to improve the total buses (i.e. 1,990 buses) opting for this variant,
financial performance in future rounds of procurement. while the rest are standard (12m long) buses. Just three
5
authorities with large-scale tenders, i.e. Brihan Mumbai of the total e-buses sanctioned so far. The second-
Electricity Supply and Transport (BEST), Mumbai (300 largest category of procurement is cities with smaller
tenders, i.e. 25-50 buses per tender, which constitute
e-buses), Janmarg, Ahmedabad (300 e-buses), and
about 28% (680 buses) of the total sanctioned e-buses.
Uttar Pradesh (combined procurement of 600 e-buses Figure 1 presents the breakup of e-buses sanctioned for
for deployment across 11 cities), account for about 50% subsidy according to the procurement parcel size.
Figure 1: Total e-buses sanctioned vs. e-buses procured

per tender
680 1200
Total no. of e-buses sanctioned
370
150
50
25 25-50 25-100 100-150 >=300
No. of e-buses procured per tender
1.3 Suppliers of e-buses sanctioned for feeder services, with 50 buses each, comprise the
remaining 9m buses to be delivered by Foton-PMI,
subsidy
while the firm has also been selected to supply 50
Many of the bids received across states were 12m buses in Kolkata New Town.
submitted by consortiums led by the Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), which will Olectra-BYD is the second-largest supplier, with
supply the buses. Figure 2 presents a summary of 635 buses, including 535 9m and 100 12m buses.
the suppliers identified thus far under FAME-II, These buses will be used in urban services in Surat
segregated by 9m and 12m buses. (150 9m buses), Bhopal & Indore (100 9m buses
each), Jabalpur & Ujjain (50 9m buses each), and
PMI Electro Mobility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Foton- Silvassa (25 9m buses). Additionally, Olectra-BYD
PMI) is the OEM with the largest number of was also selected to supply 50 12m intercity buses
sanctioned buses- a total of 800, including in Goa and 60 9m buses in Uttarakhand for hilly
750 9m buses, out of which 600 are through terrain use cases (30 each for Dehradun Smart
the abovementioned large-scale tender in Uttar City Ltd. and Uttarakhand State Road Transport
Pradesh. Rajkot, Bhubaneshwar, and Delhi Metro Corporation (UKSRTC)).
6
Figure 2: OEMs selected to supply e-buses sanctioned under FAME-II
800 750
700
Number of buses
600 535
500
380
400
300 210
200 100 140
65 70 100
100 50 50
0
Olectra-BYD
Foton-PMI
Tata Motors
Ashok Leyland
JBM - Solairs
Olectra - BYD
Foton - PMI
Tata - Motors
JBM - Solairs
MOZEV
MOZEV
9m bus 12m bus
Suppliers of e-buses sanctioned for FAME-II subsidy
Tata Motors, the third-largest supplier, was 1.4 FAME-II e-bus procurement cost
selected to supply 520 buses, divided across the
All the FAME-II Phase-I tenders adopted the Gross
following locations: Mumbai (140 12m buses and
Cost Contract (GCC) based procurement model, as
160 9m buses), Ahmedabad (120 9m buses), and
recommended by the DHI, with the least cost (L1) quote
Jaipur (100 9m buses). JBM-Solaris will supply
per km of operations as the selection criteria for the
280 buses, divided between Ahmedabad (180 9m winning bidder. Figure 3 presents the price range of the
buses) and Navi Mumbai (70 12m buses and 30 bids finalised thus far. The subsidy available for various
9m buses), whereas Mytrah Mobility (MOZEV) bus types is predetermined by the DHI, and, hence, the
will provide 150 buses in three locations: 50 9m quoted costs factor in the available subsidy. It should be
buses to Delhi Metro feeder services and 50 12m noted that key cities like Delhi, Bangalore, Pune, and
buses each for intercity services in Maharashtra others in Tamil Nadu, which together comprise more
and Rajasthan. Ashok Leyland will supply 65 than 1,400 tendered e-buses, have not yet finalised
buses, to Gwalior (40 buses) and Patna (25 their service providers, and, hence, some of the findings
buses). presented here may need to be revisited in the future.
Figure 3: Range of L1 bids approved for 9m and 12m buses
100.0
90.0 86.0
79.8
80.0
69.0
70.0 63.4
60.0 52.2
50.0 48.5
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
9m bus 12m bus
Average per-km rate (in INR) Max per-km rate (in INR) Min per-km rate (in INR)
7
1. Variation in quoted costs among different cities 2. High cost of e-buses compared to internal
and states combustion engine (ICE) buses
Similar to the trend observed in FAME-I, the L1 The total cost of operating electric buses includes
quotes varied significantly among cities. In the case additional costs to be incurred by the contracting
of 9m buses, the highest quote received was Indian authority, in addition to quoted costs on items like
Rupee (INR) 79.8 per km, which was 53% higher electricity (in cities where the contracting authority
than the lowest quote, of INR 52.2. In the case of is responsible), conductors, depot development,
12m buses, the difference is starker, with the highest contract management, and other administrative
quote of INR 86 per km being 78% higher than the expenses. Adding these costs to the quoted cost for the
lowest quote, INR 48.5 per km. Despite similar vehicle and driver makes the Total Cost of Ownership
vehicle specifications between cities, such high (TCO) over the lifecycle of e-bus operations 50-
variation in rates can be attributed to the difference in 100% higher than that of existing conventional diesel
contractual specifications between different tenders. and compressed natural gas (CNG) powered buses
As can be seen in Annexure 1, items like assured-km in some cities, even after factoring in the available
of payment to the service provider, responsibility FAME subsidy. At these rates, it is unlikely that cities
to pay for the electricity/ energy costs, financial will adopt e-buses as their preferred choice in cases
obligations such as bid and performance security, where the FAME subsidy is unavailable and they can
and the penalty for non-adherence to Service Level deploy ICE buses instead. However, current GCC
Agreements (SLAs) (which is built into the bid value in rates in many cities are for Bharat Stage (BS) III and
many cases), all of which have a significant impact on IV buses which are reaching the end of their tenure
the bid value, vary widely among cities. Furthermore, in many cities, and the upcoming tenders are likely
bidders also build in the cost of a risk premium on to be more expensive, even for ICE buses, due to the
items impacting the bankability of the project, such current financing costs, higher costs of the vehicle
as termination clauses and the capability and track and fuel due to technology upgradation to BS VI
record of the contracting authority to ensure timely buses, and contracting issues that impact both the
payments, which are beyond the scope of analysis in ICE bus and e-bus cost. Therefore, comparing TCO
this report. Cities and states can use Annexure 1 as of existing ICE buses with TCO of e-buses under
a resource to compare their tender specifications to FAME-II doesn’t provide a realistic picture. Instead,
those of other contracting authorities that attracted cities need to compare the TCO of e-buses with
lower rates and make necessary improvements, TCO of ICE buses in-case of a new procurement
where applicable. to make the appropriate technology choice. Cities
8
also need to view the current deployments under b) Lower range of 9m buses: The battery capacity
FAME-II as a pilot towards large scale transition and, hence, the range offered by 9m buses currently
to e-buses in the future and treat any additional available in the Indian market are about 30% lower
TCO of e-buses as an investment towards better than those of 12m buses. As a result, the smaller
preparedness for the future. buses are more likely to require top-up charging
during the day to meet the daily vehicle-utilisation
3. Relative costs of 9m and 12m buses targets, leading to loss of trips and, hence, revenue
to the authority. This revenue loss is accompanied
For the sanctioned e-buses, the average L1 quote
by lower staff productivity due to day-time
for 9m buses across urban and inter-city operations
charging. As a result, cities will require more 9m
is INR 63.3 per km, whereas it is INR 69.0 per km
buses to provide the same level of service. This is
for 12m buses. Hence, on average, 12m buses are only
commonly measured as the replacement ratio, i.e.
9% more expensive than 9m buses. Notwithstanding
the ratio of the number of e-buses to ICE buses
the differences in contractual specifications, the
needed to deliver the same service. Therefore, cities
limited difference in costs between different bus
need to carefully evaluate the range implications
length categories indicates that the cost of service
and power availability for opportunity charging for
delivery over the lifecycle of a bus depends more on
the proposed e-bus routes when deciding on the
Operational Expenditure (OPEX) items such as staff
vehicle specifications.
cost, energy cost, maintenance cost, etc. than on the
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) on the bus, charging c) Infrastructure challenges for 12m buses:
infrastructure, and other ancillary infrastructure. Infrastructure availability also plays a key role in
Cities need to evaluate the cost and benefits of the identifying the appropriate vehicle length. Use
differently sized buses carefully, for the following cases such as hilly operations, operations in smaller
reasons: cities, and metro feeder services in metropolitan
cities are likely to require buses operate in
a) Lower capacity and revenue potential of 9m
constrained conditions without adequate Right of
buses: While the cost of operating 12m buses is
Way (RoW) or turning radiuses for 12m buses. In
only 9% higher, their passenger carrying capacity
such cases, 9m buses should be selected.
is at least 25-30% higher than that of 9m buses.
As public transport demand is concentrated in the Considering these three factors, 12m e-buses are
morning and evening peaks, the capacity needs likely to perform better financially than 9m e-buses,
to be maximised to carry as many passengers as if there is adequate passenger demand and street
possible during these hours. Therefore, 12m buses infrastructure for their operations. Therefore,
are likely to provide better payback compared to authorities need to carry out a thorough demand and
9m buses in cases where they can take advantage infrastructure availability assessment to determine
of the high peak hour demand. the most appropriate bus length for their operations.
9
Potential procurement improvements for

