Final RFQ Evaluation Report for the project “Development of …fci.gov.in/app2/webroot/upload/News/RFQ Final Evaluation Report 1 S… · 1. adani agri logitics limited kotakapura,

Final RFQ Evaluation Report for the project “Development of Modern Silos at 6 locations in 5 states of India on DBFOT basis under PPP mode

SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited

Development of Modern Silos at 6 Locations in 5 states of India on DBFOT basis under PPP mode

Request for Qualification (RFQ) – Final Evaluation Report 2

Contents

1. Brief Summary of the Request for Qualification (RFQ) Process ................................................................................................ 4

2. TEST OF ELIGIBILITY and RESPONSIVENESS ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Eligibility of Applicant – .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

The eligibility of the bidder has been done as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 of the RFQ document. ..................................................................... 7

2.2 Measure of responsiveness - ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.3 General Observation – ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Reasons of Applications declared Not eligible: ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

(i) OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD AND OTHERS ........................................................................................................................................... 9

(ii) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MAYUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & LMJ LOGISTICS LIMITED (CONSORTIUM) ................ 11

2.5 Reasons of Non-responsiveness of the 4 Applications are given below: ............................................................................................................ 12

(i) CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO. AND OTHERS ................................................................................................................................................ 12

(ii) SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

(iii) SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13

(iv) NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED ................................................................................................................. 14

3. EVALUATION OF RESPONSIVE APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Common Parameters of Evaluation – .................................................................................................................................................................. 16

3.2 Evaluation of Responsive Applications – ............................................................................................................................................................ 19

(i) SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED (Individual Application) ............................................................................................... 20

(ii) STAR AGRI WAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS ............................................................... 27

(iii) LT FOODS LIMITED ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

(iv) ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40



(v) TOTAL SHIPPING & LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ............................................................................................................. 46

(vi) SRI AVANTIKA – SUDHEEKSHA (JV) ................................................................................................................................................................ 51

(vii) ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD (LM, FM AND OMM) AND ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND US (TM) .............................. 69

(viii) PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. ................................................................................................................................. 74

(ix) DINESHCHANDRA R. AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD. ............................................................................................................................. 79

(x) ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD......................................................................................................................................... 89

(xi) OSR INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS ..................................................................................................................................................... 99

(xii) M/S GARWAR – ELL ESS JV ............................................................................................................................................................................. 107

(xiii) JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS .................................................................................................................................. 119

(xiv) SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LTD ................................................................................................................................................................ 125

(xv) SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT. LTD ..................................................................................................................... 139

4. CONCLUSION: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 146



1. Brief Summary of the Request for Qualification (RFQ) Process

Important Dates

a) Sale of RFQ document : 22nd

March 2015 – 2nd

June 2015

b) Pre Application Conference : 5th

May 2015

c) Last Date of Receiving Applications : 2nd

June 2015

d) Date of seeking First Clarification’s by FCI on Applications : 22nd

July 2015

e) Last date of Receiving First Clarification’s by FCI : 31st

July 2015

f) Date of seeking Second clarification’s by FCI on Applications : 25th

Aug 2015

g) Last date of Receiving Second Clarification’s by FCI : 28th

Aug 2015

Number of Applications Received : 21 nos. (Twenty One Applicants)

Name of Applicants with applied project locations

S.No. APPLICANT Number of Locations applied for

1. ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD (5)

2 ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2)

3 CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED

4 DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

5 GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE NARELA, SAHNEWAL AND CHANGSARI (3)

6 JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED NARELA (1)



7 LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

8 LT FOODS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

9 NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

10 OM METALS INFRAPROJECTS LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

11 ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

12 OSR INFRA PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

13 PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

14 SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

15 SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

16 SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED

17 SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD WHITEFIELD (1)

18 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

19 STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED

KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

20 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2)

21 TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)



The FCI

sThe FCI Sought the clarification’s from the respective Applicants and the evaluation report has been revised based on the evaluation of

the furnished clarification by the applicants.

Review

We are listing out the following areas where deficiencies were observed and brought to notice. Hence further information need to be sought from the

applicants for clarification and justification of their candidature for the captioned project. In this connection FCI sought the clarifications from the

applicants for two times.

a) Details of applicant:

b) Technical capacity of the applicant:

c) Financial capacity of the applicant:

d) Audited Balance sheet for last five years.

e) Details of Eligible project:

f) Power of Attorney/BR for signing of Application:

g) Power of Attorney/BR for lead member of consortium:



2. TEST OF ELIGIBILITY and RESPONSIVENESS

2.1 Eligibility of Applicant –

The eligibility of the bidder has been done as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 of the RFQ document.

2.2 Measure of responsiveness -

The test of Responsiveness of Application shall be carried out as prescribed in clause 2.19.1 of the RFQ. The parameters as mentioned in the

referred clause are as below:-

(a) it is received as per format at Appendix-I;

(b) it is uploaded to Authorities web portal by the Application Due Date including any extension thereof pursuant to Clause 2.14.2;

(c) the 3 hard copies to be submitted within 3 days of Application due date is signed, sealed, bound together in hard cover, and marked as

stipulated in Clauses 2.12 and 2.13;

(d) it is accompanied by the Power of Attorney as specified in Clause 2.2.5, and in the case of a Consortium, the Power of Attorney as specified

in Clause 2.2.6 (c);

(e) it contains all the information and documents (complete in all respects) as requested in this RFQ;

(f) it contains information in formats same as those specified in this RFQ;

(g) it contains certificates from its statutory auditors$ in the formats specified at Appendix-I of the RFQ for each Eligible Project;

(h) it contains an attested copy of the receipt of the Authority towards the cost of the RFQ process as specified in Clause 1.2.1;

(i) it is accompanied by the Jt. Bidding Agreement (for Consortium), specific to the Project, as stipulated in Clause 2.2.6(g);

(j) it does not contain any condition or qualification; and



(k) it is not non-responsive in terms hereof.

Based on the above provisions and subsequent checking, the responsiveness of the 21 received applications are given below in the table

S.No. Applicant Responsiveness

1. ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED Responsive

2. ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD Responsive

3 CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO AND OTHERS Non-responsive

4 DINESH CHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD Responsive

5 GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE Responsive

6 JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED Responsive

7 LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD Not Eligible

8 LT FOODS LIMITED Responsive

9 NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED Non Responsive

10 OM METALS INFRAPROJECTS LTD Not Eligible

11. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD Responsive

12 OSR INFRA PVT. LTD Responsive

13 PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD Responsive

14 SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED Responsive

15 SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED Responsive

16 SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD Non-responsive

17 SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD Non Responsive

18 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD Responsive

19 STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED Responsive

20 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Responsive

21 TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD Responsive

Note: The Table is presented in alphabetical order

From the above table, it is inferred that out of 21 applicants, 15 applicants are to be considered as responsive and out of the remaining 6, the 2 Applications

are non-eligible and 4 are classified as non-responsive applications.



2.3 General Observation –

All the applicants deposited the document fees as confirmed by FCI officials.

2.4 Reasons of Applications declared Not eligible:

(i) OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD AND OTHERS

The following points make the application non-responsive:-

a. The Applicant has added/deleted/modified with Appendix – I, Annexure – I, clause no. 6 Sl no. 1 and Sl no. 3 respectively.

Appendix – I, Annexure – I, clause no. 6 Sl no. 1 and Sl no. 3

No. Criteria Yes No

1. Has the Applicant/ constituent of the Consortium been barred

by the Central/ State Government, or any entity controlled by

it, from participating in any project (BOT or otherwise)?

3. Has the Applicant/ constituent of the Consortium paid

liquidated damages of more than 5% of the contract value in

a contract due to delay or has been penalised due to any

other reason in relation to execution of a contract, in the last

three years?

Appendix – I, Annexure – I, clause no. 6 Sl no. 1 and Sl no. 3 as submitted by M/s. OM Metals JV



The above change impact the provision of the Clause 2.2.7 and Clause 2.2.8 which deals with in-eligibility of Applicant to submit Application.

b. The applicant has not submitted Hard Copy of the Audited Balance of Lead Member i.e. M/s. OM Metal. The Soft Copy of the Balance Sheet is also

incomplete.

c. Further it has been observed in the Annual Financial Report of 2013-14 of M/s Veeraprabhu Marketing Limited (Consortium Member of another

applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others)has also made a non-current investment in LMJ Energy Infralogistic Ltd as well as in LMJ International Limited.

d. It is highlighted from the audited financial statements for FY 2013-14 of M/s LMJ Logistics Limited that M/s Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd (Consortium

Member of another applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others) has provided corporate guarantee against the term loan of Rs.10 crore.

e. In view of the above statements, as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 (c) (v), Conflict of Interest amongst the two Applicants viz. M/s Om Metals & Others

and others and M/s LMJ International Ltd is construed

Based on the above the application of M/s Om Metals & Others is not eligible to bid.



(ii) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MAYUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & LMJ LOGISTICS LIMITED (CONSORTIUM)

Name of the Applicant/ Consortium Members

Shareholding Pattern of Consortium Members

1. LMJ International Limited

48%

2. Mayur Construction Company

26%

3. LMJ Logistics Limited 26%

However before evaluating the Financial Capacity & Technical Capacity of the Applicant the eligibility of the applicant has been evaluated and

following are the observations –

a. M/s LMJ International Ltd (48%) has applied as the lead member in consortium with M/s Mayur Construction (26%) and M/s LMJ Logistics Ltd

(26%)

b. It is observed from the Audited Financial Report of 2013-14, LMJ Logistics Limited that the company has made a non-current investment in LMJ

Energy Infralogistic Ltd.

c. Further it has been observed in the Annual Financial Report of 2013-14 of M/s Veeraprabhu Marketing Limited (Consortium Member of another

applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others)has also made a non-current investment in LMJ Energy Infralogistic Ltd as well as in LMJ International

Limited.

d. It is highlighted from the audited financial statements for FY 2013-14 of M/s LMJ Logistics Limited that M/s Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd

(Consortium Member of another applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others) has provided corporate guarantee against the term loan of Rs.10 crore.

Please note that the M/s LMJ Logistics Limited is consortium member in one of the applicant consortium led by M/s LMJ International Limited.

M/s LMJ Logistics has other investments non trade (unquoted) investment in equity instruments (fully paid up) in LMJ Energy Infralogistics

Limited. A similar type of investment in LMJ Energy in LMJ Energy Infralogistics Limited is observed in the balance sheet of M/s Veerprabhu

Marketing Ltd (Consortium Member of another applicant, M/s OM Metal & Others).

e. In view of the above statements, as per provisions of clause 2.2.1 (c) (v), Conflict of Interest amongst the two Applicants viz. M/s LMJ

International Ltd and others and M/s Om Metals & Others is construed.



As per provisions of clause 2.2.1, to the best of our knowledge, the Applicant M/s LMJ International & Others as well as M/s OM metals &

others are in-eligible for prequalification and hence both the applications could not be evaluated further.

2.5 Reasons of Non-responsiveness of the 4 Applications are given below:

(i) CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO. AND OTHERS


a. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2) and it’s Annexures. (The Application)

b. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – II (refer clause 2.13.5), Appendix – III (refer clause 2.13.5), Appendix – IV (refer clause

2.13.2)

The applicant has not submitted the application form pertaining to technical experience; hence the application could not be evaluated further.

Based on the above the application of M/s Chicago Construction Co and Others is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ.

(ii) SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD


a. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2) and all its Annexures. (The Application)

b. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – II (refer clause 2.13.5)

c. The uploaded POA documents are not as per the stipulation of the RFQ clauses.

d. The net worth of applicant is Rs.1.67 crore as on 31st March 2014 ( based on the submitted financials for FY13-14), which is not meeting the

minimum financial capacity criteria.

e. The Applicant hard copy of the Application has not been received as per provisions of clause 2.12.2



The applicant has not submitted the application form pertaining to technical experience; hence the application could be evaluated further.

Based on the above the application of M/s Spectoms Engineering Pvt Ltd is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ.

(iii) SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD


a. The Applicant has not uploaded the Annex V ( Statement of Legal Capacity) of Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2)

b. The applicant net worth is Rs.7.45 crore as on 31st March 2014 (calculated from the submitted audited financial statements of FY 13-14), which is

less than the minimum net required net worth of Rs.8.00 crore. Therefore the applicant is not meeting the minimum financial capacity eligibility

criteria. However the applicant has stated net worth certificate of Rs.13.51 crore in Annex – III of Appendix – I.

Based on the above the application of M/s SRC Company Infra Pvt Ltd is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ.



