Final Ber Icb 6b

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENTGOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

PROJECT 1 OFPUNJAB IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM

ADB LOAN NO. 2299 - PAK

REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING OFBRANCH CANALS AND DISTRIBUTARY SYSTEM

COVERING KHANEWAL CANAL DIVISION

Contract No. LBDC/ICB-06B

Volume – I

TECHNICAL BID EVALUATION REPORT

FEBRUARY, 2013

LBDC ConsultantA Joint Venture of NESPAK, MML, MMP & ACE

Rehabilitation and Upgrading of Branch CanalsAnd Distributary System Covering Khanewal Canal Division Volume-IContract No. LBDC/ICB-06B Bid Evaluation Report

Table of Contents

Volume I: Technical Bid Evaluation Report

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General...................................................................................................................1

1.2 Submission of Bids.................................................................................................1

1.3 Bid Opening............................................................................................................1

1.4 Basic Data..............................................................................................................2

1.5 Bid Evaluation Review Committee.........................................................................2

2. EXAMINATION FOR COMPLETENESS OF BIDS.......................................................................2

2.1 Bid Documents.......................................................................................................2

2.2 Propriety of Signature and Power of Attorney........................................................3

3. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS.......................................3

3.1 Eligibility of Bidders................................................................................................3

3.2 Bidder’s Qualifications............................................................................................4

3.3 Compliance with Commercial Terms and Conditions...........................................10

3.3.1 Bid Validity and Bid Security.................................................................................10

3.3.2 Time for Completion.............................................................................................10

3.4 Compliance with Technical Requirements...........................................................10

4. DETAILED EVALUATION OF BIDS...........................................................................................11

4.1 Non-Responsive Bids and Responsive Bids........................................................11

4.2 Evaluation for Technical Requirements of Responsive Bid..................................11

4.2.1 Construction Schedule and Sequence of Construction Activities.........................11

4.2.2 Method Statement................................................................................................11

4.2.3 Site Organization and Key field Personnel...........................................................11

4.2.4 Construction Equipment.......................................................................................11

4.3 Clarifications.........................................................................................................12

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................12

LBDC Consultant i A Joint Venture ofNESPAK, MML, MMP and ACE


Appendices

Appendix 1 : Record of Bid OpeningAppendix 2 : Basic Data SheetAppendix 2A: Exchange Rates as on 03-Jan-2013 as issued by State Bank of PakistanAppendix 3 : Examination of Completeness of Bid DocumentsAppendix 3A : ADB’s letters dated 17-09-2010 & 14-12-2010 regarding clarification of bid security Appendix 4 : Details on Eligibility of BidderAppendix 5 : Evaluation of Bidder’s QualificationAppendix 6 : Substantive Responsiveness of Bids (Commercial Terms) Appendix 7 : Detail of Key Personnel Appendix 8 : Detail of Essential Construction Equipment

Volume II: Annexures

Annexure – A: Advertisements of Invitation for BidAnnexure – B: List of Prospective Bidders who Purchased the Bidding DocumentsAnnexure – C: Minuets of the pre-bid meeting held on 18th December, 2012Annexure – D: Notification Regarding Constitution of Bid Opening CommitteeAnnexure – E: Project Director, PMU letter dated 31-01-2013 regarding Opening of Bids and Bid Evaluation Annexure – F: Notification Regarding Constitution of Bid Evaluation Review Committee Annexure – G: Post Bid Clarifications with Bidder No. 1Annexure – H: Post Bid Clarifications with Bidder No. 2Annexure – I : Post Bid Clarifications with Bidder No. 4Annexure –J : Post Bid Clarifications with Bidder No. 5

LBDC Consultant ii A Joint Venture ofNESPAK, MML, MMP and ACE


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has received a loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) towards the cost of Project 1 of Punjab Irrigated Agriculture Investment Program (Lower Bari Doab Canal Improvement Project). Part of this loan will be used for eligible payments for rehabilitation and upgrading of branch canals and distributary system covering Khanewal canal division, for which these bids have been invited. As per instruction of the ADB and Invitation for Bids (IFB) issued, the ADB “Single Stage, Two Envelope Bidding Procedure” has been adopted for this procurement.