cost reduction
The e-bus TCO needs to be significantly reduced 2.2 Review of FAME II RfPs and MCAs
from the current situation of being 50-100%
higher than that of ICE buses, in order to ensure While the available guiding documents helped
the deployed e-buses’ sustained operations and ensure some consistency in e-bus tenders across
scale up deployment across Indian cities. Such a the country, we observed significant variation in
reduction can only be achieved if all the relevant certain key clauses of the tenders and MCAs that
stakeholders involved in e-bus service delivery—e.g. determine the bidders’ willingness to participate,
the contracting bus agencies, OEMs, operators, the level of risk associated with the contract, and,
financing institutions, and DHI—work together and the financial quotes likely to be submitted to the
develop a roadmap to reduce the cost of e-buses to contracting agency. The following four categories of
be procured in the future. terms in the RfPs and MCAs were identified as the
key differentiating factors in the FAME II bidding
We have identified changes in the terms of and results observed across India:
procurement set by contract authorities as one I) Eligibility criteria for service providers
of the critical areas of improvement needed to
reduce e-bus cost. This section outlines specific II) Contractual obligations for the authority and
aspects identified through our internal analysis service provider
and stakeholder consultations that have scope for III) Payment timelines and penalties
improvement in upcoming procurement. IV) Functional and technical specifications
This section summarises the key variations observed

2.1 FAME II procurement process in the RfPs and MCAs of different cities that have
DHI mandated the OPEX procurement model in completed their procurement process and gotten
FAME-II, which resulted in all bus agencies adopting the corresponding subsidy sanctioned by DHI.
the GCC procurement model for e-buses. The
tendering process for bus procurement under GCC 2.2.1 Eligibility criteria for service providers
involves the cities issuing an RfP, accompanied by Encouraging a higher number of bids per tender can
an MCA, that outlines the terms of procurement. potentially lead to reduced costs, due to competition
Interested service providers submit their bids, out among the bidders. Bidder eligibility criteria can
of which the least cost, i.e. L1, bidder is selected significantly influence the type and number of bids
and contracted. A draft MCA was issued by NITI a city attracts and, hence, need to be defined in
Aayog, GoI that all the cities were mandated to such a way that they are open enough to encourage
adopt, after incorporating any necessary changes competition, while simultaneously ensuring the
according to their local needs. Neither DHI nor NITI quality of the participating bidders. The variations
Aayog issued a model RfP, and, hence, cities have observed in different RfPs in terms of service
developed their own RfPs, drawing from previous provider eligibility criteria are described below. The
procurement experience and guidance provided in qualification criteria needs to be standardised across
available documents such as the UITP toolkit for India in order to develop a pre-qualified pool of
e-bus procurement1,2 and Model RfP for diesel and service providers through a pan-India empanelment
CNG bus procurement issued by the Ministry of initiative under the FAME II scheme.
Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA)3.
1
https://india.uitp.org/uitp-india-develops-toolkit-support-e-bus-procurement-under-fame-ii
2
https://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/Tender%20structure%20Extract.pdf
3
http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/ModelGrossCost.pdf
10
1. Annual turnover requirements: The turnover that e-bus manufacturing is still a fledgling industry
requirements varied widely, with some cities not in India and not all OEMs have reached that scale.
having any minimum turnover requirements, In contrast, some other RfPs did not mandate any
whereas in others, service providers had to have an minimum e-bus manufacturing capacity, thereby
annual turnover of at least INR 500 crore in order opening up the participation to all OEMs eligible for
to be eligible to bid on the project, thereby excluding the FAME subsidy. To safeguard against the risk of
some potential bidders. non-delivery associated with allowing manufacturers
without prior delivery experience, STUs can mandate
2. Types of bidders: The majority of the RfPs allowed proof of concept at an appropriate stage during the
operators and OEMs to either bid alone or as a tendering and contracting process.
consortium. In most of these cases, consortiums with
OEMs (as the leading organisation) and operator 4. Operating experience: Given the limited e-bus
partners have won the bids. While a tie-up with an operating experience in India, many cities have
OEM was mandated for all bidders, a tie-up with a allowed service providers with operating experience
financing entity was not mandated by many cities. with both electric and ICE buses to participate in the
Some cities have even excluded financial institutions e-bus tenders. The fleet size criteria for operating
from being the leading organisations in the bids. While experience ranged from 10 to 100 buses. Given
mandating the participation of a financing entity in a the limited number of private bus operators in India
consortium may restrict the ability of some bidders with large fleets, cities with larger fleet size criteria
to participate, allowing financing entities to be the excluded smaller local operators, thereby increasing
lead bidders could potentially lead to innovative the procurement cost. At the same time, cities
business models that reduce costs. tendering larger fleets of e-buses identified this as
the key criteria needed to prove the bidder’s ability
3. Manufacturing capacity: Some cities set a to deliver the service at the scale expected for the
minimum manufacturing experience requirement, number of FAME-II e-buses sanctioned.
stating that the OEM had to have already
manufactured at least 50 e-buses. This prevented 5. Timelines for bid submission and scope for
some OEMs from participating in the bid, given consultation: The timeframe cities allowed for
11
service providers to submit their bids varied between • Increasing the performance security deposit
a minimum of 6 days and a maximum of 38 days. amount and duration increases the financing cost
Timelines for bidding should ideally allow for adequate of the project and, consequently, the contract
preparatory work for the bidders and consultations with cost, without having any substantial positive
the contracting authorities through pre-bid meetings. impact on the quality of service delivery.
Such consultations help fine-tune proposals to suit
both the authority and service provider. The short 2. Subsidy bank guarantee amount and duration:
timeframes adopted by some cities could have resulted • In addition to the performance bank guarantee,
in suboptimal bids, due to the bidders being unaware DHI has mandated that cities collect a subsidy
of the specific operating conditions or other aspects. bank guarantee from the service provider at a
Many cities also kept extending the original timelines value equivalent to the subsidy the service provider
and/or cancelling the tender/undertaking re-tendering, is eligible for under FAME-II, and this guarantee is
due to suboptimal bids in the first round. Cities are to be secured for a duration of five years.
recommended to plan for a 30 day gap between the
date of publishing the RfP and the deadline for bid • Given that the performance bank guarantee
submission in the future to allow bidders to decide on already safeguards the project interests, having
the quote based on on-ground operations assessment an additional subsidy guarantee equivalent to
for the selected routes and adequate consultation with the subsidy given increases the project cost for
the contracting authority-which will result in identifying the service provider, without contributing to an
their optimal bidding price.. improvement in service quality.
2.2.2 Contractual obligations 3. Payment in the case of contract termination:
Clear definition of the obligations of the authority The MCA issued by NITI Aayog defines the
and service provider and their adherence is crucial to circumstances for Force Majeure, contract
an effective long-term partnership in implementing a termination, and the payment obligations of the
GCC contract. The following are key findings related contracting authority or service provider at the time
to contractual obligations that may have influenced of these events in great detail. While the terms of
the cost of FAME II bids: payment in the case of service provider default were
retained in local tenders, many cities changed the
1. Performance bank guarantee amount and termination clauses in the case of authority default
duration: to relax their payment obligations. This drastically
• The majority of cities mandated that 3% of increases the bankability risk of the project for service
the total estimated project be deposited by providers and their financing entities, discouraging
the service provider as the performance bank some bidders from applying.
guarantee at the beginning of the contract. The
project cost is estimated based on the number 4. Depot development and asset transfer:
of buses, quoted cost per km, and assured-km This is one of the contracting authority’s main
of operation over the lifecycle of the contract. obligations- to develop the necessary civil and
However, in some cases, the performance bang electrical infrastructure needed to commence
guarantee was fixed at 5% of the estimated e-bus operations. While some cities have clearly
project cost, i.e. 67% higher than the majority committed to these obligations and identified the
benchmark. Furthermore, some cities defined a depots that will be used for e-bus deployment,
per-bus performance security value, in the range about 60% of the contracting authorities have
of INR 30,000- 50,000. not identified the exact depots for deployment.
Lack of clarity on such key obligations increases
• The duration of the performance security also the project’s risk premium for service providers
varied among cities. Many cities mandated and their financiers, thereby increasing the overall
that the performance security deposit be made cost. Furthermore, in some cases, authorities have
available 120 days beyond the contract duration, transferred depot development responsibilities to
while some extended this to 180 days beyond the the service providers, either due to lack of existing
contract duration. infrastructure or to benefit from private service
12
providers’ relatively faster pace of execution. This 2.2.3 Payment terms and penalties
has led to a disproportionate increase in cost per km,
Payment terms and penalties have a huge impact
since the lifetime of the supporting infrastructure is
on the payback period for the service providers
20-30 years, which is much longer than the contract
investing in e-bus operations. The following are the
tenure of 10-12 years.
key payment terms that varied among cities and,
5. Statutory taxes: Most of the RfPs and MCAs are hence, could have significantly impacted their costs:
silent on the statutory taxes applicable for e-bus
1. Assured-km of payment: This is the minimum-
service provision and their distribution between the
km of service for which the authority commits to
contracting authority and service provider, thereby
paying the service provider and is central to the
leaving scope for ambiguity among service providers
cost quoted in the bids. Different cities mention
when incorporating taxes into their cost estimations.
their assured-km differently, e.g. based on their
6. Asset ownership at the end of contract tenure expected daily, monthly, or annual vehicle utilisation
lies with the authority in most cases. Given the rapid rates. Annexure 1 normalises these figures into
evolution of e-bus technology and likely availability monthly assured-km for each contracting authority.
of better quality models at the end of the 10-12 year Greater numbers of assured-km ensure higher
contracts, leaving asset ownership with the service payback on the investments made by the operators,
provider can potentially reduce the bid values. thereby improving the contract’s potential financial
performance and resulting in lower bid costs. At
7. Third-party Insurance for buses and assets is the same time, cities need to carefully calculate
mandated by most authorities, which adds 2-2.5% the assured-km, as the figures apply for the entire
to the asset cost per annum. Given that in-house duration of the project, i.e. at least 10 years or more.
bus operations are exempted from third-party Given the increasing congestion in Indian cities,
insurance, a similar arrangement for e-buses can vehicle utilisation ( measured as km per bus per
contribute to cost reduction in the future. In addition day) has been declining consistently over the years,
to this, service providers are also obligated to insure and, hence, the current vehicle utilisation rates may
the authority-owned assets in the depots, which not be met in the future. On average, the monthly
further increases the quoted cost. assured-km cities commit to is approximately 6,000
per bus (~200 km per day). However, it varies
widely among cities, with Navi Mumbai committing
to approx. 6,600 km of assured-km per month,
whereas Mumbai has the lowest assured-km, 4,200
km per month, for the midi (9m) buses. As a result,
Navi Mumbai attracted per-km quotes of INR 52.2
and INR 69.93 for 9m and 12m buses, respectively,
while Mumbai’s costs for the same buses are INR 74
and INR 83 per km.
2. Payment periodicity and late payment penalties:

The NITI Aayog MCA (NITI-MCA) recommended
that payments to the service providers be made
every 15 days in order to ensure adequate cash
flows. However, some cities increased the interval
to 30 days, thereby impacting the service providers’
cash flow. More important, cities need to ensure
payments as per the timelines they committed to
in the contract, in order for the service providers
to cover their working capital and back-end loan
payments. Many cities have committed to paying an
interest rate of 2-3% above bank interest rates for
every day of delay in payments, but some have not
13
made any such commitments. In any case, the ability of payment committed to by the authority, as the
of the STUs to ensure timely payment is yet to be service providers cannot plan for a steady revenue
demonstrated, as they are not used to outsourcing stream. At the same time, incorporating a clause
operations and are in poor financial condition, on underutilisation indicates the uncertainty of
particularly due to the adverse financial implications the authority on the routes of operation and their
of the COVID-19 induced demand reduction. likelihood to achieve the assured-km of service.
This results in an increased risk premium associated
3. Payment for additional-km: The payment terms with the contract, leading to higher financing costs.
for cases when service providers cover more km Furthermore, the service providers are likely to
of service per day than their assured-km vary base their quoted cost per km on the assured-km
significantly across cities. None of the cities pay for
of payment, after deducting the underutilised-km
additional-km at assured-km rates for , based on the
payment, which further increases the cost.
logic that the assured-km rates cover the service
providers’ investments, and payment for additional- 5. Mechanism for payment revision: The NITI Aayog
km is just an incentive to perform better. Hence, the MCA recommended a formula for annual revision of
per-km payment for additional-km is in the range payment to the service provider that included the
of 30-75% of the payment made for assured-km. Consumer Price Index –Industrial Workers (CPI-IW)
Some of the cities have not even mentioned the
and Wholesale Price Index (WPI), which together
possibility of additional-km in their contracts. Such
incorporate the increase in staff cost and other
a high variation among cities can be a significant
materials needed for operation. Cities in Gujarat,
source of variation in quoted costs.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), and a few
4. Payment for underutilised-km: Even though others have also included the energy price inflation in
every city commits to a minimum assured-km of the payment revision formula. However, many cities
payment, some cities also made provisions to reduce have removed the payment revision mechanism from
the per-km payment in the case of underutilised-km, their MCAs, asking the service providers to quote
i.e. buses covering fewer km than the assured-km. a flat rate instead for the entire contract tenure.
The payment for the underutilised-km, calculated Given the uncertainty in the escalation of various
as the difference between assured-km and actual- cost items, such lack of payment revision can lead
km operated, ranges between 35% and 75% of to a higher risk premium being incorporated into the
the payment for assured-km. The payment for the quoted costs, thereby increasing the cost of the bids.
actual-km of service provided continues to be at the Hence, cities are encouraged to adopt a transparent
per-km rate at which the contract is issued. Such a annual revision mechanism that builds trust with the
reduction in payment undermines the assured-km service providers and reduces the costs.
14
6. Penalties and Service Level Agreements: minutes (min) for opportunity charging, while a few
The majority of cities included fleet availability, allow up to 75 min for top-up charging. The lack of
punctuality, and reliability in their SLAs, the lack adequate top-up charging and necessary inspection
of adherence to which attracts penalties on the is an important issue that needs to be addressed
performance security value (i.e. 3% - 5% of the in future e-bus RfPs. Wherever possible, the top-
project cost). Many cities capped the penalties at up charging times need to be aligned with the staff
10% of the total payment to be made to the service break times during the day or shift changes to avoid
provider, as recommended in the NITI-MCA. Some loss of revenue-generating trips. However, such
cities even reduced the penalty amounts to avoid operational considerations have not been adequately
the likelihood of bidders incorporating these fees covered in the RfPs and MCAs, which is likely to lead
into their bids, while others added additional SLAs to a suboptimal range bus becoming the L1 bidder/
beyond the ones in the MCA. In contrast, some cities service provider, eventually resulting in revenue loss
removed the cap on penalties, thereby jeopardising and, ultimately, further increasing the overall cost of
the assured-km of payment calculations by service e-bus implementation.
providers and consequently adding to the cost, due
to an increase in the associated risk premium. In 2. Battery capacity requirements: The e-bus battery
many cases, even though the SLAs are mentioned, size needed depends on the charging strategy
the method of monitoring them, i.e. manually or adopted by the city. In the case of depot-only
using an Intelligent Transport System (ITS), is not charging, with 30-minute charging during a shift
clearly mentioned, which is an additional point of change, the ideal battery size will be based upon the
uncertainty in penalty calculations. daily e-bus utilisation.
7. Minimum amount to be maintained in escrow 3. Bus specifications: Many of the city RfPs and
account: While the minimum balance amount to be MCAs mention Urban Bus Specification (UBS)-
maintained in the escrow account is defined in the II as the reference for bus specifications. Since
NITI-MCA, some STUs have reduced this amount in UBS-II was designed for ICE buses, e-bus related
their own MCAs. While the STUs made this revision specifications were changed by local authorities.
due to their financial limitations, such changes This has resulted in significant variance in bus
increase the bankability risk of the project for service specifications among cities, which needs to be
providers and their financing entities. addressed with a uniform national version of e-bus
specifications for different vehicle and charging
2.2.4 Functional and technical specifications technologies.
Finally, the following key aspects of the functional Cities and states contracting e-bus services may
and technical specifications of the outsourced review the learnings from the pan-India review
services were found to be crucial to determining the presented in this chapter to incorporate relevant
cost of service provision: changes into their own procurement practices.
1. Charging strategy: Most of the MCAs are oriented
towards overnight e-bus charging at depots,
with an aim to maximise daytime e-bus
operations, in order to replace ICE buses
with similar e-buses. The concept of
opportunity charging for e-buses, which
eliminates the need for a full-day range
battery and thus reduces the battery cost, has
not been clearly defined in most of the RfPs and
MCAs. Defining such a strategy would require
agencies to plan services in advance, which
would be a departure from the current operating
practice of flexible, ad-hoc bus deployment on
any route. Most cities only provide about 30
15
Recommendations to improve FAME II