(iv) NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED


a. The Applicant has not uploaded the application in Appendix – I (refer clause 2.13.2) Annex III (Financial capacity format) and Appendix – I (refer

clause 2.13.2) Annex V ( Statement of Legal Capacity).

b. The applicant’s net worth is Rs.178.66 crore as on 31st March 2014 and able to meet the minimum financial capacity criteria for all the applied project

locations.

c. The applicant stated in the certificate that the applicant’s incurred Rs.132.86 crore of capital expenditure in one eligible project but included

Rs.80.43 crore of FY14-15, which is outside the eligible period i.e. FY 09-10 to FY 13-14.

Technical capacity shown by the Applicant (Rs

in crore) Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in crore)

S.No.

Applicant / Member of Consortium & Name of Project

Project Code

Category as defined by Applicant

Payments

made/ receive

d for construction of Eligible Project

s in Categor

ies 3 and 4

Payments made

for development of Eligible Projects

in Categori

es 1 and 2

Revenues

appropriated from

Eligible Projects

in Categor

ies 1 and 2

Total Experience Score

Check if the project is Eligible & Comments on Appendix - I submitted by Applicant

Check on ownership

Check on categorization

Payments made/ received for construction of Eligible Projects in Categories 3 and 4

Payments made for development of Eligible Projects in Categories 1 and 2

Revenues appropriated from Eligible Projects in Categories 1 and 2

Total

Experience Score

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



1

National Collateral Management Services Limited and Project Name not given

A 3 132.86

0 0.000 0.000

132.860

99.645

Provided the statutory auditors certificate for PPP projects but shown the category 3 but included the Rs.80.43 crore of FY 2014-15.

Yes Claimed the exp in category 3 factoring the construction experience in warehousing domain

52.43 52.43

39.32

Unable to meet the minimum thresh hold technical Capacity criteria considering the audited financial statements only from FY 2009-14

Total (Rs. In crore)

132.860

99.645 52.43

39.32

Based on the above the application of M/s National Collateral Management Services Limited is non-responsive in pursuance to clause 2.19 of the RFQ

and also not meeting the threshold technical capacity criteria.

Recommendations -

Based on the above and to the best of our knowledge and in pursuance of clause 2.2.1 and 2.19 all the 6 Applications may be rejected based on

reasons stated above.



3. EVALUATION OF RESPONSIVE APPLICATIONS

3.1 Common Parameters of Evaluation –

The basic evaluation principle adopted as common parameters for evaluation as laid down in various clause of the RFP is as presented below –

1. For purpose of evaluation, the original (uploaded to the web portal on or before RFQ due date) application shall prevail over the copy of the original

application in pursuance of the clause 2.12.2 of the RFQ document. Therefore based on the aforesaid clause, we have evaluated the applications

based on the uploaded Original copy shared by the FCI as a principal document over the shared hard copy of the original.

2. Applicant, its Member or Associate (or any constituent thereof) and any other Applicant, its Member or Associate (or any constituent thereof) should

not have Conflict of Interest in pursuance of 2.2.1 (c), such Applications shall not eligible to apply.

3. The Applicant shall fulfil Threshold Technical Capacity for the project applied for. In case the Applicant applies for multiple projects the applicant shall

qualify for all projects that he has applied for, which has lesser prescribed Threshold Technical Capacity than the Highest Threshold Technical

Capacity of project he is eligible to apply for, in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A)

4. The Applicant shall fulfill Financial Capacity by displaying a Net Worth of 25% of the Indicative Project Cost mentioned in the RFQ. In case the

Applicant has applied for more than 1 project the Applicant shall have to display a Net Worth of 25% of the Sum of Indicative Project Cost of all the

projects applied for in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (B).

5. As per the Companies Act 2013, the net worth definition

“Net worth means the aggregate value of the paid-up share capital and all reserves created out of the profits and securities premium account, after deducting the aggregate value of the accumulated losses, deferred expenditure and miscellaneous expenditure not written off, as per the audited balance sheet, but does not include reserves created out of revaluation of assets, write-back of depreciation and amalgamation”

As per the RFQ, the net worth definition

“Net worth (the "Net Worth") shall mean the sum of subscribed and paid up equity and reserves from which shall be deducted the

sum of revaluation reserves, miscellaneous expenditure not written off and reserves not available for distribution to equity

shareholders”



As per sec 52 of the Companies Act 2013

Where a company issues shares at a premium, whether for cash or otherwise, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of the premium received on those shares shall be transferred to a “securities premium account” and the provisions of this Act relating to reduction of share capital of a company shall, except as provided in this section, apply as if the securities premium account were the paid-up share capital of the company.

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the securities premium account may be applied by the company— (a) towards the issue of unissued shares of the company to the members of the company as fully paid bonus shares;

(b) in writing off the preliminary expenses of the company; (c) in writing off the expenses of, or the commission paid or discount allowed on, any issue of shares or debentures of the company; (d) in providing for the premium payable on the redemption of any redeemable preference shares or of any debentures of the company; or (e) for the purchase of its own shares or other securities under section 68. (3) The securities premium account may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), be applied by such class of companies, as may be prescribed and whose financial statement comply with the accounting standards prescribed for such class of companies under section 133 :— (a) in paying up unissued equity shares of the company to be issued to members of the company as fully paid bonus shares; or (b) in writing off the expenses of or the commission paid or discount allowed on any issue of equity shares of the company; or (c) for the purchase of its own shares or other securities under section 68. As per the definition of Company’s Act 2013, the share premium account should be part of net worth. However the definition of the net worth as per the issued RFQ document, the net worth estimation shall exclude the revaluation reserves, miscellaneous expenditure not written off and reserves not available for distribution to equity shareholders. Hence as per Companies Act regarding uses of share premium account and the definition of the net worth, the share premium account shall be considered as part of net worth unless the same has been deducted considering as reserves not available for distribution to equity shareholders.

6. For purpose of any Application latest financial shall be Financial Year 2013-2014 in case of entities finalizing there Accounts under Indian Law. For

Applicant finalizing there Accounts under Foreign Law the standards adopted by the Country where the Applicant is incorporated shall be adopted.

This is in pursuance with 2.2.12



7. Projects eligible as per clause 3.2.1 has only be considered for evaluation. Further, the eligibility has be vetted against clause 3.2.3 and 3.2.4

8. Experience score has been calculated as per provisions of clause 3.2.6 Table 3.2.6. For projects situated in developed countries which are member

of OEDC has been multiplied by factor 0.50 in pursuance of clause 3.2.7

9. In case of Consortium credentials of members with proposed stake of at least 26% subjected to a max of 4 members has been evaluated in

pursuance of clause 2.2.2 and 2.2.6.

10. In cases where the experience has been claimed before Start date or after End date of project as declared by applicant in Annexure – IV, Appendix –

I, Authority at its discretion may sought clarification in form of Certificate from client attested by Statutory Auditor if such experience may be

considered under the provisions of the Concession/Development/Contract Agreement under which the project has been executed and also the copy

of the agreement need to be called for review.

The clarification’s sought from the respective applicants in this regard and evaluated the application based on the Clarification’s

furnished by the applicants.

The Threshold Technical Capacity evaluated and Experience Score of Applicant is finalized based on clarification furnished and in

accordance to various clause of the RFQ.

Further, in pursuance of clause 2.2.12 of the RFQ only experience b/w FY 2009-10 and 2013-14 has been and shall be considered for evaluation.

11. Category - 1 projects as defined in clause 3.2.1 are projects in Warehousing/Storage sector and further as per Clause 3.2.3 a it should have been

executed in PPP mode. Further as per 3.2.3 d (ii) to consider the revenue appropriated the revenues from users availing of non-discriminatory access

to project fixed asset or revenue from user’s use of project fixed asset. However revenue from sale or provision of goods or services, fare/freight

charges, and other income of the company owning the Project.

Warehousing/Storage Sector in additions to use of Project Fixed Asset for Storage of Materials includes activities like loading / unloading, stacking of

goods, keeping inventory of goods, security arrangement, providing insurance cover, etc. and hence is under the umbrella of service sector and

therefore its revenue is from providing services as a whole and as per clause 3.2.3 d (ii) revenue from services shall not been be considered for the

purpose of this RFQ.



Further, in cases where it can be identified without reasonable doubt that the revenue is purely rent revenue for providing a

shed/structure/building/infrastructure for carrying out warehousing/storage activities, such revenue has been considered provided such revenue has

been appropriated b/w FY 2009-10 and 2013-14 in pursuance of clause 2.2.12.

However to clarify the above issue pertaining to eligibility of warehouse revenues as a eligible project, a meeting was held with FCI officials (

Chaired by ED Silos, FCI) dated 29th June 2015 and it was clarified by the FCI officials that the revenues from warehousing sector shall be

considered as eligible component factoring the similar nature of the storage project and the revenue’s generated over the years from the creation

of the fixed project assets in form of storage facility

12. Each application individually and jointly (to ascertain conflict of interest) has been evaluated under all applicable clauses of the RFQ document.

13. The evaluation of responsive Applications have been done in random basis without following any order and no preference has been given to any

application.

14. For all the 6 locations for which the RFQ has been floated separate rank has been given to each Application based on the merit of the application.

The key eligibility requirement of each project is as per Table A 1.

Table – A 1 (Rs. in crore)

S.No Locations with Capacity Total Project Cost Minimum Thresh Technical

Capacity Financial Capacity

Individual Project Cost (10% of the threshold technical capacity)

1 Kotakapura (25000MT) 34.00 68.00 8.50 6.80

2 Sahnewal (50000MT) 45.00 90.00 11.25 9.00

3 Narela (50000MT) 46.00 92.00 11.50 9.20

4 Kathiar (50000MT) 45.00 90.00 11.25 9.00

5 Changsari (50000MT) 47.00 94.00 11.75 9.40

6 Whitefield (25000MT) 32.00 64.00 8.00 6.40

3.2 Evaluation of Responsive Applications –



(i) SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED (Individual Application)

The applicant has applied for the following locations –

Table 1.1: Applied Locations

S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Katihsar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield

To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.62.25 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 94.00

crore.

However before evaluating the Financial Capacity & Technical Capacity of the Applicant the eligibility of the applicant has been evaluated and it is

observed that the Application is eligible for evaluation.

Submitted Documents Review:

S. No. Particulars Type of Document Comments

1 Proof of Purchasing RFQ Documents

Submitted ( NEFT HDFC Bank) (Page 1)

2 Appendix I Application for Pre-Qualification Submitted (Page 3 to Page 6)

3 Appendix I - Annexure I Details of the Applicant Submitted (Page 7 to Page 9)

3a Incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association

Submitted (Page 113 to Page 134)

3b No material non-performance and contractual non-compliance

Declaration in form of NA ( Page 9)



4 Appendix I - Annexure II Technical Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 10)

5 Appendix I - Annexure III Financial Capacity of the Applicant (Net Worth)

Submitted (Page 11 to page 12)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years from (FY14-15 ( unaudited) to FY10-11) Page 27 to 111) audited from FY13-14 to FY10-11

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for FY 14-15 (Page 23). No considered beyond FY13-14

6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 13 to page 22)

6a Statutory Auditors/ Clients Certificate

Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor for. (Page 18 to Page 22)

6b Statutory auditor/company secretary certificate for Associate

Not applicable

7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 24 )

8 Appendix II Power of Attorney for signing of Application (Board Resolution)

Submitted (Page 136 to 138). BR not submitted

9 Appendix III Power of Attorney for Lead Member of Consortium

Not applicable

10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement Not applicable

11 Appendix V Guidelines of the Department of Disinvestment

12. Application signed by authorized signatory

Yes

13. Discrepancy in Uploaded and submitted hard copies

Evaluation of Financial Capacity & Threshold Technical Capacity –

Financial Capacity –

The evaluation of Financial Capacity based on the Audited Financial Reports of FY 2013-14 is as presented below –

Table 1.2: Financial Capacity Status



S.No. Applicant / Member of Consortium

Net worth as on 31

st March

2014 (Rs. in crore)

Statutory Certification

Remarks

1 SPWPL -3.41 Submitted for FY 14-15

1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is based on unaudited figures of FY 14-15 and hence not considered. 2. FY 13-14 Net Worth calculated from balance sheet has been presented. Also the applicant has submitted the financial statements from FY2010 to 2015 (unaudited).

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Soma Punjab is negative and is not meeting the Financial Capacity for any one of the

locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ

Threshold Technical Capacity –

The Applicant has failed to display Financial Capacity for any one of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination and the

Threshold Technical Capacity need not be evaluated. However the detail of technical experience submitted by the applicant is given below:

Table 1.3

Technical capacity shown by the Applicant

(Rs in crore) Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in crore)



S.No.