IFB was advertised in local English language newspaper “The NEWS” and local Urdu language newspapers “Daily Nawa-i-Waqt Lahore” & “Pakistan Today”, on 20 December, 2012 (Annexure-A). IFB was also posted on ADB business opportunities on 4 December 2012. Sixteen (16) Bidders purchased the bidding documents list of which is attached as Annexure B. Following sub-clause ITB 7.4 of Bid Data Sheet (BDS), a pre-bid meeting was held on 9 January, 2013 in the office of Project Director, PMU, LBDCIP, Lahore. Four (04) Bidders attended the pre-bid meeting. A site visit to the Project site was also arranged on 12 January, 2013. The minutes of pre-bid meeting were prepared and sent to all Bidders who purchased the bidding documents (Annexure-C). As a result of pre-bid meeting, an addendum # 1 to the bidding documents was issued on 17 January 2013 to clarify/amend certain aspects of the commercial and technical requirements of the bidding documents.

1.2 Submission of Bids

The receipt of bids was closed at 1100 hours local time on 31 January 2013 as scheduled in the Invitation for Bids. Out of sixteen (16) Bidders, five (05) Bidders submitted their bids. The names of Bidders and their nationality are shown in Table 1. (Annexure-D)

Table: 1 – List of Bidders

Sr. No.

Name of Bidder Nationality Status

1. M/s Sinohydro Corporation Ltd PRC1 Single

2. M/s Ramzan & Sons (Pvt.) Limited Pakistan Single

3. M/s Sultan Mahmood & Company (SMC) Pakistan Single

4. M/s Chaudhry Engineers Associates Pakistan Single

5. M/s ZKB2-NEIE3-LAC Joint Venture Pak-PRC-Pak Joint Venture (JV)

1.3 Bid Opening

A Bid Opening Committee (BOC) had been constituted by the Executing Agency (EA) on 17 August, 2010 vide notification No.SO (Evl)/1-22/2006 (Annexure-E Volume II).Bids were publicly opened as specified in the bidding documents in the presence of representatives of the Bidders immediately after 11:00 AM on 31 January 2013 in the conference room of the office of Project Director, PMU by the BOC. The BOC opened each envelope of each Bidder containing the sealed Technical Bid and the Price Bid, separately and signed on the original sealed envelopes of Technical and Price Bids. The Price Bids remained unopened and were placed in the safe custody of the Employer. Only the Technical Bids were opened by the 1 People’s Republic of China2 M/s Zahir Khan & Brothers3 M/s Northeast China International

LBDC Consultant 1 A Joint Venture ofNESPAK, MML, MMP and ACE


BOC. The Bidders’ names and addresses, presence of Technical & Price Bid and presence or absence of bid security and its amount, were announced and recorded. The record of bid opening was prepared soon after the bids were announced and a copy of the record of bid opening was forwarded to ADB on the same day i.e 31 January, 2013 (Appendix 1). All the five (05) original Technical Bids were handed over by the Employer to the Consultants on the same day for evaluation in terms of their Consultancy Services Contract already made vide PMU, LBDCIP letter No. PMU/LBDCIP/IPD/5450 dated 31 January, 2013 (Annexure-D Volume II). The Consultants carried out this evaluation in accordance with the provisions of the bidding documents.

1.4 Basic Data

Basic information pertaining to the bidding is summarized as Appendix 2.

1.5 Bid Evaluation Review Committee

A bid evaluation review committee was constituted by the EA to review the recommendations of the Consultants vide Notification No. SO(EVL)/1-22/2006 dated 19 January 2013 (Annexure-E) regarding evaluation of bids for Contracts No. LBDC/ICB-06A and LBDC/ICB-06B, before submission to ADB. Composition of the committee is shown in Table 2.

Table: 2 – Bid Evaluation Review Committee

Sr. No.

