PUNJAB ROAD SECTOR PROJECT, PHASE-2
CONSTRUCTION OF ROBs
PRE-BID MEETING HELD ON 10.05.2006
Details/record of discussion held in the pre-bid meeting on 10.5.2006 (11:00 AM) in the
committee room of Punjab Infrastructure Development Board, SCO 89-90, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh.
The following were present in addition to members of the Sectoral Sub Committee (Road Sector):
Representatives of Agency
1. Sh. P.P. Arashu, Area Manager,
M/s Gammon India Ltd.
2. Sh. M.S. Bhatt, Project Manager,
M/s Valecha Engg. Ltd., Mumbai
3. Sh. Pawan Gupta,
M/s Amarnath Aggarwal, Panchkula.
4. Praveen Gupta, M/s S.P. Singla Cont. Pvt. Ltd.,
Panchkula.
5. Sh. Y.R. Bajaj, CE,
M/s Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd.,
6. Sh. J. Sharma, M/s J.C. Gupta.
7. Sh. R. Goel, Partner, JV,
M/s Anil Kumar Gupta,
8. Sh. Jagdeep Singh, Director,
M/s R.S. Infrastructure.
9. Sh. S.K. Sharma,
M/s U.A.N.R.C. JV, Ltd.
10. Sh. Hardeep Singh, CEO, M/s MSK Projects.
11. Sh. C. Surendran, CEO, M/s MSK Projects.
12. Sh. S.P. Singla, M/s S.P. Singla, Panchkula.
13. Sh. Ashok Kumar, GM, M/s R.S.I.
Sr.
No.
Punjab PWD B&R Branch
1. Sh. T.S. Chahal, EE, Const. Divn. Malerkotla
2. Sh. P.K. Goyal, EE, Provl. Divn. No. 1, Patiala.
3. Sh. Sher Mohd. EE, Provl. Divn. Sangrur.
4. Sh. G.R. Bains, EE, Const. Divn. No. 1, Hoshiarpur.
5. Sh. Anil Gupta, EE (D-II), O/o CE, Patiala.
6. Sh. Vipan Bansal, SDE, Batala.
7. Sh. S.L. Bassi, SDE, Beas.
M/s RITES Ltd.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sh. S.K. Aich, JGM.
Sh. M. Sridhar, DGM.
Sh. O.P. Kapoor. GM.
Sh. Sanjay Bhargava, Assistant GM.
Question
Clarifications
M/s GAMMON INDIA LTD. letter dated 09.05.2006
(A) General Technical Specifications (Common)
1.
The width of the crash barrier for ROB at Patiala is given as
Section shown in the GAD for respective works
0.5m whereas the same for ROBs at Beas & Dhuri is given as
shall be adopted.
0.55m. We request that a common width of crash barrier may
make applicable for all the ROBs.
2.
The height of the electric poles is given as 10.0m for ROB at Height of electric poles above deck slab shall be
Patiala and 8.0m for ROB at Dhuri & Beas. Please clarify kept 8.0m in all ROBs.
whether all can be considered as 8.0m high.
3.
The conditions of expose have been mentioned as severe to Moderate conditions are to be considered.
moderate. As Punjab lies in moderate zone we presume the
same can be made applicable for design.
4.
Please specify whether retaining wall for approaches are RC As per DNIT the option of reinforced earth/RCC
retaining wall or RE walls. Also please provide the detailed retaining walls is available. For reinforced earth
specifications for reinforced earthwork.
work the specification as per MORT&H shall be
followed.
5.
Please clarify whether the lap lengths can be provided as per As per DNIT
IRC:21 instead of 63d, mentioned in the documents.
6.
Please provide a detailed sketch of the view cutter mentioned Description of item already detailed on Page 75
in pg. no.75 of ROB at Patiala.
(Para-4). Sketch appended and can also be
downloaded from website.
7.
CI. 1.5 of Technical Specifications: As per code Ludhiana, As per DNIT
Bathinda & Patiala are in Zone-III. We presume the horizontal
seismic coefficient for all 3 ROBs to be evaluated as per this
zone.
8.
CI. 5.4 of Technical Conditions Seismic coefficient for The words “seismic coefficient shall be
bearings: As the latest amendments to IRC 6-2000 already doubled” at the end of clause 4.5 of Technical
take into account the higher seismic coefficient, please clarify Condition stand deleted.
whether it is necessary to double the seismic coefficient for
bearings.
In view of the exte3nsive work involved including the
strengthening & widening of roads, etc. we request you to
extend the date of tender submission to 13 th June, 2006 i.e. by
3 weeks from 23rd May, 2006.