e-bus procurement
FAME-II has put strong emphasis on e-bus leading to a reduction in financing costs and, hence,
promotion by allocating 35% of the scheme outlay the cost quoted by bidders. We recommend active
to e-buses. While the scheme targeted the induction collaboration between DHI and various STUs to
of 5,595 buses in Phase-I, the uptake, as explained standardise various terms in a mutually beneficial
in Chapter 1, has not met the set targets. This is due manner.
to the limited appetite amongst states and cities for
e-bus adoption, due to their higher costs. There is, • Reduce risk of OPEX contracts: Our analysis
therefore, an urgent need to address the issues faced of FAME II bids revealed significant variation in
by cities and service providers in order to reduce the prices quoted in different cities, even for tenders
costs, improve the ease of implementation, and scale with the same vehicle specifications. This is
up e-bus deployment in the next round of funding. primarily due to different risk premiums being
Based on extensive engagement with stakeholders in factored in by bidders in different cities, which
the states and cities involved thus far in FAME-II, can sometimes comprise up to 30% of the actual
this study identified the following key measures that cost of service provision. The reason for such high
could have a positive impact on Phase-II: risk premiums is the perceived inability of the
state/city to make timely payments, along with
the lack of long-term bankability of the contract.
3.1 Recommended measures to reduce DHI needs to urgently address this to ensure the
the cost of e-bus deployment sustainability of all FAME II contracts. To this end,
Across various states and cities, the key concern the following measures should be implemented:
in implementing e-buses has been their higher
ο Establish loan guarantee mechanism: A
cost compared to conventional ICE based fleets.
national or state level guarantee mechanism
Contrary to the public perception of falling electric
for the loans taken out by service providers
vehicle prices, there have been higher costs quoted
for their fleet procurement and infrastructure
in FAME II bids than in FAME I bids, due to the
development investments will improve the
lower per-bus subsidy offered by DHI and increased
bankability of the project.
awareness amongst operators on the actual cost of
operations. In this context, the following measures ο Reduce bank guarantee requirements for
have been identified to reduce the cost of bids: operators: The performance security/bank
• Harmonise RfPs and MCAs to improve bankability guarantee specified for service providers is
currently fixed for the entire contract tenure,
and encourage competition: It is understood that while the cost of the assets depreciates every
operating conditions vary across different cities and year. In some cases, the performance bank
states, resulting in different technical and functional guarantee is required in addition to the subsidy
requirements for e-buses in different regions. guarantee for the contract duration. Hence, an
However, as explained in Chapter 2, there are many annual reduction in the performance security
other RfP and MCA terms and conditions that can that is consistent with the asset depreciation rate
be tweaked without adversely impacting the project can help reduce financing costs for operators.
quality or region-specific e-bus deployment.
Harmonising these items will ensure a greater ο Furthermore, cities can merge the required
level of consistency in procurement, thereby subsidy and performance bank guarantees
encouraging more bidders per tender and reducing and thus reduce the overall financing needs of
the bid costs through increased competition. At the service providers for the guarantees, without
same time, consistency in terms across cities will adversely impacting the sustainability of the
improve the perceived bankability of the projects, project.
16
• Improve predictability of payments to operators: of service if service providers are unable to

Two key measures need to be taken to ensure complete the committed assured-km. This
return on investment for operators: undermines the objective of mentioning
assured-km in the contract and increases the
ο Guarantee mechanism for timely payments: risk of underpayment to service providers.
While most cities are establishing escrow Hence, it is recommended that cities strictly
accounts as recommended in the NITI- adhere to assured-km of payment and limit
MCA, the timeliness of payments is yet to deductions for underutilised-km, thereby
be proven and is not always guaranteed in making the contracts more transparent for
the city MCAs. Therefore, any additional all stakeholders. The cities can be asked to
guarantee mechanism for payment will help justify the reasoning behind their assured-km
build investor confidence. For example, a calculations, based on their current state of
performance bank guarantee or Letter of operations, and, where possible, they should
Credit (LC) mechanism can be undertaken not deduct payments for underutilised-km
by the contracting authorities. when the reduced service is due to reasons
beyond the control of the service provider.
ο Cap on penalties for non-adherence to SLAs:
Gross-Cost Contracts usually have penalty • Provision of civil and electrical infrastructure:
mechanisms for non-adherence to SLAs The NITI-MCA places the obligation for the
concerning service delivery, such as vehicle development of depots and other supporting
availability, punctuality, and cleanliness. These infrastructure with the contracting authority.
are typically capped at 10% of the payment This requires the authority to establish the
to assure a minimum of 90% payment to necessary civil and electrical infrastructure for
service providers. However, some FAME II bus maintenance, charging, and operations
tenders do not have a cap on these penalties, management, as explained in the ‘Bus Depot
thereby increasing the revenue risk for the Design Guidelines’. In some cases, authorities
service providers. This penalty risk is built into have transferred these responsibilities to the
the quoted cost of operations, leading to an service providers, either due to a lack of existing
overall increase in costs. In order to address infrastructure or in order to benefit from the
this, SLA based penalty percentages or a cap private service providers’ relatively faster pace of
on penalty percentages should be defined. execution, which significantly increases the per-
km cost of the bids. Hence, it is recommended
ο Payment for assured-km of operation: Many that authorities ensure the installation and
cities have included provisions for deducting operational readiness of civil and electrical
a portion of the payment for assured-km infrastructure before the start of the contract.
17
3.2 Recommended measures to improve • Extend tendering and contracting timelines:

readiness of states and cities for e-bus One of the key constraints faced by cities in e-bus
planning and procurement has been the short
deployment timelines allowed by DHI. This includes the time
Given that e-buses are still in their nascent stage of given to cities to submit the EoI to qualify for the
deployment, many states and cities are underprepared subsidy, as well as time to complete the tendering
to ensure their successful implementation. The and contracting process. As a result, cities did
following actions are recommended to improve their not have sufficient time to plan their deployment
readiness for implementation: strategies and have adequate consultations with
the industry and electricity distribution companies
• Provide technical support to selected cities (DISCOMs). This led to multiple rounds of
in project planning ahead of the tender: It is extensions and cancellations of tenders and re-
recommended that cities identify the depots tendering, ultimately leading to further delays in
and routes of operation for the proposed e-bus e-bus procurement. It is therefore recommended
deployment upfront, so that both the contracting to have more lenient timelines in the next round
authority and service providers are clear on the likely to improve city preparedness.
costs involved in fleet deployment, infrastructure
development, and expected operational • Focus on select cities with sufficient capacity
conditions. The lack of such an implementation for implementation: Concentrating the e-bus
plan can lead to the associated uncertainty and subsidy programme in a few cities is likely to help
risk being built into the cost of the contract. e-bus e-bus deployment achieve economies of scale,
deployment planning requires specialised skillsets rather than dividing implementation into small
to factor in items such as charging time and parcels across many cities. This will ensure that
location, depot layout planning, revised scheduling cities with the necessary technical and financial
to meet battery range constraints, etc. Many cities capacity to create the upfront infrastructure
lack the technical expertise for such planning and and ensure the sustainability of operations are
would benefit from technical support from DHI selected. Therefore, we recommend that DHI
and other organisations. UITP has developed a focus on a limited set of states/ cities in Phase-
framework for depot and route selection that has II. DHI should consider developing model cities
been used by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport with large-scale e-bus implementation and giving
Corporation (BMTC) and can be built upon and other cities the opportunity to learn from their
provided as guidance to other cities. experiences.
• Evaluate cities’ readiness during the city selection • Improve the operator ecosystem: India has a
phase: The first round of e-bus funding under limited number of private operators who have
FAME-II saw many cities tendering out only 50 the capacity to bid for FAME II supported
buses each or even fewer, in some cases. Many tenders and implement a technology- and
of these cities (e.g. Madurai, Kakinada, Solapur, & financing-intensive exercise such as e-buses.
Ujjain) are not ready for e-bus deployment, due to This is resulting in OEMs with limited operational
issues such as lack of supporting infrastructure and expertise leading many bids, which may not be
limited experience with city bus service provision. the most sustainable operating model to scale up
In such cases, the additional cost of power and e-bus deployment. It is recommended that DHI,
depot infrastructure development can become a in partnership with the cities and states, make
significant barrier to successful implementation efforts to attract more operators through more
of the contract, thus threatening its viability. It is favourable terms for them.
recommended that DHI evaluate cities based on
their readiness before sanctioning e-buses. Key • Create a pool of pre-qualified service providers:
criteria in such an evaluation could include prior The variations in service provider eligibility criteria,
experience in e-bus deployment/operations and which led to the inadvertent disqualification of
bus operations under the GCC model, financial some bidders, need to be avoided by creating a
commitments to e-bus deployment beyond the pan-India pool of empanelled qualified service
subsidy scheme, etc. providers under the FAME II scheme.
18
3.3 Exploring alternative procurement of the FAME II subsidy for e-buses. However,
adequate technology risk mitigation measures,
and incentive models
such as vehicle and battery warranties, adequate
STUs are accustomed to the outright purchase maintenance support from OEMs, etc., need to
procurement model and in-house ICE bus be built into such contracts to ensure their long-
operations. FAME-II presented the challenge of term sustainability.
transitioning to an outsourced form of operations,
along with the technology transition to e-buses. This • Ensuring states’ and cities’ commitment to
led to some states with strong STUs not showing great provision of consistent Viability Gap Funding
enthusiasm for FAME-II. The following measures (VGF) to bus agencies: Successful execution
can be taken to help address their concerns: of a GCC contract over its entire lifecycle
requires timely payments from the authority to
• Allowing CAPEX based funding for STUs: the operators. However, the poor financial health
Many STUs prefer outright purchase of e-buses of Indian bus agencies, coupled with the higher
and charging infrastructure, as purchasing cost of e-buses, results in their lack of financial
buses gives them more flexibility in operations capacity to pay the operators in a timely manner.
compared to GCC operations, which involve Therefore, DHI should mandate that states and
regular negotiation with operators, even on cities commit to consistent VGF for e-buses
changes in service plans. In the current OPEX as a prerequisite to receiving the CAPEX
based model, substantial time and effort is spent subsidy offered by the GoI. This will ensure the
on managing the GCC, which reduces the focus sustainability of the project and de-risk the
on technical and operational issues associated contract for operators and their financiers.
with the implementation of e-buses and their
supporting infrastructure. At the same time, the • Allowing private bus operators to avail of FAME
poor financial health of some STUs is leading to II funding: Private bus operators providing
service providers factoring their revenue risks into premium services, given their higher rate of
the quoted costs, thereby increasing the overall returns, are more likely than urban government
project cost. Hence, the CAPEX procurement bus agencies to implement e-buses, even if they
model could also be considered in the next round cost more. Therefore, allowing them to avail of
19
FAME II funding can potentially unlock a bigger performance monitoring and evaluation methods
e-bus market compared to the current govt. only to be adopted. UITP has prepared a framework
funding. Adequate measures to ensure public for e-bus performance monitoring and evaluation,
access to the infrastructure developed by these building upon the current performance monitoring
private operators can be built into the funding practices for ICE buses. This framework can help
mechanism. cities improve their operational strategies and will
give DHI a guidance framework for tracking the
• Recognising the crucial role of DISCOMs: performance of e-buses deployed under FAME-II.
DISCOMs are a key stakeholder in e-bus These performance indicators need to be included
implementation, as they need to provide the in the tendering stage and built into the contract, to
necessary power infrastructure for charging ensure data collection and sharing at a later stage.
and ensure high-quality power supply during When adopted by cities and DHI, the framework will
operations. However, they have not been facilitate performance monitoring of the deployed
adequately engaged in the e-bus implementation e-buses, and both actors can use the learnings to
efforts thus far. It is recommended that part of inform future procurement, financial incentives, and
FAME II charging infrastructure funding be business models. These indicators will also aid cities
allocated to the development of supporting in learning about and scaling up e-bus operations.
power infrastructure for buses.
3.5 Concluding remarks

3.4 Performance monitoring and evalu-
This study involved a comprehensive review of
ation e-bus procurement undertaken under FAME-II,
DHI has already created the necessary ecosystem quantifying the variation in costs and identifying
for a national e-bus performance evaluation the procurement specifications that lead to such
framework by mandating that all STUs and cities variations. These findings were used to develop
receiving the FAME II subsidy create an online specific pragmatic recommendations to improve
platform for performance monitoring. However, future rounds of procurement by reducing the cost
there is a lack of guidance from DHI on the specific of e-buses, in order to accelerate their adoption in
cities. eElectric mobility involves
rapidly evolving technology, and
it is always a continuous learning
process to identify the best
technology, procurement, and
financing strategies for a given
context. However, certain issues,
such as efficient planning, reliable
contracting, and performance
monitoring, are key to the
success of any bus system and will
consequently need to be adopted
by agencies covered under FAME-
II as well. We would like to reiterate
our commitment to scaling up
e-buses in India in order to improve
the nation’s energy efficiency and
emissions performance and our
keenness to continue partnering
with DHI, authorities, and operators
to ensure the success of the FAME
II scheme and the rapid scale-up of
e-buses across India.
20
Annexure 1: FAME-II e-bus tender