Name Status Designation

1 Syed Mahmood ul Hassan Convener Project Director PMU LBDCIP

2 Mr. Khalid Hussain Qureshi Member Addl. Secretary (Tech.) Irrigation Department

3 Mr. Aamir Raza Member Director Engineering, PMO (M & E) SPRU

4 Mr. Ijaz ul Hassan Kashif Member Director Procurement, PMO Barrages

2. EXAMINATION FOR COMPLETENESS OF BIDS

2.1 Bid Documents

The Technical Bids were first examined to check whether the Bidders had submitted all the documents and information as required under ITB sub-clause 11.2 of the bidding documents. The areas covered by the examination were:

i) Letter of Technical Bid;ii) Bid Security;

iii) Schedules of Particular Information;iv) Joint Venture Agreement, if required;v) Propriety of Signature and Power of Attorney;

vi) Documents establishing the eligibility of Bidders; andvii) Documents establishing the qualification of Bidders.

The records of checking of completeness of Bids are attached as Appendix-3.

Four (04) Bidders (No. 1, No. 2, No. 4 & No. 5) had submitted all documents and information required by the bidding documents.



Bidder No.3 attached a personal (crossed) cheque as bid security which is not in the form specified in the bidding documents. Previously in the case of Contract No. LBDC/ICB-01, a bidder had also submitted a personal cheque (with endorsement at the back by the bank) as bid security. The question of validity of personal cheque was examined in detail by the Consultants preparing the BER, as well as it was referred to ADB for advice. The findings of consultants and the advice given by ADB was that personal cheque against bid security does not fulfill the requirement of bidding documents. Copies of letters of ADB dated 17 September 2010 and 14 December 2010 in this regard are attached as Appendix-3A. In the light of this position, the personal cheque endorsed by the bank cannot be a substitute to the Cashier’s Certified Cheque. Hence, the bid of Bidder No. 3, being not accompanied by an enforceable and complaint bid security in accordance with ITB 19.1 and 19.3, is rejected pursuant to ITB 19.4 and 29.2.

2.2 Propriety of Signature and Power of Attorney

Technical bids of all the Bidders are found satisfactory in this aspect as all the bid documents have been properly signed as per Instructions to Bidders and all corrections have been initialed by the respective authorized persons. The Power of Attorney for each signatory is attached and acceptable. A minor discrepancy in case of Bidder No. 2 was found in Power of Attorney which was clarified by the Bidder satisfactorily .The results of these examinations are shown in Appendix 3.

In the light of examination discussed above (2.1 & 2.2) and shown in Appendix 3 it is found that Bidder No.3 has failed to submit its complete Technical Bid in accordance with ITB sub-clauses 19.4 & 29.2. Hence, his technical bid is found non-responsive and rejected pursuant to sub-clause ITB 29.2 of the bidding documents and shall not be considered for further evaluation.

3. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS

3.1 Eligibility of Bidders

In line with clause 4 of the instructions to Bidders, all four Bidders submitted certifications, which indicated that they were national of an eligible member country, and offered goods originating in an eligible member country of ADB. Further, all Bidders certified that they were not involved in the consulting services for the works and are not under sanctions by ADB as well as United Nations (UN) Security Council (Appendix 4)

Table: 3 - Eligibility of Bidders

BIDDER No. 1:

i. Single Entity or Joint Venture(JV) Single Entity

ii. Nationality Peoples Republic of China

iii. Conflict of Interest No conflict of Interest in terms of ITB sub-clause 4.3.

iv. ADB Eligibility Not having been declared ineligible by ADB.

v. Government-owned entity or otherwise

Not a Government-owned entity

vi. UN Eligibility Not having been excluded by an act of compliance with UN Security Council resolution.

BIDDER No. 2:



i. Single Entity or Joint Venture(JV) Single Entity

ii. Nationality Pakistan


iv. ADB Eligibility Not having been declared ineligible by ADB.


Not a Government-owned entity.


BIDDER No 4:

i. Single Entity or Joint Venture(JV) Single entity

ii. Nationality Pakistan


iv. ADB Eligibility Not having been declared in-eligible by ADB




BIDDER No. 5

i. Single Entity or Joint Venture (JV) Joint Venture

ii. Nationality Pak-PRC-Pak


vi. ADB Eligibility Not having been declared in-eligible by ADB



vi UN Eligibility Not having been excluded by an act of compliance with UN Security Council resolution.

3.2 Bidder’s Qualifications

According to ITB 17 each Bidder was required to submit with its bid evidence of its pending litigation, technical capability, financial capacity and previous construction experience in similar works by completing properly the forms provided with the bidding documents. The requirements as specified in Section-3 were as under;

A. Pending Litigation:

All pending litigation shall be treated as resolved against the Bidder and so shall in total not represent more than seventy five (75) percent of the Bidder’s net worth.