ROB at Dhuri
Shall be considered and communicated with the
corrigendum.
Page 1 of 4
PUNJAB ROAD SECTOR PROJECT, PHASE-2
CONSTRUCTION OF ROBs
i)
ii)
The length of stilt portion shown in drawing is 9 x 20.415 =
193.32m at Sangrur side and in pg72 in the work description it
is mentioned as 163.32m. Please clarify.
In the Sherpur side arm, the total length as per drawing is
398.28m with 188.92m solid fill whereas as per pg 72 cl. (A)
(iii) the total length is 400.58m with 171.23m solid fill. Please
clarify.
iii)
In the longitudinal section of ramp towards Sherpur side the
ground levels are in the range of 999m and proposed road
levels are in the range of 239m. Please clarify these
discrepancies.
iv)
In the longitudinal section of the main ROB the same
discrepancies as in (iii) above are found in the existing ground
levels and proposed road levels at the Sangrur end. Please
clarify.
v)
Page 74 cl. (D) (iii): Please furnish the location of the slab type
culvert in the drawing and the details of the same.
PRE-BID MEETING HELD ON 10.05.2006
Length 163.32m has already been correctly
indicated in DNIT.
Drawing appended with DNIT are being revised
and issued as a corrigendum. Copy of
corrigendum/
amendment can
also
be
downloaded from PIDB website.
Location has been indicated in DNIT. The span
arrangement shall be kept same as of the
existing culvert to be widened.
ROB at Beas
i)
The proposed road levels, chainage and existing ground
levels are not given in the drawings. Kindly furnish the same.
Already correctly indicated in GAD appended
with DNIT.
ii)
In pg. No. 74 cl. (D) of section 4, Contract Data – Diversion
Roads, the width of the diversion roads and the position of the
same is not furnished in the drawings. Please clarify.
The width of the diversion road is to be 5.5 m
(Metalled portion) with 1.5m wide earthen
shoulders on either side.
ROB at Patiala
i)
Page No. 74 clause (A) first paragraph, construction of service
roads, maximum width 7.0/5m mentioned. Please clarify the
chainages for 7.0m wide service roads and 5.50m wide
service roads.
The chainage of service road with respect to
width of 7.0/5.5m is already clear in the GAD
appended with DNIT.
Drawing appended with DNIT are being revised
and issued as a corrigendum. Copy of
corrigendum/
amendment can
also
be
downloaded from PIDB website.
Already clearly indicated in GAD for which
reference legend may be seen.
Drawing appended with DNIT are being revised
and issued as a corrigendum. Copy of
corrigendum/
amendment can
also
be
downloaded from PIDB website.
As per GAD.
ii)
Page No. 74 clause (B), second paragraph, widening of
leveled portion, width of widened portion s not mentioned.
Please clarify the same. Extra widening at `T’ junction for
construction of slip road 8.0m wide, improvement of circuit
house junction please clarify the area and location in GAD.
iii)
Page No. 74, third paragraph, strengthening of leveled portion,
please clarify the width of the same.
iv)
Page No. 111 clause No. 13, construction of footpath over
drain: Please clarify approximate depth of drains.
As indicated in Contract Data at page no. 75.
v)
Page No. 111 clause no. 14, filling of Rajwaha: Please clarify
the area to be filled and depth of filling.
vi)
In concept plan drawing on Sri Dukh Nivaran Sahib side:
Culvert for Rajwaha to be diverted before construction is
shown. Please clarify the scope of work for the same.
The length of existing Rajwaha also indicated in
GAD. Average width and depth are 1.8m and
0.75m respectively which may be verified at site
to assess the quantity of filling.
Not in the scope of work.
vii)
`
Page No. 111 clause No. 15, Construction of central verge on
both sides of approaches: Please furnish the corresponding
detailed sketch for central verge.
Already indicated in Contract Data item 9B page
76.
M/s MSK Projects (India) Ltd. letter dated 10.05.2006
1.
Refer Page No. 72 & 91 of Bid Document
While going through the above pages, on Page No. 72 Para-2
it is mentioned that
“the solid fill portion shall be retain by reinforced
earth/RCC retaining wall adequately anchored in ground”,
Clause 5.6.3 of Technical Condition in line 3.
“RCC retaining walls” should be read as
“Reinforced Earth/RCC retaining wall”.