Applicant/Member of Consortium& Name of Project

Project Code


Payments

made/ receive

d for construction

of Eligible Project

s in Categories 3 and 4

Payments

made for

development

of Eligible Project


Revenues

appropriated from

Eligible Project


Total

Experience Score


Check on ownership





Total

Experience Score

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

SPWL & Agri Warehouse of 46.7 Th MT in Tapa Mandi, under PEG scheme

a 1 17.88 6.37 24.25

30.31

1. The capital cost of all the 5 projects as certified by Statutory Auditor is more than 10% of the Threshold Capacity (TC) required by applicant as per provisions of clause 2.2.2(A) of RFQ and in

As per auditor's certificate the all the 5 projects are constructed and / or owned by the applicant Clarific

As per Annexure - IV, Appendix I all projects are under 10 years PEG scheme of FCI & Pungrain. Documentary Evidenc

0.00 0.00 0 0

2

SPWL & Agri Warehouse of 78.37 Th MT in Muktsar-II, under PEG scheme

b 1 39.43 11.16 50.59

63.24 0.00 0.00 0 0



3

SPWL & Agri Warehouse of 144 Th MT in Muktsar-I, under PEG scheme

c 1 69.82 4.96 74.78

93.48

agreement to the provision of clause 3.2.3 (c) of RFQ and hence is a eligible project subject to fulfilment of other provisions of RFQ 2. It is not clear from Appendix I, Annex - IV and from Statutory Auditors Certificate the Financial Years in which the Construction expenses were made. Clarification may be sought for. 3. It is not clear from Appendix I, Annex - IV and from Statutory Auditors Certificate the

ation regarding the above situation may be sought for

e such as PEG agreement b/w the part is required for confirmation of the same Client Certificate is also required

0.00 0.00 0 0

4

SPWL & Agri Warehouse of 197.5 Th MT in Malout, under PEG scheme

d 1 96.32 8.01 104.33

130.41

0.00 0.00 0 0

5

SPWL & Agri Warehouse of 197.5 Th MT in Patti, under PEG scheme

e 1 132.92 5.56 138.48

173.10

0.00 0.00 0 0



Financial Years in which the revenue were appropriated. Clarification may be sought for. It is not clear from the balance sheet provided the source of these revenue. Client Certification and Agreement is required for clarity.


392.43

490.54

0.00

0.00

Score shall be considered for projects at Kotkapura & Whitefield



Pre-qualification –

In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ, the Applicant may not be considered for pre-qualification for any location.

Table – 1.4: Pre-qualification Status

S.No Locations TTC Required Corrected TTC Pre-qualified (yes/no)

Aggregate Experience Score

1 Kotakapura 68.00 N.A. N.A. N.A.

2 Sahnewal 90.00 N.A. N.A. N.A.

3 Narela 92.00 N.A. N.A. N.A.

4 Kathiar 90.00 N.A. N.A. N.A.

5 Changsari 94.00 N.A. N.A. N.A.

6 Whitefield 64.00 N.A. N.A. N.A.

FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (Not meeting the financial capacity criteria)



(ii) STAR AGRI WAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS

The applicant has submitted the application in form of consortium.

Name of the Applicant/ Consortium Members Shareholding Pattern of Consortium Members

1. Star Agri Warehousing and Collateral Management Limited 74%

2. Central Railside Warehouse Company (CRWCL) 26%



S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield

To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs 62.25 Crores and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 94.00

Crores.


observed, to the best of our knowledge so far, that the Application is eligible for evaluation.






Submitted ( SBI Bank) (Page 5)






Declaration Submitted ( Page 9 and 10 for both the parties)

4 Appendix I - Annexure II Technical Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 11 to page 16)


Submitted (Page 17, 21 and 22)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years audited financial statements from ( FY09-10 to FY13-14) Page 331 to 598)

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for both members for FY 13-14 (Page 19 to 20)

6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page23 to page 45)




Submitted by Company secretary Page 25

7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 46 to 52 )


Submitted POA and BR (Page 53 to page 77)


Submitted (Page 78 to page 95 )

10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement Submitted (Page 96 to page 125)


Yes









Net worth as on 31

st March

2014 (Rs. In crore)


Remarks

1 M/s Star Agri 85.99 Present 1.Share Holding proposed in Consortium 26%Share 2.Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

2 M/s CRWCL 92.37 Present 1.Share Holding proposed in Consortium 26% share 2.Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

3 Jointly 178.36

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Star Agriwarehousing & others is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of

the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ


The evaluation of Threshold Technical Capacity based on the performances of the Applicant in the last five financial years (FY 2009-10 to 2013-14) is

as presented below:

Table 2.3: Threshold Technical Capacity (TTC) Status



Technical capacity shown by the Applicant (Rs in crore)

Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in crore)

S.No.


Project Code





TTC

Experience Score**

Check on project is eligible

Check on ownership





TTC Experience Score

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

Star Agri & Kota Silo Project

1a 3 10.34 10.34 7.76 Yes Yes Yes, Category 3

0 0 0.00

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered (Not considered for FY 14-15) 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered. The mentioned experience is for FY 14-15

2

Star Agri & Bikaner Warehouse

1b 3 10.13 10.130 7.598 Yes Yes Yes, Category 3

0 0 0.00

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered. (Not considered for FY 14-15) 2. 10% of TTC as



per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered

3

Star Agri & Jodhpur Warehouse

1c 3 10.71 10.710 5.355 Yes Yes Yes, Category 3

0 0 0.00

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered. (Not considered for FY 14-15) 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered

4

Star Agri & Kota Warehouse

1d 3 8.84 8.840 4.420 Yes Yes Yes, Category 3

7.23 7.23 5.42

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered (Not considered for FY 14-15) 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered

5 CRWCL & Korukkupet I & II

2a 1 15.22 22.5 37.72 47.15

Ye

s

Ye

s,

can

be

con

sid

ere

d u

nd

er

Cate

go

ry 3

. N

ot

elig

ible

15.22 15.22 11.42

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered. 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered

6

CRWCL & Pune Railside Warehouse

2b 1 12.38 35.19 47.57 59.46 12.38 12.38 9.29

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered



7

CRWCL & Dankuni Railside Warehouse

2c 1 9.19 6.74 15.93 19.91

Ye

s

9.19 9.19 6.89

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered 3. Cannot be considered for Changsari and Narela

8

CRWCL & Dehri-on-sone Railside Warehouse

2d 1 7.13 11.32 18.45 23.06

7.13 7.13 5.35

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered 3. For Kotkapura and Whitefield only

9

CRWCL & Jogeshwari Railside Warehouse

2e 1 6.79 0.00 6.79 8.48 6.79 6.79 5.09


10

CRWCL & Mysore Railside Warehouse

2f 1 6.87 2.54 9.41 11.76 6.87 6.87 5.15


11

CRWCL & Hatia Railside Warehouse

2g 1 6.67 0.73 7.40 9.25

6.67 6.67 5.00

1. Figures of b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 considered 2. 10% of TTC as per clause 3.2.3 c or 3.2.4 considered 3. For Whitefield only




36.79 27.59 FOR ALL OTHER SITES


27.60 20.70 FOR CHANGSARI and NARELA ONLY


64.81 48.61 FOR KOTKAPURA ONLY


183.29 204.22 71.48 53.61 FOR WHITEFIELD ONLY

**Experience Score has no unit

***Revenues are not considered project no 5 to no 11 considering the correction in the category of the projects from 1&2 to 3. The revenues are not

applicable in case of non PPP projects.

It is observed from the above table that M/s Star Agri warehousing & others meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for Whitefield only as per

provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ


Based on the examination of the clarification submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be

considered for pre-qualification for Whitefield location only.

.Table – 2.4: Pre-qualification Status

S.No Locations TTC Required Corrected TTC

Pre-qualified (yes/no)


1 Kotakapura 68.00 64.81 no N.A.

2 Sahnewal 90.00 36.79 no N.A.

3 Narela 92.00 27.60 no N.A.

4 Kathiar 90.00 36.79 no N.A.

5 Changsari 94.00 27.60 no N.A.

6 Whitefield 64.00 71.48 yes 53.61



Clarifications sought:

1. The Statutory Certificate for net worth is not matching with the audited financial statements submitted by your company therefore clarification needs to be furnished by you so as to ascertain the figures of Statutory Certificate for both the consortium members.

Clarifications furnished

1. The applicant vide letter dated 31st July 2015 has furnished the clarification that the statutory auditors of both the companies have not considered

the security premium as part of net worth which is as per the methodology defined in the RFQ document for net worth calculation.

FINAL STATUS: PRE QUALIFIED



(iii) LT FOODS LIMITED



S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield


crore.


observed, that declaration regarding non-performance material or contractual has not been disclosed as per sl no. 7 of Annex – I of

Appendix – I and the same may be sought for. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for

evaluation.




Submitted








Not Submitted



Submitted (Page 7 to 8)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted the five years balance sheet and P/L account for FY 2009 to FY 2014 (Page 11 to 20) repeated from Page 31 to 40. Not submitted the detailed financial statements.

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for FY 13-14 (Page 9 to 10)





Not applicable



Submitted PoA and BR (Page 87 to page 89)


Not applicable


11 Application signed by authorized signatory

Yes

12 Discrepancy in Uploaded and submitted hard copies








Net worth as on 31st March 2014 (Rs. In crore)


Remarks

1 LTFL 274.97 Present

1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is as per RFP document. 2. The Subscribed and paid up equity & reserves considered for calculation is as per the Audited Balance Sheet of FY 13-14 3. The reserve calculated is as per balance sheet of FY 13-14, however there is a minor discrepancy amounting to Rs 37,000 (thirty seven thousand).

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s LT FOODS LIMITED is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of the

locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.



as presented below –




S.No.


Project Code


Payments made/ received for construction of Eligible



TTC Experience Score**


Check on ownership


Payments made/ received for construction of Eligible Projects in

Payments made for development of Eligible Projects in Categories 1 and



Remarks



Projects in Categories 3 and 4

Categories 3 and 4

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 LTFL & STORAGE SILO

a 1 36.52 22.47 58.99 73.74 yes yes yes 24.66 12.21 36.87 46.09

1. Capital Expenditure as per Auditors Certificate b/w FY 09-10 and 13-14. Beyond the stipulated period revenues shall not be considered

2 LTFL & STORAGE SILO

b 1 17.51 17.51 21.89 yes yes yes 0 0 0 0

1. No cost incurred b/w FY 09-10 and 13-14. Beyond the stipulated period revenues shall not be considered

3

LTFL & WHEAT STORAGE SILO

c 1 18.14 18.14 22.68 yes yes yes 0 0 0 0

1. No cost incurred b/w FY 09-10 and 13-14. Beyond the stipulated period revenues shall not be considered

4

LTFL & GRAIN STORAGE SILO

d 3 7.42 7.42 5.57 yes yes yes 7.42 7.42 5.57

1. Only meets 10% of TTC for Whitefield and Kotakapura. Beyond the stipulated period revenues shall not be considered

5 Total (Rs. In crore)

36.87 46.09 For all Other Sites


102.06 123.87 44.29 51.65 For Kotakapura & Whitefield only




It is observed from the above table that M/s LT FOODS LIMITED do not meet the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project location

applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ


In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant may not be considered for pre-qualification based on the reason cited above.





1 Kotakapura 68.00 44.29 no N.A.

2 Sahnewal 90.00 36.87 no N.A.

3 Narela 92.00 36.87 no N.A.

4 Kathiar 90.00 36.87 no N.A.

5 Changsari 94.00 36.87 no N.A.

6 Whitefield 64.00 44.29 no N.A.

FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBE (Not meeting the technical capacity criteria of the RFQ document)



(iv) ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED



S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Whitefield

To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs. 50.50 Crores and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 92.00

Crores.


observed. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for evaluation.




Submitted (Page 6)






Declaration in form of NA





Submitted (Page 10)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted the audited financial statements for FY 2009 to FY 2014 (Page17 to 149).

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor as on 31st March 2014 (Page 16)

6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 11)


Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page 15)


Not applicable



Submitted PoA only. (Page 13 to page 14). BR not submitted


Not applicable



Yes




The evaluation of Financial Capacity based on the Audited Financial Reports of FY 2013-14 is as presented below:



Net worth as on 31

st March 2014

(Rs. In crore)


Remarks



1 AALL 69.67 Present

1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is as per RFP document. 2. The Subscribed and paid up equity considered and reserves considered for calculation is as per the Audited Balance Sheet of FY 13-14

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s ADANI AGRI LOGISTIC LIMITED is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for

all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.



as presented below:




S.No.