B. Financial Situation

(a) Historical Financial Performance (FIN-1)

Submission of audited balance sheets or, if not required by the law of the Bidder’s country, other financial statements acceptable to the Employer, for the last three (03)



years to demonstrate the current soundness of the Bidder’s financial position and its prospective long-term profitability. As a minimum, a Bidder's net worth calculated as the difference between total assets and total liabilities should be positive.

(b) Average Annual Construction Turnover (FIN-2)

Minimum average annual construction turnover of US$ Fourteen (14) million, calculated as total certified payments received for contracts in progress or completed, within the last three (03) years.

(c) Availability of Financial Resources (FIN-3)

The Bidder should demonstrate access to, or availability of, liquid assets, lines of credit, or other financial resources (other than any contractual advance payments) to meet the Bidder’s financial resources requirement as indicated in Form FIN-4.

(d) Financial Resources Requirement (FIN-4)

The Bidder shall provide information to calculate the aggregated financial resources requirements (2 x sum of monthly financial resources requirements for each current works contract + financial resources requirement for subject Contract specified by the Employer) as stipulated in Form FIN-4.

C. Construction Experience

(a) Contracts of Similar Size and Nature (EXP-1a)

Bidders’ participation in at least one contract within the last eight (08) years that has been successfully or substantially completed and that is similar to the proposed works, where the value of the Bidder’s participation exceeds US$ Fourteen (14) million.

(b) Construction Experience in Key Activities

Execution of minimum construction key activities are as under;i. Earthwork for canal prism & banks 100,000 cft per dayii. Reinforced Cement Concrete 1,500 cft per dayiii. Canal Lining (PCC/Brick) 4,000 cft per day

All the four (4) Bidders provided duly completed Forms and Schedules satisfactorily. However, some clarifications / justifications from some of the Bidders were also required to determine the qualification of the Bidders according to the criteria.

Bidders No. 1, No. 2, No.4 and No. 5 were requested to provide clarification/justification under ITB 27.1. All such queries and replies of the Bidders are attached in Volume-II. In the light of clarifications provided by the Bidders; all the Forms and Schedules of all the four (4) Bidders were reviewed in detail in order to determine whether or not the Bidder met the requisite qualification requirements as specified in the bidding documents.

The Consultants reviewed the contracts mentioned by the Bidders with regard to their experience of similar projects specified under Sub-Clauses 2.4.1 & 2.4.2 of Section-3. It was considered reasonable if a contract pertained to construction of small dams/ reservoirs, surface drainage projects and flood protection works in rivers, involving large quantities of earthwork and concrete may also be treated as similar works/ key activities for complexity, methods and technology. The results of this review have been summarized in Appendix 5. The findings of the review are elaborated below:



Bidder No.1

Pending Litigation: The Bidder has claimed that there is no pending litigation as per Form LIT-1.

Financial Situation:

Historical Financial Performance: The Bidder has submitted audited financial statements for the last three (3) years which reveal that net worth calculated as difference between total assets and total liabilities is positive for each of three (3) years and satisfies the requirement under sub-clause 2.3.1 of the qualification criteria.

Average Annual Construction Turnover (AACT): The Bidder has reported AACT for the last three years as US$ 3,114.929 million which satisfies the requirement of US$ 14 million under sub-clause 2.3.2 of qualification criteria.

Availability of Financial Resources: The Bidder has attached a bank letter to establish credit line of US$ 4 million as well as declared liquid assets derived from financial statements, which is adequate to cover the aggregated financial resources requirement, calculated in Form FIN-4 as US$ 22.870 million.

Financial Resources Requirement: The Bidder fulfills the requirement for financial resources to undertake the contract as per sub-clause 2.3.3 of the qualification criteria.

Construction Experience:

Contracts of Similar Size and Nature: Contracts namely “Construction, Rehabilitation, Supplying and Upgrading Irrigation Project (the project includes four contract packages)” and “The Second Stage of Build and/or, Rebuild, supply and installation of Irrigation Project in 4 Areas”, amounting to US$ 95.306 million and US$ 54.006 million respectively are considered for contracts of similar in size and nature and meets the criteria specified under sub-clause 2.4.1 of Section 3.