procurement specifications
Table 1, Page 1½
City Mumbai Bangalore Ahmedabad Surat Rajkot Goa (Intercity) Navi Mumbai Nagpur Patna Bhopal (B)/Indore(I) Jabalpur(J)/ Ujjain(U) Gwalior
Buses tendered 200(9m) 300 (12 m) 300 (9m) 150 (9m) 50 (9m) 50 (12m) 30 (9m) 40 (9m) 15 (9m) B=100 (9m&12m) J=50 (9m&12m) 40 (9m)
(by length) 140(12m) 70 (12m) 10 (12m) I=100 (9m&12m) U=50 (9m&12m)
Contracted rate per km (INR) 9m- 74.0 NA 54.9 55.26 53.91 78.87 9m- 52.2 NA 79.83 B= 64.8 J= 67.23 69.96
12m- 83.0 12m- 69.9 I= 63.9 U= 68.4
Contract duration (years) 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 10 7 10 10 10
Assured-km/ month 9m: 4,200 6,560 5,850 5,850 5,850 6,700 9m: 5,700 5,700 6,000 6,100 6,100 6,100
12m: 4,750 12m: 6,600
Time given for bid submission 14 9 9 28 25 9 36 42 6 28/ 30 19 16
(days)
Floor height (mm) 400/650/900 400 900±10 900 ± 10 900 ± 10 900 9m: 400-900 650-900 not mentioned 900 900 900
12m: 400
Bus length 9m, 12m 12m 9m 9m 9m 12m 9m, 12m 9m 9m, 12m 9m, 12m 9m, 12m 9m
Air-Conditioning? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Passenger capacity (D= Driver, 9m: Seats = 24+W+D Total= 42 Total= 42 Total= 42 Total= 42 Not mentioned 9m: Seats 25+D Total= 40 Seats = 40+ D 9m: Total 42, Seats= 9m: Total 42, Seats= 9m: Total 42,
W=Wheel chair) 12m: Seats = 35+W+D Seats= 29+D+W Seats= (24-27)+D+W Seats= (24-27)+D+W Seats= (24- 12m: Seats 30+D Seats= 25+D+W 31+D 31+D Seats= 27+D+W
27)+D+W 12m: Total 60, Seats= 12m: Total 60, Seats=
35+W+D 35+W+D
Time for charging (Overnight/ Overnight Overnight/ Charging Overnight Overnight Overnight Not mentioned Overnight Overnight Overnight Overnight Overnight Overnight
specific duration mentioned?) time < 4 hours.
Vehicle range on single charge 120 225 220 220 220 225 240 160-200 150 9m: 240 9m: 240 200
(km) 12m: 225 12m: 225
Battery capacity Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
Energy consumption up to Not mentioned ≤ 1.4 Not mentioned 1 1 Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned 9m: 0.8-0.95 Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
which STU will pay, if any? 12m: 1.4-1.5
(KWH/km)
Opportunity charging 30 Not mentioned 75 75 75 Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned 75 30 30 30
(Time allowed in minutes)
Number of depots 5 3 Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned 1 Not mentioned Not mentioned 1
Rate Quote with or w/o with electricity w/o electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity
electricity?
Minimum payment Total payment = Ta x R + 0.50 x Total payment = Ta (Payment made for (Payment made for (Payment made for Not mentioned (Payment made for (Payment made for (Payment made for (Payment made for (Payment made for bus (Payment made for
(Tm: Assured monthly bus-km (Tm – Ta) x R x R + 0.70 x (Tm – bus km operated) bus km operated) bus km operated) bus km operated) bus km operated) bus km operated) bus km operated) km operated) + (Annual bus km operated)
X No. Of buses operated Ta) x R +(Annual assured + (Annual assured + (Annual assured + (Annual assured + (Annual assured + (Annual assured + (Annual assured assured payment + (Annual assured
payment amount for payment amount for payment amount for payment amount payment amount for payment amount for payment amount for amount for unutilised payment amount
Ta: Actual bus-km operated by unutilised km= (0.50 x unutilised km= (0.50 x unutilised km= (0.50 for unutilised km) unutilised km= (0.75 unutilised km) unutilised km= (0.75 x km= (0.75 x (Tm – Ta) for unutilised km=
all Buses (Tm – Ta) x R ) (Tm – Ta) x R ) x (Tm – Ta) x R) x (Tm – Ta) xR) (Tm – Ta) x R) xR) (0.40 x (Tm – Ta)
R: Rates applicable) xR)
Payment for additional km Total payment = Tm x R + 0.70 Total payment = Tm Total payment = Tm x Total payment = Tm x R Total payment = Tm Not mentioned Total payment = Tm Total payment = Tm Not mentioned Total payment = Tm x Total payment = Tm x R Total payment = Tm
x (Ta – Tm) x R x R + 0.85 x (Ta – R + 0.50 x (Ta – Tm) + 0.50 x (Ta – Tm) x R x R + 0.50 x (Ta – x R + 0.75 x (Ta – x R + 0.75 x (Ta – R + 0.75 x (Ta – Tm) + 0.75 x (Ta – Tm) x R x R + 0.60 x (Ta –
1.1*Tm) x R xR Tm) x R Tm) x R Tm) x R xR Tm) x R
Deduction for under-utilised Same as minimum payment. Minimum Fleet Minimum Fleet Minimum Fleet Minimum Fleet Not mentioned Not mentioned Minimum Fleet Not mentioned Minimum Fleet Minimum Fleet Minimum Fleet
fleet availability= 95%: availability = 94%: availability = 94%: availability = 94%: availability = 95%: availability = 96%: availability = 96%: Same availability = 96%:
Same as minimum Same as minimum Same as minimum Same as minimum Same as minimum Same as minimum as minimum payment Same as minimum
payment otherwise payment otherwise payment otherwise payment otherwise payment otherwise payment otherwise otherwise payment will payment otherwise
payment will be payment will be payment will be payment will be payment will be payment will be be restricted to actual payment will be
restricted to actual restricted to actual restricted to actual restricted to actual restricted to actual restricted to actual fleet available restricted to actual
fleet available fleet available fleet available fleet available fleet available fleet available fleet available
Electric Bus Procurement under FAME-II: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations for Phase-II Electric Bus Procurement under FAME-II: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations for Phase-II
21
City Mumbai Bangalore Ahmedabad Surat Rajkot Goa (Intercity) Navi Mumbai Nagpur Patna Bhopal (B)/Indore(I) Jabalpur(J)/ Ujjain(U) Gwalior
Escalation mechanism for Revised rate= PK + First 2 years= Nil, Revised rate = PK Revised rate = PK Revised rate = PK Not mentioned (a) For the 1st Revised rate = PK (a) For the 1st revision Revised rate = PK*[1 Revised rate = PK*[1 + Revised rate = PK*[1
payment (Change in electricity 3rd year onwards= * {1 + [(10% * (Ref. * [1 + (20% * (Ref. * [1 + (20% * (Ref. revision after COD: * [1 + (20% * (Ref. after COD: + [ 45%*((Ref.ET – [ 45%*((Ref.ET – Base + [ 45%*((Ref.ET –
(PK= Per km rate provided rate/0.90)+PK*((Monthly 1% of basic quoted ET –Base ET)/ Base CPI-IW –Base CPI- CPI-IW –Base CPI- Revised rate = CPI-IW –Base Revised rate = PK Base ET)/Base ET)) ET)/Base ET)) + [1.2 * Base ET)/Base ET))
in the Letter of Award issued CPI-Base CPI)/Base rate ET) + (10% * (Ref. IW / Base CPI-IW))+ IW / Base CPI-IW))+ PK * [1 + (20% CPI-IW / Base CPI- * [1 + (20% * (Ref. + [1.2 * 35% *((Ref. 35% *((Ref.WPI– Base + [1.2 * 35% *((Ref.
to the CPI))*0.05+PK*(((Monthly CPI-IW –Base CPI- (30% *(40% * (Ref. (30% *(40% *(Ref. * (Ref.CPI-IW IW))+ (30% *(40% CPI-IW – Base CPI- WPI– Base WPI)/Base WPI)/Base WPI)) WPI– Base WPI)/
MW-Base MW)/Base IW / Base CPI-IW) + WPI –Base WPI / Base WPI –Base WPI / – Base CPI-IW/ * (Ref.WPI –Base IW/ Base CPI-IW)) + WPI)) Base WPI))
Operator/Successful Bidder MW)*0.15 (30% *(40% *(Ref. WPI )))] Base WPI )))] WPI / Base WPI )))
Base CPI-IW)) (0.60%(40% * (Ref.
Monthly CPI= Consumer WPI –Base WPI / Base + (0.60%(40% * WPI- Base WPI/
price index for particular WPI )))]} (Ref.WPI- Base Base WPI)) + (20%
month when price variation is WPI/ Base WPI)) * (price per kWh of
applicable + (20% * (price per electricity on the date
Base CPI= Consumer price kWh of electricity of submission of the
index of bid end date on the date of statement - price per
submission of kWh of electricity on
Monthly MW= Minimum the statement - the base index date)/
wages for skilled category at price per kWh of price per kWh of
particular month electricity on the electricity on the base
Base MW= Minimum wages at base index date)/ index date) / 100)]
the time of bid end date price per kWh of (b) For subsequent
Ref. ET: Reference electricity electricity on the revisions:
tariff applicable for base index date) /
100)] Revised rate = PK *
charging of electric buses as [1 + (20% * (Ref.CPI
on the date of submission of (b) For subsequent IW – Base CPI-IW/
statement revisions: Base CPI-IW)) +
Base ET: Base Electricity tariff Revised rate = (0.60%(40% * (Ref.
applicable for charging PK * [1 + (20% * WPI- Base WPI/
(Ref.CPI IW – Base WPI)) + (20%*
of electric buses 7 days prior to Base CPI-IW/ (price per kWh of
last date of Bid submission Base CPI-IW)) electricity on the date
Ref. CPI-IW: Reference + (0.60%(40% * of submission of the
consumer price index for (Ref.WPI- Base statement - price per
industrial worker 15 days prior WPI/ Base WPI)) kWh of electricity
to revision date + (20%* (price per on the preceding fee
kWh of electricity revision date)/ price
Base CPI-IW: Base consumer on the date of per kWh of electricity
price index for industrial worker submission of on the preceding fee
15 days prior to bid due date the statement revision date) / 100)]
Ref. WPI= Reference - price per kWh
wholesale price index 15 days of electricity on
prior to revision date the preceding fee
Base WPI= Base wholesale revision date)/