Project Code






Check for Project Eligibility

Check on ownership





TTC

Experience Score

Remarks



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

AALL & Bulk Food Grain Handling, Storage and Transportation under BOO arrangement for FCI

a 1 122.75 459.27 582.02 727.53 yes yes

No, category revised

to 3

122.75 0.00 122.75

92.06

1. The Capital cost incurred as claimed by applicant b/w FY 09-10 and FY 13-14 has not been considered since Project commissioning date is June 2008. Based on the second clarifications sought by the authority from the applicant, the applicant has submitted the copy of the supplementary agreement along with the previous agreement. Based on the terms of supplementary agreement submitted and statutory certification, the capital expenditure in the project is Rs.122.75 crore, therefore considering the same. However the project is not implemented on PPP mode as confirmed from the submitted copy of the agreements, hence the claimed project category 1 revised to project category 3 For category 3 projects, the



revenues shall not be considered.


582.02 727.53 122.75

92.06


It is observed from the above table that M/s ADANI AGRI LOGISTICS LIMITED meeting the Technical Threshold Capacity as per provisions of clause

2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ.

For capital cost consideration, further details of signed agreement between the applicant and client related to the aforesaid project need to be

furnished by the applicant to assess the eligibility of capital investment after project commissioning date.



considered for pre-qualification subject to clarification.





1 Kotakapura 68.00 122.75 Yes 92.06

2 Sahnewal 90.00 122.75 Yes 92.06

3 Narela 92.00 122.75 Yes 92.06

4 Kathiar 90.00 122.75 Yes 92.06

5 Whitefield 64.00 122.75 Yes 92.06



First Clarifications sought:

1. The submitted POA has not been supported by Board Resolution.

2. Clarification is required with respect to the capital expenditure incurred for the mentioned project in the Agreement with the client to ascertain the capital expenditure in the project after project commissioning date

First Clarifications furnished:

1. The applicant vide letter dated 28th July 2015 has submitted the Board Resolution in support of PoA.

2. The applicant has not submitted the signed agreement with the client to ascertain that the capital expenditure is permissible in the project after project

commissioning date. Therefore, from the submitted documents, it is not possible to derive the conclusion regarding the capital expenditure on the same.

Therefore the authority may seek clarifications from the applicant.

Second Clarifications Sought:

1. Kindly furnish the copy of the contract/concession/charter agreement for the mentioned project (project code 1 a in annex IV of Appendix) executed

between entity (project owner) and applicant. Please furnish all the relevant documents pertaining to the executed agreement.

Second Clarifications furnished: The applicant vide letter dated 28th August 2015 has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s

1. The copy of signed agreement with the Authority along with supplementary agreement executed with the authority. The observations on the same

are given below:

a) The category of the project has been revised from 1 to 3 after examination of the submitted copy of the agreement. The project was not

implemented on PPP mode and it is not the concession agreement signed with the authority as claimed by the applicant in their second

clarification. Hence based on above, the revenues shall not be considered for category 3 projects.

b) Based on the supplementary agreement submitted, the capital expenditure of Rs.122.75 cr incurred on the project may be considered and also

the same was certified by statutory auditor of the applicant.

Therefore based on the above clarification’s, the applicant is able to meet the technical capacity as per the provisions of the RFQ document

FINAL STATUS: Pre Qualified (Meeting the financial and technical capacity criteria)



(v) TOTAL SHIPPING & LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS



S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield


Crores.



Appendix – I and the same may be sought for. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far,

the Application is eligible for evaluation.




Submitted (Page 27)




Submitted by all three members (Page 329 to Page 407)




Not Submitted by any member



Submitted (Page 14)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years by all three members from (FY09-10 unaudited to FY13-14) Page 61 to 328)

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditors for all three members as on 31

st March

2014 (Page 15 to 17)



Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor for. (Page 19 to 24)


Not applicable

7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page25)







Yes









Net worth as on 31

st March 2014

(Rs. In crore)


Remarks

1 TSLPL 9.66 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

2 BLA Power 154.18 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

3 Surat Goods Transport 77.46 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

241.3

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Total Shipping & Logistic Private Limited and Others is positive and is meeting the

Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.







S.No.


Project Code


Payments made/ received for construction of Eligible Projects in Categ

Payments made for development of Eligible Projects



Check if the project is Eligible

Check on ownership



Payments made for development of Eligible Projects in Categorie

Revenues appropriated from Eligible Projects in Cat


Remarks



ories 3 and 4

in Categories 1 and 2

s 1 and 2

egories 1 and 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

Total Shipping & logistics Private Limited - Warehousing & Storage-PPP Project

1a 1 14.85

14.85 18.56 Yes Yes Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00

1. Figures Pertaining to FY14-15 and hence not admissible

2

BLA Power Private Limited- Core Sector-Power Project

2a 4 618.89 618.89 309.45 Yes Yes Yes 618.89 618.89 309.45

3

Surat Goods Transport Private Limited - Core Sector - Power Project

3a 4 3.81 3.81 1.91 Yes Yes Yes 3.81 3.81 1.91


637.55 329.91 622.70 311.35




It is observed from the above table that M/s Total Shipping & Logistic Private Limited and Others meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of

the project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ


In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be considered for pre-qualification subject to the clarification regarding non-

performance declaration.





1 Kotakapura 68.00 622.70 Yes 311.45

2 Sahnewal 90.00 622.70 Yes 311.45

3 Narela 92.00 622.70 Yes 311.45

4 Kathiar 90.00 622.70 Yes 311.45

5 Changsari 94.00 622.70 Yes 311.45

6 Whitefield 64.00 622.70 Yes 311.45


1. The applicant has not furnished the non- performance declaration for all three members of consortium.

Clarification Furnished: The applicant vide letter dated 26th

August 2015 has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s:

1. Submitted the declaration regarding non-performance by all three members of consortium

FINAL STATUS: PRE QUALIFIED (The applicant is meeting the financial capacity and technical capacity in pursuance of the clauses of the RFQ

document)



(vi) SRI AVANTIKA – SUDHEEKSHA (JV)



S.No Locations

1 Narela

2 Whitefield


Crores.



Appendix – I and the same may be sought for. However, in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far,

the Application is eligible for evaluation.




Submitted (Page )




Submitted for Avantika (Page 20 to Page 60)


Not Submitted by any member





Submitted (Page 64)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years for M/s Avantika (FY09-10 to FY13-14) (Page 66 to 262 )

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net worth Submitted by statutory auditor for M/s Avantika Contractor as on 31

st

March 2014 (Page 65)

6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 290 to page 349)


Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page290 to 349)


7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 351 and 352)


Submitted PoA (Page 354 to page 355). BR not submitted





Yes







Net worth as on 31

st March 2014

(Rs. In crore) Statutory Certification Remarks



1 Sudheeksha (LM) 0 NO

1. No supporting document provided. No Financial Capacity has been claimed 2. Partnership Firm incorporated in 22nd May 2015

2 Avantika (FM + TM) 91.07 Yes

1. The net worth calculation provided by Statutory Auditor is as per RFP document and also reflects in the Audited Balance Sheet of 2013-14

3 Jointly 91.07

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Sri Avantika – Sudheeksha (JV) is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all

of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.









S.No. Applicant/Member of Consortium& Name of Project

Project Code





TTC

Experience Score


Check on ownership





TTC

Experience Score

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5.00 6 7 8.00 9.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 AVANTIKA & Construction of Tunnel

a 4 138.4

9 138.49

69.25

Yes Yes Yes 0

0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is I&CAD Department, AP. However the applicant was engaged by Sabir-Sew-Prasad JV and not directly by the project company. To understand the nature iof association with the said JV document from the JV



regarding nature of association of Applicant need to be reviewed. Certificate / Document regarding revenue receipt by applicant shall also need review.

2

AVANTIKA & Construction road at Hydle Power Project

b 4 124.0

5 124.05

62.03

Yes Yes Yes 0

0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is Abir Infrastructure Pvt Limited, and the Project is 1200 MW Teesta Stage -III HE Project which is a core sector project in Power and not in roads as mentioned in the certificate.

3

AVANTIKA & Strengthening of Runway at Agartala Airport

c 4 34.55

34.55

17.28

Yes Yes Yes 10.10

10.1

5.05

1. Revenue for year 09-10 till 13-14 considered to arrive at corrected score



4

AVANTIKA & Strengthening extension of Runway at Vijaywada Airport

d 4 46.51

46.51

23.26

Yes Yes Yes 37.99

37.99

19.00

1. Revenue for year 09-10 till 13-14 considered to arrive at corrected score

5

AVANTIKA & Improvement of Sopore Bandipore Road

e 4 33.24

33.24

16.62

Yes Yes Yes 33.24

33.24

16.62

6

AVANTIKA & Strengthening of NH - 39 at Manipur

f 4 29.88

29.88

14.94

Yes Yes Yes 29.88

29.88 14.94

7

AVANTIKA & Construction of Tunnel for HNSS Irrigation Project Pk 6

g 4 26.00

26.00

13.00

Yes Yes Yes 11.44

11.44 5.72

8


h 4 20.90

20.90

10.45

Yes Yes Yes 12.42

12.42 6.21

9


i 4 20.64

20.64

10.32

Yes Yes Yes 7.02

7.02 3.51



10

Package No. 06/06: Earthwork excavation of GNSS Main canal from KM 161.250 to KM 203.850 including CM & CD Works

j 4 21.69

21.69

10.85

Yes Yes Yes 0

0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is I&CAD Department, AP. However the applicant was engaged by Sabir Dam & Waterworks Construction Company and not directly by the project company. To understand the nature iof association with the said project company document from the JV regarding nature of association of Applicant need to be reviewed. Certificate / Document regarding revenue receipt by applicant from the project company shall also need a review.



11

Sri Narasimharaya Sagar Dam: Investigation, designing and construction of dam with a live storage of 10.29 TMC of F.R.L (+) 261 M with over flow arrangements to discharge 848cumecs of surplus water, in take canal with a flood flow discharge of 140.45 cumecs and an outlet arrangements for a discharge pf 67.96 cumecs to connect SRBC

k 4 176.2

5 176.25

88.13

Yes Yes Yes 0

0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is I&CAD Department, AP. However the applicant was engaged by Sabir-Sew-Prasad JV and not directly by the project company. To understand the nature iof association with the said JV document from the JV regarding nature of association of Applicant need to be reviewed. Certificate / Document regarding revenue receipt by applicant shall also need a review.



12

Indira Sagar Lift Irrigation Project (Polavaram): Package 21: Laying of pressure mains from koya madaram to peda vagu project including surge protection against transient, out fall structure at peda vagu project, approach channel at koya madaram, improvements to existing peda vagu project and construction of distributory syatem for irrigation an Ayacut of 7929 Acres including CM & CD works

l 4 142.8

6 142.86

71.43

Yes Yes Yes 0

0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is I&CAD Department, AP. However the applicant was engaged by ZVSTROY-GDCL JV and not directly by the project company. To understand the nature iof association with the said JV document from the JV regarding nature of association of Applicant need to be reviewed. Certificate / Document regarding revenue receipt by applicant shall also need a review.



13

Indira Sagar Lift Irrigation Project (Polavaram): Package 22: Laying of pressure mains frompeda vagu to Bandarugudem tank including surge protection against transient, formation of New tank at Bandarugudem and out fall structure, construction of staff quarters at peda vagu project at koya madaram and at bandarugudem and construction of distributory system for irrigation and Ayacut of 12000 Acres including CM & CD works

m 4 341.1

6 341.16

170.58

Yes Yes 0

0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is I&CAD Department, AP. However the applicant was engaged by ZVSTROY-GDCL JV and not directly by the project company. To understand the nature iof association with the said JV document from the JV regarding nature of association of Applicant need to be reviewed. Certificate / Document regarding revenue receipt by applicant shall also need a review.

14

Construction of Storm Water Drainage for Imphal City under of JNNURM

n 4 61.67

61.67

30.84

Yes Yes Yes 0 0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is I&CAD Department, AP. However



the applicant was engaged by ZVSTROY-GDCL JV and not directly by the project company. To understand the nature iof association with the said JV document from the JV regarding nature of association of Applicant need to be reviewed. Certificate / Document regarding revenue receipt by applicant shall also need a review.