Construction Experience in Key Activities: The Contracts considered for Contracts of similar size and nature also meets the criteria for execution of key activities as per sub-clause 2.4.2 of Section-3.

Bidder No. 2




Average Annual Construction Turnover (AACT): The Bidder has reported AACT for the last three years as US$ 18.503 million which satisfies the requirements of US$ 14 million under sub-clause 2.3.2 of the qualification criteria.



Availability of Financial Resources: The Bidder attached a letter of Askari Bank dated 1 March 2012 to establish a credit line of US$ 10 million as his financial resources. Upon clarification the bidder re-validated the bank letter with same amount from the same bank dated 6 February 2013, which is adequate to cover the aggregated financial resources requirement, calculated in Form FIN-4 as US$ 0.6 million.

Financial Resources Requirement: The Bidder has stated “Nil” in form FIN-4 and in response to clarification in this regard, the bidder has stated that they have no on-going contracts. The Bidder fulfills the requirement for financial resources to undertake the contract as per sub-clause 2.3.3 of the qualification criteria.


Contracts of Similar Size and Nature: The Bidder has listed several contracts of Rainee Canal and Great Thal Canal within the last eight (8) years of similar size and nature which meet the criteria specified under sub-clause 2.4.1 of Section 3.

Construction Experience in Key Activities: The Bidder has mentioned six (6) contracts completed during the last eight (8) years, indicating the experience in key activities. The quantities executed meet the requirements as stipulated in sub-clause 2.4.2 of Section-3.

Bidder No. 4



Historical Financial Performance: The Bidder has submitted audited financial statements for the last three (3) years (2010, 2011, 2012) which reveal that net worth calculated as difference between total assets and total liabilities is positive for each of three (3) years and satisfies the requirement under sub-clause 2.3.1 of the qualification criteria.

Average Annual Construction Turnover (AACT): The Bidder has reported AACT for the last three years as US$ 16.493 million which satisfies the requirements of US$ 14 million under sub-clause 2.3.2 of the qualification criteria.

Availability of Financial Resources: The Bidder has demonstrated working capital of US$ 3.0 million as depicted from the financial statements, which is adequate to cover the aggregated financial resources requirement, calculated in Form FIN-4 as US$ 0.65 million.

Financial Resources Requirement: The Bidder fulfills the requirement for financial resources to undertake the contract as per sub-clause 2.3.3 of the qualification criteria as discussed above.


Contracts of Similar Size and Nature: The Bidder has listed one contract namely “Rehabilitaion of Lower Jehlum Canal” amounting to US$ 14.925 million which is



similar in size and nature and meets the criteria specified under sub-clause 2.4.1 of Section 3.

Construction Experience in Key Activities: The Bidder has mentioned four (4) contracts completed during the last eight (8) years, indicating the experience in key activities. The quantities executed meet the requirements as stipulated in sub-clause 2.4.2 of Section-3.

Bidder No. 5




Average Annual Construction Turnover (AACT): The Bidder has reported AACT for the last three years for each partner separately. M/s NEIE fulfills the 40% of the requirement. The other JV partners (M/s ZKB & M/s LAC) also fulfills the 25% each of the requirement which satisfies the requirements under sub-clause 2.3.2 of the qualification criteria of US$ 14 million.

Availability of Financial Resources: The lead JV partner M/s NEIE declared total financial resources as US$ 139.06 million including line of credit amounting to US$ 3 million. The review of credit reference reveals that it was issued on 03 March 2011 in the name of Chief Engineer NTDC. Clarification of the same was requested. In response, JV Partner furnished the same credit reference again. Therefore, it was not considered for the purpose of financial resources, thus reducing financial resources to US $ 136.06 million.The second JV partner M/s ZKB has declared total financial resources as US$ 61.22 million, including two certificates of line of credit each amounting to US$30.61 million. The line of credit issued by Askari Bank is not considered for the purpose of financial resources as it is a non fund based credit line. The other line of credit from Bank Alfalah Limited was also out-dated. The JV partner, in response to clarification, re-validates the same line of credit from the same bank. Thus reducing the financial resources to US$ 30.66 million.The third JV partner M/S LAC Pvt Ltd declared total financial resources as US$8.19 million including a line of credit (non fund) from Burj Bank Ltd amounting to US$4.08 million. The line of credit being non fund based was not considered for the purpose of financial resources. However, on the basis of his balance liquid assets of US$ 4.117 million, the JV partner fulfils his financial requirement of US$ 3.64 million. Accordingly, each partner of the JV covers the aggregated financial resources requirement, calculated in Form FIN-4 of each partner.