Page 2 of 4
PUNJAB ROAD SECTOR PROJECT, PHASE-2
CONSTRUCTION OF ROBs
whereas on Page No. 91 vide clause 5.6.3 it is mentioned that
“the solid fill shall be retained by construction of
conventional RCC retaining walls”.
We request you to please clarify that which type of retaining
structure to be provided for solid fill portion.
2.
Refer Page No. 92 of Bid Document :Refer Clause 6.6 “Abutment/Dirt Wall”
As per this clause the Abutment & Dirt Wall shall be designed
for no approach slab condition and have a minimum thickness
of 300m.
Please clarify that can we provide abutment by using
reinforced earth structure?
3.
Approval of GAD :We understand that PIDB/PWD Govt. of Punjab will obtain
approval of GAD from railway authorities.
We request you to clarify the above points and also we
understand that the clarifications given by you shall be
applicable for all ROBs as per NIT.
ROB at Beas
PRE-BID MEETING HELD ON 10.05.2006
Abutment and dirt wall shall be conventional
R.C.C. Structure.
Approval of GAD from Northern Railway has
been obtained.
i)
Slope of 1:35 on Batala side and 1:30 on GT roads
As per DNIT.
ii)
Some plantations on both sides of the road. It is under PWD
or Forest ? who will remove it?
Shifting of Power line by us or PWD?
The site clearance shall be as per provision of
DNIT.
The site clearance shall be as per provision of
DNIT.
iv)
For Diversion road, whether widening/strengthening of Box
culvert over canal is in scope at Baba Batala end?
Widening/strengthening of Box
envisaged in the scope of work.
v)
Is there any provision of service Road/approach to existing
shops users?
As per DNIT
vi)
Will there be official charges of supervision by PWD?
No
iii)
ROB at Sangrur
i)
Slope 1:35 OK?
ii)
Or 1:30
culvert
not
As per DNIT
iv)
JBK (Japan Project) Tree plantation. Removal in whose
scope. It may call for approval from Delhi.
55.0m Retaining Wall. Purpose? Should we construct (Part-A)
– Points levels for end (add in scope of work)
OFC shifting involved? Conduits seen at 600 stone
The site clearance shall be as per provision of
DNIT.
As per works specific corrigendum being issued
separately.
As per DNIT
vi)
Shifting of electrical line whose scope?
As per DNIT
iii)
vii) Existing culvert at Neat Beas. Dismantling & strengthening
viii) Location of Diversion road.
ix)
Sewerage – Diversion
x)
Diversion crossing at Railways – Facility of Railways shall be
borne by us?
1.
As per works specific corrigendum being issued
separately.
As per works specific corrigendum being issued
separately
As per DNIT
Cost towards making suitable arrangement for
providing temporary crossing for Railway portion
shall be borne by Railways and/or PWD/PIDB.
M/s Valecha letter dated 09.05.2006
We request your good-self to kindly extend the last date for Shall be considered and communicated with the
submission of bids from 23.05.2006 to 08.06.2006 (i.e. 15 corrigendum.
days) since the scope of work is of design and construct which
will take same.
M/s S.P. Singla Pvt. Ltd.
Commercial Points
1.
2.
All Cash Securities deducted from work done bills should be
converted into Bank Guarantee from time to time and cash
deducted should be released thereby.
The Department should remove all over-head and
underground utilities whatever to facilitate uninterrupted
progress of work.
As per DNIT.
As per DNIT.
Page 3 of 4
PUNJAB ROAD SECTOR PROJECT, PHASE-2
CONSTRUCTION OF ROBs
3.
a)
b)
c)
The date start should be considered from the date when the
complete site free from all encumbrances is handed over to
us.
PRE-BID MEETING HELD ON 10.05.2006
As per DNIT
M/s Madhava – Brahamputra Consortium Ptd. (JV)
The bid security has been asked in the shape of FDR/Deposit As per DNIT
at call receipt.
It is requested that the Bid Security may please be allowed in
the form of Bank Guarantee as the same is being allowed by
the GOP/PIDB in other tenders.
Reference clause 4.4 on serial page no. 6 of the tender As per DNIT
documents:
It is stated that in case of consortium, the lead member will
have to individually meet the pre-qualification criteria.
It is submitted that in a joint venture/consortium the collective
experience/financial
requirements
of
the
members,
simultaneously fixing the minimum requirements of the lead
member and other members, may please be allowed.
It is submitted that the work involves the total design of the Shall be considered and communicated with the
ROBs for which our consultants are likely to take some time. It corrigendum.
is requested that the time of submission of the bid may please
the extended by fifteen days.
Page 4 of 4