15

Construction of Inter State Bus Terminus at Dewlahland, Imphal, Manipur

o 4 24.46

24.46

12.23

Yes Yes Yes 24.46

24.46 12.23

16 Township site levelling package for Barh STPP

p 4 24.18

24.18

12.09

No Yes No 0.00

0 0.00

1. This project only includes leveling of land, i.e. earth work and cannot be classified under Infrastructure Project



17

Site levelling works for balance area of plant & township package for Barh STPP - Stage - II (2x660 MW)

q 4 39.76

39.76

19.88

No Yes No 0.00

0 0.00

1. This project only includes leveling of land, i.e. earth work and cannot be classified under Infrastructure Project

18

Civil works package - II for 1x125 mw lignite based thermal power plant at Giral state - II in Barmer Distt, Rajasthan

r 4 26.90

26.90

13.45

Yes Yes Yes 14.79

14.79 7.40

19

Construction of new BG line from Nandyal to Yerraguntla stations - Earth work in formation, construction

s 4 25.98

25.98

12.99

Yes Yes Yes 25.98

25.98 12.99

20

Rock quarrying and transportation for construction of breakwater and groins works

t 4 157.4

6 157.46

78.73

No Yes No 0.00

0 0.00

1. Quarrying and Transportation could not be classified as EPC Infrastructure project



21

Site Levelling & Infrastructure works package for Kudgi Super Thermal Power Project, Stage-I (3x800 MW)

u 4 63.60

63.60

31.80

No Yes No 0.00

0 0.00

1. This project only includes levelling of land, i.e. earth work and cannot be classified under Infrastructure Project

22

Earthwork excavation,Building works (RCC Frame Structures) Formation of Internal Roads,External Water supply system and External Electrification works at our Plant Anrak Aluminium Limited

v 4 86.25

86.25

43.13

Yes Yes 86.25

86.25

43.13

23

Expansion and modification of existing terminal building

w 4 58.90

58.90

29.45

Yes Yes 58.90

58.9

29.45

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is AAI, and the Project is under Airport sector



24

Balance work for Construction of New Terminal building Complex at Khajuraho Airport (Risk & Cost)

x 4 37.06

37.06

18.53

Yes Yes Yes 37.06

37.06

18.53

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is AAI, and the Project is under Airport sector

25

Construction of Admin/ Training/ Communication Block, 540 Men Barrack Go's Mess & Quarter Guard for 4th Ballalion of CISF at Sivagangai (Tamil Nadu)

y 4 26.47

26.47

13.24

No Yes No 0.00

0

0.00

1. Project Could not be considered under Infrastructure Sector

26

Construction of concrete Barrage and Earthen Bund across Kanhan River at Kochi, TA Saoner Distt.Nagpur, Maharashtra State

z 4 40.97

40.97

20.49

Yes Yes Yes 40.97

40.97

20.49



27

Construction of Mini Secretariat, Chuchandrapur, Manipur

aa 4 22.36

22.36

11.18

Yes Yes Yes 22.36

22.36

11.18

28

Construction of Civil and Structural Works for OSL Hospital at Gurgaon

ab 4 34.86

34.86

17.43

Yes Yes Yes 34.86

34.86

17.43

29

KTPS-O&M- Formation of Northern Ash Pond-II upto EI +92.00 M including well and Barrel etc, at Paloncha, Khammam Distt.

ac 4 23.80

23.80

11.90

No Yes No 0.00

0

0.00

1. Project Could not be considered under Infrastructure Sector



30

Package 5: Excavation of Main Canal, Formation of Banks including Canal Lining and Construction of CM & CD works from km 93.70 to km 111.00 of left Main Canal of Indira Sagar Project (Name of Project) for Core Sector - Irrigation Project

ad 4 60.39 60.39

30.20

Yes Yes Yes 0 0 0

1. The Statutory Auditor has certified the project company is I&CAD Department, AP. However the applicant was engaged by Sabir Dam & Waterworks Construction Company and not directly by the project company. To understand the nature iof association with the said project company document from the JV regarding nature of association of Applicant need to be reviewed. Certificate / Document regarding revenue receipt by applicant from the project company shall also need a review.




1971.29

985.65

487.72 243.86


It is observed from the above table that M/s Sri Avantika – Sudheeksha JV and Others meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project

location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ

Pre-qualification:

Based on the examination of the clarification’s submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be

considered for pre-qualification for the below mentioned locations.





1 Narela 92.00 902.14 yes 451.07

2 Whitefield 64.00 902.14 yes 451.07


1. The submitted POA has not been supported by Board Resolution. 2. The declaration regarding non-performance has not been submitted. 3. Clarification is required regarding the nature of association with the employer wherein the project owner is not the employer.

Clarifications furnished:

The applicant vide letter dated has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s:



2. Submitted the Board resolution in support of PoA

3. Submitted the declaration regarding non performance

4. The explanation given by the applicant in the furnished document is not sufficient enough to address the query raised, therefore not possible to

consider the project experience for these projects. However the applicant is able to meet the technical capacity without these projects, but the total

experience score of the applicant is decreased.


document.



(vii) ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD (LM, FM AND OMM) AND ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND US (TM)



S.No Locations

1 Narela

2 Whitefield

To qualify for applied projects locations the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.19.50 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of

Rs 92.00 Crore.


observed, that the application not signed by authorized signatory and stated unknown for material non-performance or contractual

compliance in past projects.




Submitted (Page 25)


3 Appendix I - Annexure I Details of the Applicant Submitted ADM agro (Page 5 to Page 6) and Archer Midland (Page 7 to Page 10)


Submitted for Archer (Page 28 to Page 35) &(Page 210 to Page 235) MOA & AOA has submitted by Lead member ADM


Declaration in form of NA for ADM agro. (Page 6) Declared unknown (9&10) by Archer

4 Appendix I - Annexure II Technical Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 11 to Page 12)





5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years audited financials (Partial) for Archer from (Page 36 to page 59) and for ADM s agro submitted audited ( Page 60 to 200)

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for 31

st March 2015 (FY14-15 not

considered (Page 15 )

6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted, but not signed by authorized signatory (Page 16 to Page 20)


Project Experience certification Submitted by internal audit department (Page 21) (Not submitted by Statutory auditor/auditor


Not applicable



Submitted PoA & BR (Page 201 to page 203), Apostille certificate (Page 26 to 27


Submitted (Page 204 to page 209) with apostille certificate



Yes









Remarks



1 ADM Agro 170.83 For FY 14-15

The statutory auditor submitted the certificate for unaudited FY14-15 stating Rs.246.93 crore as on 31

st march 2015.

The Applicant has not provided Net Worth certificate from Statutory Auditor for the year 2013-14 and hence the Net Worth of the Applicant could not

be verified with the figures from the Financial Statements of the same year.







S.No.


Project Code


Payments made/ received for construction of Eligible Projects in Cate



TTC Experience Score**


Check on ownership






Remarks



gories 3 and 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 Archer Daniels midland

a 3 138.

450 138.450 51.92

- - -

Not certified by statutory auditor/ auditor who audit the accounts, but certified by internal audit team.


138.450 51.92


It is observed from the above table that M/s ADM Agro do not meet the Technical Threshold Capacity due to non-compliance of certificate from

statutory auditor or auditor who audit the accounts for any of the project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ.

The authority may ask the clarification regarding the details of statutory auditor or auditor.


Based on the examination of the clarification submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may not be

considered for pre-qualification.





1 Narela 92.00 Unable to verify No N.A.

2 Whitefield 64.00 Unable to verify No N.A.




1. Project experience certificate is given by Internal Audit Department whereas the same was required from Statutory Auditor as per Appendix –I, Annex-IV. 2. The consortium member Archer Daniels Midland stated unknown against non -performance declaration. 3. Only partial audited Financial Statement have been submitted.


The applicant vide letter dated has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s:

1. The explanation given by the applicant not supported by statutory auditor’s certificate/ auditor’s certificate, therefore the claimed project experience shall not be considered. Hence the applicant is not meeting the threshold technical capacity.

2. The explanation given by the applicant not supported by non- performance declaration

3. The explanation given by the applicant not supported by the complete audited financial statements

FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (The applicant is not meeting technical capacity criteria and has not submitted the documents as per the terms of

the RFQ document).



(viii) PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.


Table 8.1

S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield


crore.

Submitted Documents Review



Submitted (Page 255)






Declaration in form of NA




5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years from (Page 1 to page 84)



5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for 31 March 2014(Page 266)

6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 267 to Page 269)


Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page 270 to Page 272)


Submitted by company secretary (need to be verified) (Page 278)

7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 273)




Not applicable



Yes









Remarks

1 Pristine 71.20

Presented by the earlier statutory auditor i.e. Marodia Khanna & Associate

Submitted the statutory auditor’s certificate and audited financial statements. The applicant is meeting the minimum net worth criteria.



It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Pristine is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied

for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.







S.No.


Project Code







Check on ownership






Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

Pristine Logistics and Infrastructure Logistics Limited

A 2 0.000 35.94 53.58 89.52 89.52 Yes Yes

No, categor

y revised

to 4*

35.94

35.94 17.97



and Inland Container Depot and Private Freight Terminal at Panki, Kanpur

Inland Container Depot and Private Freight Terminal at Chawa Payal, Ludhiana, Punjab

B 2 0.000 48.41 0.00 48.41 48.41 Yes Yes

No, category revised to 4

0.00 0.0 0.00

Not considered figures after FY13-14

Inland Container Depot and Private Freight Terminal at Bihta, Bihar

C 2 0.000 13.170 0.16 13.33 13.33 Yes Yes

No, categor

y revised

to 4

0.00 0.00* 0.00

Not considered figures after FY13-14


151.260

151.260

35.94 17.97


*Revenues shall not be applicable in case of projects falls in category 4 as per the provisions of the RFQ document.










1 Kotakapura 68.00 35.94 No 17.97

2 Sahnewal 90.00 35.94 No 17.97

3 Narela 92.00 35.94 No 17.97

4 Kathiar 90.00 35.94 No 17.97

5 Changsari 94.00 35.94 No 17.97

6 Whitefield 64.00 35.94 No 17.97


1. Clarification is required regarding the tenure of the shareholding in the associates for eligible projects.

2. Company Secretary Certification needs to be verified for associate Clarifications furnished: The applicant vide letter dated has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s:

1. The applicant shared the period of the shareholding in the associate through certificate duly certified by earlier statutory auditor and the present statutory auditor of the associate firms. However the claimed projects are unable to meet the technical capacity

2. The applicant confirmed the company secretary details along with supported document from Ministry of Company Affairs.

FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (The applicant is not meeting minimum threshold technical capacity criteria)



(ix) DINESHCHANDRA R. AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD.



S.No. Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield


Crores.


observed that in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for evaluation.

Submitted documents review



Submitted (Page 5)




Submitted (Page16, 64 to Page 84)




Declaration in form of NIL




5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years from (FY13-14 partial audited ) to FY 09-10(Page 89 to page 245)

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor(Page 26)

6 Appendix I - Annexure IV Details of Eligible Projects Submitted (Page 29 to 47)


Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor for. (Page 30 to 48)


Not applicable





Not applicable


11 Application signed by authorized signatory

Yes









Net worth as on 31

st March 2014

(Rs. in crore)


Remarks

1 Dineshchandra R. Agrawal

138.52 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Dineshchandra R. Agrawal Infracon Private Limited is positive and is meeting the

Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.

Threshold Technical Capacity






S.No.


Project Code







Check on ownership



Payments made for develo

Revenues appropriated from Eligible Projects


Remarks



pment of Eligible Projects in Categories 1 and 2

in Categories 1 and 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18



1

Four Lanning of Km0+500 to Km 52+700 of Kolaghat-Haldia Section of NH-41 in the state of West Bengal -Balance work and Improvement of HPL Link Road at Haldia (West Bengal) from Km.0+150 to Km.6+275

a 4 349.16 349.16 174.58 Yes Yes Yes

349.16

349.16 174.58

1. The certified Estimated Project Cost is Rs 295.82 Cr. It is common in construction EPC contract that the Actual Cost is higher than Estimated cost.

2

Six Laning of DhanKuni to Kharagpur section NH-6 from Km 17.600 to Km 129.00 (Length 111.400 Km)in the State of West Bengal under NHDP Phase-V

b 4 282.69 282.69 141.35 Yes Yes Yes

282.69

282.69 141.35



3

Upgardation of Mehrauli-Gurgaon Section (Andheria More to Delhi/Haryana border) from 33.300 to 40.755 of NH-236 in the NCT of Delhi

c 4 110.23 110.23 55.12 Yes Yes Yes

110.23

110.23 55.12

1. The certified Estimated Project Cost is Rs 107.85 Cr. It is common in construction EPC contract that the Actual Cost is higher than Estimated cost.