Financial Resources Requirement: The Bidder fulfills the requirement for financial resources to undertake the contract as per sub-clause 2.3.3 of the qualification criteria.




Contracts of Similar Size and Nature: M/s NEIE listed two contracts under this requirement. One contract namely Shenyang Bayi Irrigation and Dam Project (PR China) shows completion date as April 2002 which is beyond 8 years. The other contract of “Zhenziling Reservoir and Dam Project” amounting to US$ 158 million completed in December 2006 meets the criteria of his 40% participation. M/s ZKB has indicated several projects under this requirement but only one project “Construction of Shadi Kaur Dam” amounting to US$ 26.81 million is of similar in size and nature. But substantial completion of this project has not been established by the JV Partner through supporting documents. Thus, M/s ZKB does not meets the criteria as specified under sub-clause 2.4.1 of Section-3. M/s LAC has completed a contract namely “Rehabilitation of Lower Depalpur Canal System” amounting to US$ 8.66 million of similar nature and also meets the requirement of 25% for one partner specified under sub-clause 2.4.1 of Section-3.

Construction Experience in Key Activities: M/s NEIE listed one contract of “Zhenziling Reservoir and Dam Project” to demonstrate experience of key activities which is found acceptable.M/s ZKB has listed three (3) projects under this requirement but could not establish the experience in canal lining, thus fails to meet the requirement under sub-clause 2.4.2 of Section-3 of the bidding documents.M/s LAC has listed two contracts to demonstrate experience of key activities requirement of 25%. The quantities executed meet the requirements specified in sub-clause 2.4.2 of Section-3.

The JV partners M/s NEIE and M/s LAC meet the qualification criteria. Whereas M/s ZKB does not meets the qualification criteria under sub-clause 2.4.2, Section-3. Thus, the bidder fails to meet the requirement of construction experience of key activities.

Summary of evaluation is given in the table below.

Table: 4 - Summary of the Bid Evaluation

Sr.No.

Qualification Criteria Bidder 1 Bidder 2 Bidder 4 Bidder 5

1 Nationality Pass Pass Pass Pass

2 Conflict of Interest Pass Pass Pass Pass

3 ADB Eligibility Pass Pass Pass Pass

4 Government-owned entity Pass Pass Pass Pass

5 UN Eligibility Pass Pass Pass Pass

6 Pending Litigation Pass Pass Pass Pass

7 Historical Financial Performance Pass Pass Pass Pass

8 Average annual construction turnover Pass Pass Pass Pass

9 Availability of Financial Resources Pass Pass Pass Pass

10 Contracts of Similar Size and Nature Pass Pass Pass Fail

11 Construction experience in key activities Pass Pass Pass Pass

Overall Pass Pass Pass Fail

.



3.3 Compliance with Commercial Terms and Conditions

3.3.1 Bid Validity and Bid Security

A bid validity period of 120 days from the date of bid submission was specified in the bidding documents. All the four Bidders offered their bid validity period as required.

Bidder No. 1 and No. 5 furnished bid securities in the form of CDR from reputable banks located in Pakistan. Bidder No. 2 and No.4 submitted their bid securities in the form of unconditional bank guarantee. Hence, it is considered that bids of all four (4) Bidders meet the requirement of the bid validity and bid security.

3.3.2 Time for Completion

A check on the times for completion has been carried out on the construction schedule submitted by all the four (4) Bidders. The times for completion of the various major work components were analyzed to check (i) whether they are logical; and (ii) whether completion times generally comply with the requirement of the bidding document. Each Bidder has submitted a general Construction Schedule for completion of the Works.