price index 15 days prior to bid price per kWh of
due date electricity on the
preceding fee
revision date) /
100)]
Maximum penalty due to SLA Not mentioned 5% of the project 1% of the performance 1% of the performance 1% of the Not mentioned 0.1% of the 10% of the project 0.1% of the Not mentioned Not mentioned 5% of monthly
non-adherence cost security security performance security performance cost performance security invoice
security
Payment cycle (15/ 30/ 45/ 30 days 30 days 15 days 15 days 15 days Not mentioned 15 days 15 days 15 days 15 days 15 days 15 days
60 days)
Annual escalation of electricity Yes No Yes Yes Yes Not mentioned Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
charges (Yes/No)
Electricity payment Operator Authority Operator Authority Authority Not mentioned Authority Authority Authority Operator Operator Operator
(Authority/Operator)
Performance Bank Guarantee 50,000/bus 50,000/bus 3% of total project cost 3% of total project cost 3% of total project INR 1,00,000/ INR 50,000/bus 3% of total project 3% of total project cost 5% of total project 5% of total project cost 3% of total project
(PBG) amount cost bus cost cost cost
PBG validity (same for the Full contract period plus 365 Full contract (same) Full contract period Full contract period Full contract period Full contract Full contract Full contract period Full contract period Full contract period Full contract period plus Full contract period
entire duration or changes over days (same) plus 120 days (same) plus 60 days (same) plus 60 days (same) period plus period plus 90days plus 180 days (same) plus 120 days (10% plus 180 days (same) 180 days (same) plus 180 days
time?) 180 days (10% (8.33% reduction reduction per annum) (same)
reduction per per annum)
annum)
Bid security deposit (INR) 0.50 crore 4.5 crore 2 crore 1.5 crore 0.65 crore 0.10 crore 0.50 crore 0.30 crore 9m bus: 0.15 crore 0.50 crore 0.25 crore 0.25 crore
12 m bus: 0.10 crore-
Routes specified? Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
22
Table 2, Page 1½
City Bhubaneshwar Jaipur RSRTC (Rajasthan Dehradun UKSRTC (Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh+ Kolkata New Town DTC DMRC North DMRC East Tamil Nadu: (8 Cities Intercity)*
Intercity) Intercity) (P1/P2/P3/P4) ( Delhi) cluster Cluster (Delhi)
(Delhi)
Buses tendered 50 (9m) 100 (9m) 50 (12m) 08 (9m) 15 (9m) 600 (9m) 100(9m) 300 (12m) 50 (9m) 50 (9m) 525 (9m & 12m)*
22 (12m) 35 (12m) (4 packages) 50(12m)
Contracted rate per km 60.22 66.5 53.7 66.78 62.1 62.55 86 NA 64.5 64.5 NA
(INR)
Contract duration (years) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 10 10 16 years
Assured-km/ month 6,600 6,000 18,000 5,400 6,000 5,250 5,000 5,000 4,785 4,785 Vellore=3,125/Salem, Tiruchirappalli,
Madurai= 3,750/ Coimbatore,
Erode, Tiruppur= 4,100/ Thanjavur=
3,400
Time given for bid submission 25 10 18 13 11 38 9m: 11 23 34 20 27
(days) 12m: 21
Floor height (mm) 900 900 1100-1200 400/650 9m: 650 400-900 Not mentioned 400 Not mentioned Not mentioned 600-900
12m: 400
Bus length 12m 9m 12m 9m, 12m 9m, 12m 9m 9m, 12m 12m 9m 9m 9m, 12m
Air-Conditioning? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not mentioned Not mentioned Yes
Passenger capacity (D= Total= 42 Seats= Seats= 43+D+Co.D 9m: Seats= 26-30 9m: Total= 35, Seats= Not mentioned 9m: Seats= 30+D Seats= 35 9m: Seats= 9m: Seats= 9m: Total= 52, Seats= 32+D
Driver, W=Wheel chair, Seats= 31+D (30-34)+ D 12m: Seats= 40 37+D 12m: Seats= 40+D 23-34 23-34 12m: Total= 70, Seating= 40+D
Co.D= Co-driver) 12m: Total 50, Seats=
35+W+D
Time for charging Overnight Overnight Overnight Overnight Overnight Not mentioned Overnight Overnight Not mentioned Not mentioned Overnight
(Overnight/specific duration
mentioned?)
Vehicle range on single 260 km 250 km 300 km 9m: 200 km 9m: 160 km 180 km 150 km 140 km Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
charge (km) 12m: 200-250 km 12m: 200 km
Battery capacity Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned 320-370 kWh
Energy consumption up to ≤ 1.2 1.75 Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned 9m: 0.8-0.95 Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
which STU will pay, if any? 12m: 1.4-1.5
(KWH/km)
Opportunity charging 30 minutes 90 minutes Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned 45-60 minutes Not mentioned 60 minutes Not mentioned Not mentioned 120 minutes
(Time allowed in minutes)
Number of depots Not mentioned 4 9 1 Not mentioned 1/city 5- 9m 3 1 1 4
3- 12m
Rate Quote with or w/o with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity with electricity Not mentioned Not mentioned with electricity
electricity?
Minimum payment (Payment made for bus (Payment made for bus (Payment made for (Payment made for bus (Payment made for bus (Payment made for bus km (Payment made for bus (Payment made for bus Not mentioned Not mentioned (Payment made for bus km operated)
(Tm: Assured monthly bus- km operated) + (Annual km operated) + (Annual bus km operated) km operated) + (Annual km operated) + (Annual operated) + (Annual assured km operated) + (Annual km operated) + (Annual + (Annual assured payment amount
km X No. Of buses operated assured payment amount assured payment amount + (Annual assured assured payment assured payment amount payment amount for unutilised assured payment amount assured payment amount for unutilised km)
for unutilised km= (0.35 x for unutilised km) payment amount for amount for unutilised for unutilised km) km= (0.75 x (Tm – Ta) x R) for unutilised km) for unutilised km)
Ta: Actual bus-km operated (Tm – Ta) x R) unutilised km) km= (Tm – Ta) x R)
by all Buses
R: Rates applicable)
Payment of additional km Total payment = Tm x R + Not mentioned Total payment = Tm x Total payment = Tm x R Total payment = Tm x R Total payment = Tm x R + 0.75 Total payment = Tm x R + Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
0.65 x (Ta – Tm) x R R + 0.75 x (Ta – Tm) + 0.30 x (Ta – Tm) x R + 0.75 x (Ta – Tm) x R x (Ta – Tm) x R 0.30 x (Ta – Tm) x R
xR
Deduction for under-utilised Minimum Fleet availability Not mentioned Not mentioned Minimum Fleet Not mentioned Same as minimum payment Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
fleet = 100%: Same as minimum availability = 94%:
payment otherwise Same as minimum
payment will be restricted payment otherwise
to actual fleet available payment will be
restricted to actual
fleet available
23
City Bhubaneshwar Jaipur RSRTC (Rajasthan Dehradun UKSRTC (Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh+ Kolkata New Town DTC DMRC North DMRC East Tamil Nadu: (8 Cities Intercity)*
Intercity) Intercity) (P1/P2/P3/P4) ( Delhi) cluster Cluster (Delhi)
(Delhi)
Escalation mechanism for (a) For the 1st revision (a) For the 1st revision (a) For the 1st revision Revised rate = PK*[1+ ( ((a) For the 1st revision Revised rate=PK{1+[.25*((Ref. (a) For the 1st revision after (a) For the 1st revision Not mentioned Not mentioned (a) For the 1st revision after COD:
payment after COD: after COD: after COD: 15%*((Ref. WPI – Base after COD: CPI-IW –Base CPI-IW)/Base COD: after COD: Revised rate = PK * [1 + (20% *
(PK= Per km rate provided Revised rate = PK * [1 Revised rate = PK * [1 + Revised rate = PK * [1 WPI)/W-base)) +(15%* Revised rate = PK * [1 CPI-IW))+.15*((Ref. ET-Base Revised rate = PK * [1 Revised rate = PK * [1 + (Ref. CPI-IW – Base CPI-IW/ Base
in the Letter of Award issued + (20% * (Ref. CPI-IW (20% * (Ref. CPI- IW + (20% * (Ref. CPI- x{(Ref. CPI-IW – Base + (20% * (Ref. CPI- ET)/Base ET))+(.15*(Ref. + (20% * (Ref. CPI-IW (20% * (Ref. CPI-IW – CPI-IW)) + (0.60%(40% * (Ref.
to the – Base CPI-IW/ Base – Base CPI-IW/ Base IW – Base CPI-IW/ CPI-IW)/ IW – Base CPI-IW/ WPI –Base WPI)/Base – Base CPI-IW/ Base Base CPI-IW/ Base CPI- WPI- Base WPI/ Base WPI)) + (20%
CPI-IW)) + (0.60%(40% CPI-IW)) + (0.60%(40% Base CPI-IW)) + Base CPI-IW)] Base CPI-IW)) + WPI)*.4*.45)]} CPI-IW)) + (0.60%(40% IW)) + (0.60%(40% * * (price per kWh of electricity on the
Operator/Successful Bidder
* (Ref. WPI- Base WPI/ * (Ref. WPI- Base WPI/ (0.60%(40% * (Ref. (0.60%(40% * (Ref. * (Ref. WPI- Base WPI/ (Ref. WPI- Base WPI/ date of submission of the statement
Ref. ET: Reference Base WPI)) + (20% Base WPI)) + (20% WPI- Base WPI/ WPI- Base WPI/ Base Base WPI)) + (20% * (price Base WPI)) + (20% - price per kWh of electricity on the
electricity tariff applicable for * (price per kWh of * (price per kWh of Base WPI)) + (20% WPI)) + (20% * (price per kWh of electricity on * (price per kWh of base index date)/ price per kWh of
charging of electric buses as electricity on the date electricity on the date * (price per kWh of per kWh of electricity on the date of submission of electricity on the date electricity on the base index date)
on the date of submission of of submission of the of submission of the electricity on the date the date of submission the statement - price per of submission of the / 100)]