4

Provision of Resurfacing of Runway and Air Craft areas at AF station NAL

d 4 114.68 114.68 57.34 Yes Yes Yes

114.00

114 57.00

5

Improvement and Strengthening of roads of Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I & II in Central zone

e 4 125.18 125.18 62.59 Yes Yes Yes

125.18

125.18 62.59



6

Constructions of new Bridges /Structures, repair of existing Four Lane Highway from Kharagpur to Bleshwar Section of NH-60 from Km 0.000 to Km 119.300 in the State of Orissa and West Bengal and its operation and maintained under NHDP Phase I to be executed as BOT (Toll) on DBFOT Pattern (EPC Contract)

f 4 155.85 155.85 77.93 Yes Yes Yes

155.85

155.85 77.93

7

Four Laning and Strengthening of NH-45B from Tovarankrichi Bypass End KM 60.950 (Existing Km60.00 of NH45B) to Othakkadai Bypass End Km 124.840 (Existing Sivaganga Intersection at Inner Ring road) (Contract Package-VIIB)

g 4 95.79 95.79 47.90 Yes Yes Yes

95.79 95.79 47.90

1. 50% shareholding in consortium hence 50% of revenue received considered.



8

Four laning and strengthening of the Existing two lane National Highway -45B from Trichy Bypass End to Tovarankrichi (From KM 0.0 to 60.95 in Tamil Naidu (Contract Package -VIIA))

h 4 84.38 84.38 42.19 Yes Yes Yes

84.38 84.38 42.19


9

Construction of Grade Separator at Dabri Intersection of Pankha road and Road leading to Dawarka near Janakpuri,Delhi

i 4 84.13 84.13 42.07 Yes Yes Yes

84.13 84.13 42.07

1. 97.50% shareholding in consortium hence 97.50% of revenue received considered.



10

Widening and strengthening of existing National Highway from Km 1065.00 to Km 1040.30 of Nalbari to Bijni section of NH-31 in Assam on East West corridor under Phase - II programme of NHDP (package -AS-6)

J 4 81.04 81.04 40.52 Yes Yes Yes

81.04 81.04 40.52



1483.13 741.57 1483.13 741.57


It is observed from the above table that M/s Dinesh Chandra R. Agrawal Private Limited meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the

project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ


In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant may be considered for pre-qualification any location applied for.





1 Kotakapura 68.00 1483.13 yes 741.57

2 Sahnewal 90.00 1483.13 yes 741.57



3 Narela 92.00 1483.13 yes 741.57

4 Kathiar 90.00 1483.13 yes 741.57

5 Changsari 94.00 1483.13 yes 741.57

6 Whitefield 64.00 1483.13 yes 741.57


document.



(x) ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD



S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield

To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.62.25 Crores and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 94.00

Crores.


observed that in pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, the Application is eligible for evaluation.




Submitted






Litigation History submitted (Page 10 to Page 11)




5 Appendix I - Annexure III Financial Capacity of the Applicant Submitted (Page 13)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years (Page 92 to Page 319) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate Submitted (Page 13)



Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor and client (Page 20 to Page 52)




POA submitted (Page 54 to page 55), BR submitted (Page 56)


Not applicable



Yes



Financial Capacity




Net worth as on 31

st March 2014

(Rs. In crore)


Remarks

1 Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd

1099.06 Present Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted



It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited is positive and is meeting the Financial

Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.







S.No.


Project Code







Check on ownership






Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



1

Strengthening and widening of existing 2-lane Road to 4-Lane dual carriageway from Km 18.000 - Km 63.000 of NH-11 (Agra Bharatpur section) in the states of Uttar Pradesh & Rajasthan on BOT basis

a 2 14.93 86.79 101.72

101.72

Yes Yes Yes 14.93 86.79 101.72

101.72

2

Strengthening and widening of existing 2-lane Road to 4-Lane dual carriageway from Km 12.600- Km84.700 of NH-3 (Indore khalghat section) in the state of Madhya Pradesh on BOT

b 2 81.94 387.65

469.59

469.59

Yes Yes Yes 81.94 387.64

469.58

469.58



basis

3

4-laning of madhya pradesh /Maharashtra border Nagpur section of NH-7 from Km.652.000(New Km 653.225) to Km. 729.000 including construction of Kamptee-Kanhan Bypass and Nagpur Bypass and maintance of already 4-laned section from Km14.585

c 2 1580.83

162.44

1743.27

1743.27

Yes Yes Yes 1580.83

162.45

1743.28

1743.28



to Km 36.600 of NH-7 (Nagpur-Hyderabad Section) in the state of maharashtra under NHDP Phase-II on Design,built,finance ,operate and transfer (DBFOT) basis

4

4-laning of Hungund-Hospet of NH-13 from Km202.000 to Km. 299.000 i in the state of Karnatka under NHDP Phase-III on Design,built,finance ,operate and transfer (DBFOT) basis

d 2 801.52 76.02 877.54

877.54

Yes Yes Yes 801.52

76.03 877.55

877.55



5

6-laning of Etawah-Chakeri of NH-2 from Km 323.475to Km. 483.687 i in the state of Uttar pradesh under NHDP Phase-IV on Design,built,finance ,operate and transfer (DBFOT) toll basis

e 2 835.38 177.59

1012.97

1012.97

Yes Yes Yes 835.38

177.59

1012.97

1012.97

6

Construction contract for saleem-Ulundurpet section from Km 62.250 to Km 136.70 on NH-68 in Tamil Naidu

f 4 388.21 388.21

194.11

Yes Yes Yes 382.62 382.62

191.31

Value from client certificate considered



7

Construction of Rigid pavement and Granular layers for Yamuna Expressway between 110.225 to Km. 165.537

g 4 921.92 921.92

460.96

Yes Yes Yes 921.92 921.92

460.96

8

Construction of 4-laning of pune-sholapur section of NH-9 from Km.93.700 to Km. 144.400 in the state of Maharashtra

h 4 444.64 444.64

222.32

Yes Yes Yes 444.64 444.64

222.32



9

4-laning of Nagpur-Betul of NH-69 from Km 257.00in the state of Madhya Pradesh and from Km. 59.300 to Km3.000 i in the state of Maharashtra under NHDP Phase-IV on Design,built,finance ,operate and transfer (Annuity) basis

i 4 2861.31

2861.31

1430.66

Yes Yes Yes 2861.3 2861.31

1430.66


8821.17

6513.13

8815.59

6510.35


It is observed from the above table that M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the

project location applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ


In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, The Applicant may be considered for pre-qualification







1 Kotakapura 68.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35

2 Sahnewal 90.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35

3 Narela 92.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35

4 Kathiar 90.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35

5 Changsari 94.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35

6 Whitefield 64.00 8815.59 yes 6510.35


document)



(xi) OSR INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS


1. OSR Infra Pvt Limited

74%

2. ADSTEEL l Limited

26%



S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield


Crores.


observed that the Appendix – II (PoA for signing Application and Bid) is not supported by proper charter document. Clarification in this

regard need to be sought from the applicant. Further, The LM representative have not signed and sealed all the pages of the document

submitted. In pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far, the Application is eligible for evaluation.












Not submitted ( Page 7)



FC submitted (Page 10 to Page 11)

5a Audited five years annual reports

OSR INFRA PVT LTD Submitted for four years (Page 17 to Page 70) for FY 2010-11 to FY 2013-14 ADC ENERGY SYSTEM Submitted for six years (Page 71 to Page 165) for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13, for FY 2013-14 the audit is in process

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for OSR Infra (Page 12 to Page 16). Not submitted by statutory auditor for ADC energy



Project Experience certification Submitted by auditor, not by statutory auditor(Page 182 to Page 183)


Submitted by auditor, not by statutory auditor (Page 184 to Page 189)



POA submitted (Page 191 to page 193). BR not submitted


Submitted (Page 194 to Page 196 )

10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement Submitted (Page 197 to Page 201)


Yes









Net worth as on 31

st

March 2014 (Rs. In crore)


Remarks

1 OSR Infra 16.93 Provided 1. Audited Annual Financial Report of FY 13-14 submitted

2 Adsteel Limited 92.99 Provided

1. Audited Balance sheet of Year ending December 2014 not provided. 2. The Balance Sheet provided is of ADC Energy Systems LCC who is an associate.

However document provided to establish more than 50% voting shareholding, in pursuance of 2.2.9 is not wholly translated by translator and further it is attested by Govt. of U.A.E. or embassy of India.

3 Total 109.92

It is observed from the above table that the clarification need to be sought from the applicant regarding the net worth of M/s ADSTEEL Limited to

ascertain the Financial Capacity for all of the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the

RFQ. **

**Subject to clarification on Financial Statements of Adsteel Limited and its Associate







Technical capacity shown by the Applicant (Rs

in crore) Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in crore)

S.No.


Project Code


Payments

made/ receive

d for construction of Eligible Projects

in Categor

ies 3 and 4

Payments made


in Categori

es 1 and 2

Revenues

appropriated from

Eligible Project

s in Categor

ies 1 and 2

Total

Experience Score


Check on ownership





Total

Experience Score

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

Adsteel Limited and West Bay (District Cooling Plant #3@ 37,500 TR Capacity)

2a 4 150.00 150.00 75.0

0 Yes Yes

Do n

ot m

ee

t C

-4

cri

teria



2

Saraya Corniche Development (EPC-District Cooling Plant of 52,000 TR)

2b 4 60.00 60.00 30.0

0 Yes Yes

3

Marina Phase 1 (EPC-District Cooling Plant @ 90,000 TR Capacity)

2c 4 165.00 165.00 82.5

0 Yes Yes

4

Saadiyat Island (District Cooling Plant #3@ 35,000 TR Capacity)

2d 4 130.00 130.00 65.0

0 Yes Yes

5

New York University (EPC-District Cooling Plant @ 16,000 TR Capacity)

2e 4 144.00 144.00 72.0

0 Yes Yes

6

Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Co (EPC-District Cooling Plant @ 25,000 TR Capacity)

2f 4 138.00 138.00 69.0

0 Yes Yes



7

Dragon Mart Expansion (EPC-Modular District Cooling Plant @ 10,000 TR Capacity)

2g 4 160.00 160.00 80.0

0 Yes Yes

8

Shams (Modular District Cooling Plant @ 10,000 TR Capacity)

2h 4 24.00 24.00 12.0

0 Yes Yes

9

King Saud University Endowment (EPC-District Cooling Plant @ 15,000 TR Capacity)

2i 4 66.00 66.00 33.0

0 Yes Yes

10

Saadiyat Island (EPC - District Cooling Plant # 2 @ 12,500 TR Capacity)

2j 4 126.00 126.00 63.0

0 Yes Yes

11

Dubai Investment Park (EPC-District Cooling Plant # 3 @ 37,500 TR Capacity)

2k 4 65.00 65.00 32.5

0 Yes Yes



12

Rheem Island (EPC-District Cooling Plant @ 90,000 TR Capacity)

2l 4 68.00 68.00 34.0

0 Yes Yes


1296 648.00

0.00 0.00


The applicant has submitted the consolidated auditor’s certificate for all projects in the annexure.

It is observed from the above table that the applicant is not meeting the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project location applied for, as

per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ.




.





1 Kotakapura 68.00 No

2 Sahnewal 90.00 No

3 Narela 92.00 No



4 Kathiar 90.00 No

5 Changsari 94.00 No

6 Whitefield 64.00 No


1. The submitted POA is not supported by Board Resolution/ Proper Charter Document. 2. The declaration regarding non-performance is not submitted. As per point 7 of Annex– I of the Appendix I of the RFQ document, the same needs to be supported by declaration from the applicant. 3. The project experience certificate is submitted by Audited only whereas the same was required to be submitted duly certified by Statutory Auditor

Clarifications furnished: The applicant vide letter dated has submitted the following in support of above mentioned Clarification’s:

2. Provided the copy of the Board Resolution in support of POA

3. The applicant has not furnished the non- performance declaration

4. The explanation given by the applicant has not been supported by document, therefore the claimed experience cannot be considered. FINAL STATUS: NOT ELIGIBLE (The applicant is not meeting the technical capacity criteria and has not submitted the documents as per the RFQ document)



(xii) M/S GARWAR – ELL ESS JV


1. ELL ESS

60%

2. Garwar Construction Limited

40%



S.No Locations

1 Sahnewal

2 Narela

3 Changsari


Crores.

However before evaluating the Financial Capacity & Technical Capacity of the Applicant the eligibility of the applicant has been evaluated and in

pursuance of various relevant clause of the RFQ, to the best of our knowledge so far, the Application is eligible for evaluation.