3.4 Compliance with Technical Requirements

It has been reviewed that all the four Bidders comply with the requirements for the submission of bids, which include: the construction schedule; construction methods and sequence; proposed construction equipment and a schedule for delivery to the works site; a detailed description of proposed site organization; and a schedule for the mobilization of management, engineering and administrative personnel, and of skilled and unskilled labor. All four (4) Bidders submitted the formal requirements as stipulated in the bidding documents.



4. DETAILED EVALUATION OF BIDS

4.1 Non-Responsive Bids and Responsive Bids

Out of five bidders, Bidder No. 3 failed to submit complete Technical Bid and compliant bid security, while Bidder No.5 did not meet the qualification criteria. Hence the bids of these two (02) bidders (i.e Bidder No. 3 & 5) are considered non responsive bids. Bids submitted by Bidder No. 1, No.2, & No.4 are substantially responsive Technical Bids and meet the requirements of bidding document without material deviation, reservation or omission. The results of determination of qualification of Bidders and substantial responsiveness are attached as Appendix 5 and 6 respectively. The list of substantially responsive and non-responsive bids is as follows:

A. Responsive Bids1) Bidder No.12) Bidder No.23) Bidder No.4

B. Non-Responsive Bids1) Bidder No. 32) Bidder No. 5

4.2 Evaluation for Technical Requirements of Responsive Bid

Bids submitted by Bidder No.1, No.2 & No.4 have been evaluated for compliance of technical requirements.

4.2.1 Construction Schedule and Sequence of Construction Activities

The construction schedule and sequence of construction activities proposed by all three (3) the Bidders were evaluated in detail. The construction schedules submitted by all Bidders were consistent in general with the requirements of the bidding documents. However, some minor inconsistencies have been found in the schedules which may be got incorporated at the time of signing the Contract.

Thus, the construction schedule of all three (3) Bidders as a whole meets the requirements of the bidding documents and is considered to be satisfactory.

4.2.2 Method Statement

The method statements submitted by the three (3) Bidders were reviewed and evaluated in detail. Overall, proposed method statements of both prospective Bidders are in order and are acceptable.

4.2.3 Site Organization and Key field Personnel

Site organization and key field personnel proposed by the three (3) Bidders have been evaluated in detail with respect to their proposed positions, their age, education attained and experience. Detail of key personnel proposed by Bidder No.1, No.2 & No.4 is attached as Appendix 7.

4.2.4 Construction Equipment

Mobilization of construction equipment particularly for earth work and concrete lining is important for the successful completion of this Contract. All the three (3) prospective Bidders No.1, No.2 & No.4 have attached Equipment Deployment Schedules which show the deployment of construction equipment on monthly basis. It is almost consistent and compatible with the proposed method statement and construction schedule. The proposed construction equipment and its availability of both the Bidders meet the minimum



requirements as stipulated in Employer’s Requirements. Detail of Essential Construction Equipment proposed by the Bidder No.1, No.2 & No.4 is attached as Appendix 8.

4.3 Clarifications

As discussed above, some of the Bidders were requested for clarifications in order to make a fair assessment of their understanding of the work. Clarifications requested and corresponding replies by the Bidder were made in writing and these documents have been properly recorded. Bidder No. 4 did not respond to the clarification requested. A copy of the correspondence exchanged with each of the Bidders is attached as Annexure-G, Annexure-H, Annexure-I & Annexure-J in Volume II.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the systematic evaluation of bids as presented in this Technical Bid Evaluation Report (TBER), it is concluded that four bids (Bidder No. 1, No. 2, No. 4 & No. 5) out of five submitted bids were considered complete in preliminary examination. While the bid submitted by Bidder No.3 not accompanied by a compliant bid security was rejected.

Out of the four bids, one bid (Bidder No. 5) did not fulfill the Qualification Criteria. Resultantly, three bids (Bidder No. 1, No. 2 and No. 4) met the Qualification Criteria and were considered as technically responsive and qualified (Table 5). These three Bidders qualify for opening of their respective Price Bids.

On receipt of concurrence by ADB for this TBER as well as for opening of Price Bids, the Price Bids of Bidder No. 3, and No. 5 would be returned unopened.

Table: 5 – Technically Responsive and Qualified Bidders

Bidder No. Name of Bidder

1 M/s Sinohydro Corporation Ltd

2 M/s Ramzan & Sons (Pvt.) Limited

4 M/s Chaudhry Engineers Associates