statement statement - price per kWh statement - price per of submission of the of the statement - price kWh of electricity on the statement - price per (b) For subsequent revisions:
of electricity on the base kWh of electricity on the statement - price per per kWh of electricity base index date)/ price per kWh of electricity on the
Base ET: Base Electricity index date)/ price per kWh base index date)/ price kWh of electricity on on the base index kWh of electricity on the base index date)/ price Revised rate = PK * [1 + (20% * (Ref.
tariff applicable for charging of electricity on the base per kWh of electricity the base index date)/ date)/ price per kWh of base index date) / 100)] per kWh of electricity CPI-IW – Base CPI-IW/ Base CPI-
of electric buses 7 days prior index date) / 100)] on the base index date) price per kWh of electricity on the base on the base index date) IW)) + (0.60%(40% * (Ref. WPI-
(b) For subsequent Base WPI/ Base WPI)) + (20%*
to last date of Bid submission (b) For subsequent / 100)] electricity on the base index date) / 100)] revisions: / 100)]
index date) / 100)] (price per kWh of electricity on the
Ref. CPI-IW: Reference revisions: (b) For subsequent (b) For subsequent Revised rate = PK * [1 (b) For subsequent date of submission of the statement
consumer price index for Revised rate = PK * [1 revisions: (b) For subsequent revisions: + (20% * (Ref. CPI-IW revisions: - price per kWh of electricity on
industrial worker 15 days + (20% * (Ref. CPI-IW Revised rate = PK revisions: Revised rate = PK * [1 – Base CPI-IW/ Base Revised rate = PK * [1 the preceding fee revision date)/
prior to revision date – Base CPI-IW/ Base * [1 + (20% * (Ref. Revised rate = PK * [1 + (20% * (Ref. CPI- CPI-IW)) + (0.60%(40% + (20% * (Ref. CPI- price per kWh of electricity on the
Base CPI-IW: Base CPI-IW)) + (0.60%(40% CPI- IW – Base CPI- + (20% * (Ref. CPI- IW – Base CPI-IW/ * (Ref. WPI- Base WPI/ IW – Base CPI-IW/ preceding fee revision date) / 100)]
consumer price index for * (Ref. WPI- Base WPI/ IW/ Base CPI-IW)) + IW – Base CPI-IW/ Base CPI-IW)) + Base WPI)) + (20%* (price Base CPI-IW)) +
industrial worker 15 days Base WPI)) + (20%* (price (0.60%(40% * (Ref. Base CPI-IW)) + (0.60%(40% * (Ref. per kWh of electricity on (0.60%(40% * (Ref.
prior to bid due date per kWh of electricity on WPI- Base WPI/ Base (0.60%(40% * (Ref. WPI- Base WPI/ Base the date of submission WPI- Base WPI/ Base
Ref. WPI= Reference the date of submission WPI)) + (20%* (price WPI- Base WPI/ WPI)) + (20%* (price of the statement - price WPI)) + (20%* (price
wholesale price index 15 days of the statement - price per kWh of electricity on Base WPI)) + (20%* per kWh of electricity on per kWh of electricity on per kWh of electricity on
prior to revision date per kWh of electricity the date of submission (price per kWh of the date of submission the preceding fee revision the date of submission
on the preceding fee of the statement - price electricity on the date of the statement - price date)/ price per kWh of of the statement - price
Base WPI= Base wholesale revision date)/ price per per kWh of electricity of submission of the per kWh of electricity electricity on the preceding per kWh of electricity
price index 15 days prior to kWh of electricity on the on the preceding fee statement - price per on the preceding fee fee revision date) / 100)] on the preceding fee
bid due date preceding fee revision revision date)/ price per kWh of electricity revision date)/ price per revision date)/ price per
date) / 100)] kWh of electricity on the on the preceding fee kWh of electricity on the kWh of electricity on the
preceding fee revision revision date)/ price preceding fee revision preceding fee revision
date) / 100)] per kWh of electricity date) / 100)] date) / 100)]
on the preceding fee
revision date) / 100)]
Maximum penalty due to Not mentioned 0.1% of the performance 0.1% of the 0.1% of the 0.1% of the performance 0.1% of the performance 0.1% of the performance 0.1% of the performance Not mentioned Not mentioned 0.1 % of the performance security
SLA non-adherence. security performance security performance security security security security security subjected to
revision @5% every 2
years
Payment cycle (15/ 30/ 45/ 15 days 15 days 30 days 15 days 15 days 15 days 15 days 15 days Not mentioned Not mentioned 15 days
60 days)
Annual escalation of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not mentioned Not mentioned Yes
electricity charges (Yes/No)
Electricity payment Operator Operator Authority Operator Authority Operator Authority Operator Operator
(Authority/Operator)
Performance Bank 5% of total project cost. INR 8.75 crore 5% of total project 5% of total project INR 2,00,000/bus 3% of operational cost/year 3% of total project cost. 3% of operational cost/ Not mentioned Not mentioned 3% of total project cost.
Guarantee (PBG) amount cost. cost. year
PBG validity (same for the Full contract period plus Full contract period plus Full contract period Full contract period Full contract period plus Full contract period + 120 Full contract period (10% Full contract period Not mentioned Not mentioned Full contract period (same)
entire duration or changes 180 days (same) 120 days (same) plus 180 days (same) (same) 180 days(same) days (increases after 3rd, 5th, reduction per annum) (increases as PS is linked
over time?) 7th & 9th year as PS is linked to operational cost)
to operational cost)
Bid security deposit (INR) 0.25 crore 3.5 crore 1.5 crore 0.67 crore 0.50 crore 0.25 crore 9m: 1 crore 6 crore 0.50 crore 0.50 crore 0.05 crore
12m: 0.50 crore
Routes specified? No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
24
Abbreviations:
NA : Not Available
PS : Performance Security
O&M : Operation & Maintenance
kWh : kilowatt-hour
RSRTC : Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
DTC : Delhi Transport Corporation
+Uttar Pradesh
• Package 1 (P1) = Agra + Aligarh =100+25= 125 (9m) buses
• Package 2 (P2) = Bareilly + Ghaziabad + Meerut + Moradabad = 25+50+50+25= 150 (9m) buses
• Package 3 (P3) = Lucknow + Varanasi = 100+50= 150 (9m) buses
• P4-Package 4 = Jhansi + Kanpur + Prayagraj = 25+100+50= 175 (9m) buses
*Coimbatore, Tiruchirappalli, Madurai= 100 buses each; Vellore, Salem, Erode, Tiruppur= 50 buses each;
Thanjavur= 25 buses
This is an official Report of UITP, the International Association of Public Transport. UITP has more than 1,800 member companies
in 100 countries throughout the world and represents the interests of key players in this sector. Its membership includes transport
authorities, operators, both private and public, in all modes of collective passenger transport, and the industry. UITP addresses the
economic, technical, organisation and management aspects of passenger transport, as well as the development of policy for mobility
and public transport worldwide.
JULY | 2020
Rue Sainte-Marie 6, B-1080 Brussels, Belgium | Tel +32 (0)2 673 61 00 | Fax +32 (0)2 660 10 72 | info@uitp.org | www.uitp.org
© UITP - All rights reserved - Responsible Publisher: Mohamed Mezghani, Rue Sainte Marie 6, B-1080 Brussels, Belgium - Legal deposit: D/2020/0105/46

Electric Bus Procurement Under Fame-Ii:: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations For Phase-Ii

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electric Bus Procurement Under Fame-Ii:: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations For Phase-Ii

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electric Bus Procurement Under Fame-Ii:: Lessons Learnt and Recommendations For Phase-Ii

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

1 Electric bus procurement under FAME II: The story so far........................................................................4

2 Potential improvements in procurement to reduce costs............................................................................ 9

3 Recommendations to improve e-bus procurement under FAME-II..........................................................15

Annexure 1: Procurement specifications of FAME II e-bus tenders............................................................. 20

Electric bus procurement under FAME-II:

Figure 1: Total e-buses sanctioned vs. e-buses procured

25 25-50 25-100 100-150 >=300

No. of e-buses procured per tender

Figure 2: OEMs selected to supply e-buses sanctioned under FAME-II

Figure 3: Range of L1 bids approved for 9m and 12m buses

Potential procurement improvements for

This section summarises the key variations observed

2. Payment periodicity and late payment penalties:

Recommendations to improve FAME II

• Improve predictability of payments to operators: of service if service providers are unable to

3.2 Recommended measures to improve • Extend tendering and contracting timelines:

3.5 Concluding remarks

Annexure 1: FAME-II e-bus tender

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.