Submitted (page 294)


3 Appendix I - Annexure I Details of the Applicant Submitted (Page 4 to Page 5 for ELL and page 14 to 15 for Gawar)




Incorporation Certificate Submitted (Page 6 to Page 25) MOA & AOA Submitted (Page 26 to Page 82) only for GAWAR. Not submitted for ELSS


Declaration given by both the members ( Page 5 and Page 15)



submitted (Page 243)

5a Audited five years annual reports GAWAR CONST LTD Submitted for five years (Page 91 to Page 242) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate Submitted by auditor ( Not by statutory auditor) (Page 84 to Page 90)



Project Experience certification Submitted (Page 244 to Page 291)


7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 292 to Page 293 )


POA submitted (Page 296 to page 301), BR submitted (Page 302)





Yes









Net worth as on 31st March 2014 (Rs.

In crore) Statutory Certification

Remarks

1 Elss 0 Yes Net worth certificate provided based on 31st march 2015 which cannot be considered

2 Garwar 199.39 Yes as on 31

st

March 2014

Provided statutory auditor and audited financial statements

3 Total 199.39

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Garwar – Ess JV is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of the locations

applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.



as presented below:






S.No.


Project Code







Check on ownership






Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

Gawar Construction Limited and Construction of Master Roads Sector-75 to 89, Faridabad. "Supply & Laying of Earth Work in embankment, Granular Sub Base, Wet Mix Macadam, Dense Bituminous Macadam, Bituminous Concrete

A 4 173.36 0.000 0.000 173.36

86.68 Yes Yes Yes 173.36 173 86.68



M-20 Cast in Situ Kerb & Channel,Reinforced Cement Concrete drain, Culverts & all other work contingent (Including one year free defect liability period & further 4 year paid maintainance after successful completion of work & free maintainance period.

2

Improvement by raising, widening strengthening and providing side drains,CC Pavement on various roads in Jhajjhar Distt. (Package

B 4 151.85 0.00 0.00 151.85

75.93 Yes Yes Yes 151.85 152 75.93



No HSRDC/NCR/C-22 of 2010)

3

Four Laning Rohtak Bhiwani Road (Km 91.6 to 113.91) & four lanning of Rohtak Hisar road from drain No. 8 to Bahujamalpur (Km 79.2 to 86.80) in Rohtak Distt. (Package No. HSRDC/NCR/C-23/2009)

C 4 126.28 0.00 0.00 126.28

63.14 Yes Yes Yes 126.28 126 63.14

4

Improvement of Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar road Km 0.00 to Km. 28.300

D 4 79.78 0.00 0.00 79.78

39.890 Yes Yes Yes 79.78 80 39.89

5

Widening with raising and Strengthening to two lane with geometric improvement and

E 4 68.08 0.00 0.00 68.08

34.04 Yes Yes Yes 68.08 68 34.04



construction/ reconstruction of C.D. work from Km. 0/0 to Km. 5/0, Km 11/0 to Km. 31/0, Km 50/0 to 51/0, Km 57/0 to Km 59/100 and Km 64/250 to Km 88/500 on NH-90 (Baran-Atru-Chhipabarod-Aklera Road) in Rajasthan State under special project scheme (Job nk 90/RJ/2009-10/06)

6

Construction of 75 mtr. (2x14) and 60 mtr (2x12.5) wide sectors roads sector between sector-99 to 115

F 4 63.99 0.00 0.00 63.99

32.00 Yes Yes Yes 63.99 64 32.00



gurgaon manesar urban complex 2025 AD

7

Widening and Strengthening of road from Bahalgarh Chowk (NH-1) to Sonepat to Gohana to Sonepat District Boundary on Jind road from Km 11.600 to 74.000

G 4 46.23 0.00 0.00 46.23

23.12 Yes Yes Yes 46.23 46 23.12

8

Construction of 60 mtr wide master roads between sec 66/67, 65/54, 65/66, 64/67, 62/65, 63/64, 62/63, 61/60, 58/61,

H 4 44.52 0.00 0.00 44.52

22.26 Yes Yes Yes 44.52 45 22.26



59/61, 59/60, 58/59 and outer of Sector-58 Gurgaon

9

Improvement of Punhana Jurhera road and providing service lane & Drains on Gurgaon Nuh Alwar Road in Gurgaon & Mewat Distt. (Package No HSRDC/NCR/C-26/2009)

I 4 43.95 0.00 26.95 70.90

35.45 Yes Yes Yes 43.95 44 21.98

10

Improvement & Strengthening of Dhansa Road from Najafgarh Town to Dhansa Border, NGZ

J 4 42.48 0.00 0.00 42.48

21.24 Yes Yes Yes 42.48 42 21.24



11

Widening of NH-10 (Delhi Rohtak Road) from 6/7 lanes to 8 lanes from RD 12.300 km (Punjabi Bagh) to RD 24.00 km (Mundaka) in Delhi

K 4 38.32 0.00 0.00 38.32

19.16 Yes Yes Yes 38.32 38 19.16

12

Improvement of 4 nos road in Kaithal Distt. (i) 4 Lane on old bye pass connecgting Kaithal Ambala Patiala road (City Portion) (ii) 6 lane on Kaithal Ambala road from Pehowa Chowk to New bye pass in city portion km 123.18 to 125.28 (iii) 6 lane on Karnal Kaithal road

L 4 34.43 0.00 0.00 34.43

17.22 34.43 34 17.22



upto Pehowa Chowk (Km 69.40 to 72.00) (iv) 6 lane on Kaithal Kurukshetra road (Km 41.50 to 44.00)

13

Upgradation of Saharanpur Kurukshetra road Km 55.00 to 76.150

M 4 32.60 0.00 0.00 32.60

16.30 32.60 33 16.30

14

Up-gradation of Master Road from HUDA City centre to Subhash Chowk Gurgaon

N 4 32.31 0.00 0.00 32.31

16.16 32.31 32 16.16

5

Improvement of road by way of Widening / Strengthening on Kalunaur Basana Meham road from Km 0.00 to Km 18.184 in Rohtak Distt. (Road ID no.

O 4 31.87 0.00 0.00 31.87

15.94 31.87 32 15.94



1764, 1758 & 1759)


1037.00

518.50 1010.05 505.03


It is observed from the above table that Garwar – ELL ESS Construction JV meets the Technical Threshold Capacity for any of the project location

applied for, as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ


In pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant may be considered for pre-qualification.





1 Sahnewal 90.00 1010.05 Yes 505.03

3 Narela 92.00 1010.05 Yes 505.03

5 Changsari 94.00 1010.05 Yes 505.03

FINAL STATUS: PRE-QUALIFIED (The applicant is meeting the financial capacity and technical capacity in pursuance of the clauses of the RFQ

document.



(xiii) JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

Name of the Applicant/ Consortium Members

Shareholding Pattern of Consortium Members

1. JKG Infratech Private Ltd

26%

2. Ahuja and Anand Buildwell Pvt Ltd

26%

3. SSR Buildcon Pvt Ltd 26%

4. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta 11%

5. Mr. Vipul Mittal 11%

The applicant has applied for the following location –

Table 13.1

S.No Locations

1 Narela

To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.11.50 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs 92.00

crore.




Submitted (Page 5)






JKG INFRATECH PVT LTD Submitted MOA & AOA (Page 206 to Page 247) and BR (Page 248) AHUJA & ANAND BUIDWELL PVT LTD Submitted MOA & AOA (Page 249 to Page 288) and BR (Page 289) SSR INFRABUIDCON PVT LTD Submitted MOA & AOA (Page 290 to Page 314) and BR (Page 315)


Declaration in form “Not applicable” for all three members



FC submitted (Page 17)

5a Audited five years annual reports

JKG INFRATECH PVT LTD Submitted for five years (Page 52 to Page 113) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 AHUJA & ANAND BUIDWELL PVT LTD Submitted for five years (Page 114 to Page 174) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 SSR INFRABUIDCON PVT LTD Submitted for five years (Page 175 to Page 205) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 (Partial audited documents without notes to financial statements)

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate Submitted (Page 18 to Page 22)



Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor (Page 28 to Page 31)


NA



POA submitted (Page 33 to page 36). BR 248. 289 and 315 for all members





Yes








S.No. Applicant / Member of Consortium Net worth as on 31st March 2014 (Rs. in crore)

Statutory Certification Remarks

1 JKG Infratech Private Limited 4.517 Submitted Submitted the statutory auditors certificate and audited financial statements

2. Ahuja and Anand Buildwell Pvt. Ltd 4.827 Submitted Submitted the statutory auditors certificate and audited financial statements

3. SSR Infra Buildcon Pvt Ltd 2.387 Submitted Submitted the statutory auditors certificate and audited financial statements

Total 11.73

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of the applicant is meeting the Financial Capacity for applied location (Narela) as per

provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.









S.No.


Project Code







Check on ownership





Total

Experience Score

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

JKG Infratech Pvt Ltd and Six Laning of Gurgaon-Kotputli-Jaipur Section of NH-8 (DBFOT-Design Build Finance Operate Transfer)

1a 2 0.000 0.000 26.950 26.950

26.950 Yes Yes 4 26.950 26.950

13.48

2

Development of Land (For Real State)

1b 4 14.980 0.000 0.000 14.980

7.490

No Yes



3

Work of Regional water supply scheme of 199 villages and their habitations. Sub Head:- Restoration of Road

1c 4 11.180 0.000 0.000 11.180

5.590 Yes

4 11.180

11.18

5.59

4

Ahuja and Anand Buidwell Pvt Ltd and World Square Mall Construction (Real State Project)

2a 4 153.460

0.000 0.000 153.460

76.730 Yes

Yes 4

153.460

153.46

76.73


206.570

116.760

191.59

95.80











1 Narela 92.00 191.59 Yes 95.80

Clarifications Sought:

1. Kindly clarify the Net Worth claimed in the Statutory Auditors certificate vis a vis the Financial Statements for M/s SSR Buildcon. Clarifications furnished:

1. The applicant has furnished the statutory auditor certificate with net worth calculation details.

FINAL STATUS: PRE QUALIFIED



(xiv) SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LTD


Table 14.1

S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield

To qualify for all the projects the Applicant should have a Financial Capacity of Rs.62.25 crore and a Thresh Hold Technical Capacity of Rs. 94.00

Crore




Submitted (page 344)




Submitted MOA & AOA (Page 110 to Page 205) for Sree Shubham Not submitted for Kalpataru Transmission


Submitted (Page 8)


5 Appendix I - Annexure III Financial Capacity of the Applicant FC submitted (Page 10 to Page 12)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted for five years (Page 209 to Page 338) for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Net Worth Certificate submitted (Page 12 to 13)





Project Experience certification Submitted (Page 14 to Page 105)


submitted by company secretary ( but not from company) (Page 106)



POA submitted (Page 206 to page 208), BR submitted (Page 343 to Page 345)


NA

10 Appendix IV Joint Bidding Agreement NA


Yes









Remarks

1 Shree Shubham Logistics Ltd

82.08 Present Submitted the statutory auditor’s certificate and audited financial statements. The applicant is meeting the minimum net worth criteria.

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Shree Shubham Logistics Ltd is positive and is meeting the Financial Capacity for all of

the locations applied for either individually or in any combination as per provisions of clause 2.2.2 (B) of the RFQ.









S.No.


Project Code







Check on ownership






Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

Shree Shubham Logistics and Construction of Warehouse at Devas, Madhya Pradesh

a 1 0.000 20.56 1.44 22.00 27.50 Yes Yes Yes 0.00 20.56 1.44 22.00 27.50

Construction of Warehou

b 1 0.000 12.990 0.870 13.86 17.325 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 12.990 0.870 13.86 17.32



se at Harda, Madhya Pradesh

Construction of Warehouse at Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh

c 1 0.000 11.15 1.06 12.21 15.263 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 11.150 1.060 12.21 15.263

Construction of Warehouse at Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh

d 1 0.000 14.880 0.470 15.35

0 19.188 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 14.880 0.470 15.35 19.188

Construction of Warehouse at Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh

e 1 0.000 12.220 0.370 12.59

0 15.738 Yes Yes Yes 0.000 12.220 0.370

12.590

15.738

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Bina-Pichore Transmission Line.

f 4 85.740 0.000 0.000 85.74

0 42.870 Yes Yes Yes 85.740 0.000 0.000

85.740

42.870



EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Krishnapatnam-Gooty Transmission Line.

g 4 195.88

0 0.000 0.000

195.880

97.940 Yes Yes Yes 195.88

0 0.000 0.000

195.880

97.940

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Silwar-Satna Transmission Line.

h 4 159.63

0 0.000 0.000

159.63

79.815 Yes Yes Yes 159.63

0 0.000 0.000

159.630

79.815

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Satna-Bina

i 4 183.98

0 0.000 0.000

183.980

91.990 Yes Yes Yes 183.98

0 0.000 0.000

183.980

91.990



Transmission Line.

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Gaya-Sasaram Transmission Line.

j 4 94.860 0.000 0.000 94.86

0 47.430 Yes Yes Yes 94.860 0.000 0.000

94.860

47.430

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Kaithal-Meerut Transmission Line.

k 4 66.220 0.000 0.000 66.22

0 33.110 Yes Yes Yes 66.220 0.000 0.000

66.220

33.110

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection

l 4 93.160 0.000 0.000 93.16

0 46.580 Yes Yes Yes 93.160 0.000 0.000

93.160

46.580



of Champa Pooling Station (PS)-Kurukshetra Transmission Line

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Subhansiri-Biswanath Chariyali Transmission Line

m 4 146.06

0 0.000 0.000

146.060

73.030 Yes Yes Yes 146.06

0 0.000 0.000

146.060

73.030

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Gopalganj-Gorakhur Transmis

n 4 156.89

0 0.000 0.000

156.890

78.445 Yes Yes Yes 156.89

0 0.000 0.000

156.890

78.445



sion Line

EPC Project for Transmission Line to wer supply, installation and erection ofVidhyacal-Korba for 400KV D/C Transmission Line from 2*600 MW Mahan TTP (Madhya Pradesh) to Sipat (Chattisgarh) Transmission Line.

o 4 335.25

0 0.000 0.000

335.250

167.625

Yes Yes Yes 335.25

0 0.000 0.000

335.250

167.625

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and

p 4 298.71

0 0.000 0.000

298.710

149.355

Yes Yes Yes 298.71

0 0.000 0.000

298.710

149.355



erection of Akola-Aurangabad Transmission Line

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Koldam-Ludhiana Transmission Line

q 4 96.350 0.000 0.000 96.35

0 48.175 Yes Yes Yes 96.350 0.000 0.000

96.350

48.175

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Chamradol-Satna Transmission Line

r 4 73.540 0.000 0.000 73.54

0 36.770 Yes Yes Yes 73.540 0.000 0.000

73.540

36.770

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower

s 4 140.19

0 0.000 0.000

140.190

70.095 Yes Yes Yes 140.19

0 0.000 0.000

140.190

70.095



supply, installation and erection of Angul Pooling Station-Jharsuguda Pooling Station Transmission Line

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Gwalior-Jaipur Transmission Line

t 4 75.720 0.000 0.000 75.72

0 37.860 Yes Yes Yes 75.720 0.000 0.000

75.720

37.860

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Babhaleshwar-Kudus

u 4 347.97

0 0.000 0.000

347.970

173.985

Yes Yes Yes 347.97

0 0.000 0.000

347.970

173.985



and Padhghe-Tarapur Transmission Line

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Raipur-Wardha Transmission Line

v 4 235.22

0 0.000 0.000

235.220

117.610

Yes Yes Yes 235.22

0 0.000 0.000

235.220

117.610

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Kanpur-Jhatikara (Part-1) Transmission Line

w 4 164.50

0 0.000 0.000

164.500

82.250 Yes Yes Yes 164.50

0 0.000 0.000

164.500

82.250

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply,

x 4 171.06

0 0.000 0.000

171.060

85.530 Yes Yes Yes 171.06

0 0.000 0.000

171.060

85.530



installation and erection of Kanpur-Jhatikara (Part-11) Transmission Line

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Vapi-Navi Mumbai and Navsari-Boisar Transmission Line

y 4 121.57

0 0.000 0.000

121.570

60.785 Yes Yes Yes 121.57

0 0.000 0.000

121.570

60.785

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Gwalior-Jaipur Transmission Line

z 4 249.83

0 0.000 0.000

249.830

124.915

Yes Yes Yes 249.83

0 0.000 0.000

249.830

124.915



EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Kurnool-Thiruvalam (Part-11) Transmission Line

aa 4 165.16

0 0.000 0.000

165.160

82.580 Yes Yes Yes 165.16

0 0.000 0.000

165.160

82.580

EPC Project for Transmission Line tower supply, installation and erection of Kurnool-Thiruvalam (Part-111) Transmission Line

ab 4 200.29

0 0.000 0.000

200.290

100.145

Yes Yes Yes 200.29

0 0.000 0.000

200.290

100.145

EPC Project "Supply and Installation of extra high voltage

ac 4 1089.2

30 0.000 0.000

1089.230

544.615

Yes Yes Yes 1089.2

30 0.000 0.000

1089.230

544.615



transmission overhead lines"


5023.020

2568.518

5023.02

2568.518








1 Kotakapura 68.00 5023.02 Yes 2568.51

2 Sahnewal 90.00 5023.02 Yes 2568.51

3 Narela 92.00 5023.02 Yes 2568.51

4 Kathiar 90.00 5023.02 Yes 2568.51

5 Changsari 94.00 5023.02 Yes 2568.51

6 Whitefield 64.00 5023.02 Yes 2568.51


1. Please clarify the shareholding of the associate M/s Kalaptaru Power transmission in the claimed EPC Project.


1. The applicant vide letter dated 27th July 2015 has clarified the same that shareholding is not required in case of category 4 projects.


document)



(xv) SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT. LTD


Table 15.1

S.No Locations

1 Kotakapura

2 Sahnewal

3 Narela

4 Kathiar

5 Changsari

6 Whitefield


crore.

Review of Submitted Documents



Submitted (Page 1)




Submitted (Page 289 to Page 308) Not submitted for Leap energy


Declaration in form of Not Applicable


5 Appendix I - Annexure III Financial Capacity of the Applicant (Net Submitted (Page 9 to page 11)



Worth)

5a Audited five years annual reports Submitted five years audited financial statements for Si Karthikeay and associate Leap Energy for FY 09-14) (Page 40 to page 288)

5b Statutory Auditor/Auditor certificate Submitted by statutory auditor for M/s Karthikeya 31

st March 2014(Page

10) and Auditor certificate for associate



Project Experience certification Submitted by statutory auditor for (Page 20) Self-attested by parent company (Page 21 to Page 27). Need to be certified by statutory auditor


Submitted (Page 31 to 35)

7 Appendix I - Annexure V Statement of Legal Capacity Submitted (Page 28)


Submitted (Page 36 to page 37) Board Resolution not submitted


Not applicable



Yes





The applicant (Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited) using the net worth credentials of an associate M/s Leap Green Energy Private

Limited along.







Remarks

1

Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited

13. 85 Statutory Auditors certificate

Submitted the statutory auditor’s certificate and last five years audited financial statement for Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited

3.

Associate: M/s

Leap Green Energy Private Limited.

684.22 Submitted

The applicant has submitted the auditors certificate of an associate i.e. Leap Green Energy Private Limited and also submitted last five years audited financial statements

It is observed from the above table that the Net Worth of M/s Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited is Rs.13.85 crore as on 31st

march 2014 based on the statutory auditor certificate and audited financial statements. The associate i.e Leap Energy’s net worth of Rs.684.22 crore

as on 31st march 2014 as per the auditor’s certificate,

Based on the verified net worth of Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited and associate i.e M/s Leap Energy, the applicant

fulfilling the financial capacity for all the applied locations







Technical capacity shown by the Applicant

(Rs in crore) Technical capacity corrected (Rs. in crore)

S.No.


Project Code


Payments

made/ receive

d for construction of Eligible Project

s in Categor

ies 3 and 4

Payments made


in Categori

es 1 and 2

Revenues

appropriated from

Eligible

Projects in

Categories 1 and 2



Check on ownership






Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 Wind Mill

a 2 0.000 54.690 0.000 54.69 54.69

No

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0

FY14-15 not considered

2 Wind Mill

b 4 25.480 0.000 0.000 25.48

0 12.74 Yes Yes 4 25.480 0.000 0.000 25.48 12.74

3 Wind Mill

c 4 18.720 0.000 0.000 18.72

0 9.36 Yes Yes 4 18.72 0.000 0.000 18.72 9.36

.



4 Wind Mill

d 4 27.720 0.000 0.000 27.72

0 13.86

0 Yes Yes 4 27.720 0.000 0.000 27.72 13.86

5 Wind Mill

e 4 56.090 0.000 0.000 56.09 28.04

5 Yes Yes 4 56.090 0.000 0.000 56.09

28.045

6 Wind Mill

f 4 50.590 0.000 0.000 50.59 25.29

5 Yes Yes 4 50.590 0.000 0.000 50.59

25.295

7 Wind Mill

g 4 64.640 0.000 0.000 64.64

0 32.32

0 Yes Yes 4 64.640 0.000 0.000 64.64

32.320

8 Wind Mill

h 4 58.020 0.000 0.000 58.02

0 29.01

0 Yes Yes 4 58.020 0.000 0.000 58.02

29.010



Total

(Rs. In crore)

355.9

5 205.3

2

301.26

150.63

It is observed from the above table that from M/s Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private as an applicant is meeting the Technical

Threshold Capacity criteria


Based on the examination of the clarifications submitted by the applicant and in pursuance of clause 2.2.2 (A) of the RFQ, the Applicant, may be






1 Kotakapura 68.00 310.26 Yes 150.63

2 Sahnewal 90.00 310.26 Yes 150.63

3 Narela 92.00 310.26 Yes 150.63

4 Kathiar 90.00 310.26 Yes 150.63

5 Changsari 94.00 310.26 Yes 150.63

6 Whitefield 64.00 310.26 Yes 150.63


1. The submitted POA is not supported by Board Resolution. 2. As per the provisions of the RFQ document, if the Applicant owns the project the Statutory Auditor should certify as per the provisions of Instruction no. 14 (special notes to the instruction mentioned) of Annex-IV of Appendix – I whereas the experience certificate submitted by the parent company is self-attested




The applicant vide letter dated 30th July 201 has furnished the documents against the mentioned Clarification’s;

1. Furnished the copy of the board resolution in support of PoA.

2. The applicant has provided the statutory certification for the claimed projects.


document.



4. CONCLUSION:

The RFQ application submitted by the 21 applicants against the RFQ floated for the project “Development of Silos at 6 locations in 5 states of India

on DBFOT basis under PPP mode” and subsequently clarifications were sought from the applicant for finalization of the RFQ evaluation process.

Based on the evaluation of the clarifications submitted by the applicant, the final status of 21 applicants are presented in the table given below:

Table A

S.No. APPLICANT Number of Locations applied for Result

1. ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD (5)

Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR and WHITEFIELD (5)

2. ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD

NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2) Not qualified

3. CHICAGO CONSTRUCTION CO INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED Not qualified

4. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD


Prequalified for KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

5. GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE NARELA, SAHNEWAL AND CHANGSARI (3) Prequalified NARELA, SAHNEWAL AND CHANGSARI (3)

6. JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED NARELA (1) Pre-qualified for NARELA

7. LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

Not qualified

8. LT FOODS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

Not qualified

9. NATIONAL COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED


Not qualified

10. OM METALS INFRAPROJECTS LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

Not qualified

11. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD



12. OSR INFRA PVT. LTD KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)

Not qualified

13. PRISTINE LOGISTICS & INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD


Not qualified

14. SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED KOTAKAPURA, NARELA, SAHNEWAL, KATIHAR, WHITEFIELD AND CHANGSARI (6)


15. SOMA PUNJAB WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED


Not qualified



L

Location Wise Prequalification Details

S.NO. APPLICANT KOTAKAPURA NARELA SAHNEWAL KATHIAR CHANGSARI WHITEFIELD

1. ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3. GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE

Yes Yes

Yes

4. JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED Yes

5. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

6. SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

7. SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

8. STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Yes

9. SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Yes

Yes

10. TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

FINAL LIST OF PREQUAIFIED APPLICANTS FOR EACH LOCATION 6 9 7 6 6 8

16. SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT LTD INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED Not qualified

17. SRC COMPANY INFRA PVT LTD WHITEFIELD (1) Not qualified

18. SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD



19. STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED


Prequalified for WHITEFIELD only

20. SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2) Prequalified for NARELA AND WHITEFIELD (2)

21. TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD





Location wise ranking details of the pre-qualified applicants are given below:

1. Kotakapura

S.NO. APPLICANT Score Ranking

1 ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD 6510.35 1

2 SHREE SHUBHAM LOGISTICS LIMITED 2568.51 2

3 DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD 741.57 3

4 TOTAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD 311.45 4

5 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD 150.63 5

6 ADANI AGRI LOGITICS LIMITED 92.06 6

2. Narela





4 GAWAR - ELL ESS JOINT VENTURE 505.03 4

5 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 451.07 5



8 JKG INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED 95.8 8




3. Sahnewal









4. Katihar






5 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD

150.63 5




5. Changsari







6 SRI KARTHIKEYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS PVT LTD

150.63 6

6. Whitefield





4 SUDHEEKSHA WAREHOUSE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 451.07 4




8 STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED

53.61 8