‘Selection of Consultants for Analysing the Feasibility of ...tourism.gov.in/sites/default/files/RESPONSE TO PRE... · New Delhi- 110001 Minutes of the Pre-bid Meeting held on 07.05.2019

Government of India

Ministry of Tourism

(Swadesh Darshan Division)

Transport Bhawan,

1, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi- 110001

Minutes of the Pre-bid Meeting held on 07.05.2019 at 1530 hrs. in Ministry of Tourism

for ‘Selection of Consultants for Analysing the Feasibility of Development of Special

Tourism Zones in India’

A pre-bid meeting regarding ‘Selection of Consultants for Analysing the

Feasibility of Development of Special Tourism Zones in India’, was held on 07.05.2019,

at 1530 hrs. under the Chairmanship of Sh. Suman Billa, Joint Secretary, M/o Tourism,

Government of India. Queries were received from the following agencies during aforesaid

meeting/ through email:

a. INMAAS

b. Darashaw

c. Grant Thornton

d. Almondz Global SL

e. Asfee Infra Management Associates Pvt. Ltd.

f. KPMG

g. iDECK

h. CRISIL

i. BCG

j. aXYKno

k. Creative Footprints

l. TSCPL

m. Feedback Infra

n. P.W.C.

o. JLL

p. Anarock

q. Deloitte

r. Fore Consultants

s. CBRE

t. Innovest Advisory Services

u. ADSH Advisory and Analytics

The queries raised by the participants in the meeting were discussed and noted. The

representatives were informed that the pre-bid queries received by the Ministry of

Tourism would be uploaded on the CPPP portal and website www.tourism.gov.in.

http://www.tourism.gov.in/

Replies to the Pre-Bid Queries received

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by

Request for Clarification / Change Reply to query

1 2.1.1 7 IDECK We request you to allow participation by Consortium of firms. We understand from the RFP that international projects undertaken by the Bidder will be given more weightage (5 marks) during evaluation and scoring as against the projects undertaken in India (3 marks). Hence, allowing Consortium participation will provide an opportunity for Indian firms to collaborate with International firms/ other Indian firms with international experience and leverage their International experience for qualifying and quality execution of the assignment, on selection. Vice versa, International firms will also get an opportunity to collaborate with Indian firms and leverage their local presence and better understanding of the market conditions for quality execution of the assignment, on selection.

No change in RFP.

2 2.2.2 7 IDECK We request you to increase the minimum turnover criteria for better participation by competitive and financially stable bidders, as follows: (B) Financial Capacity: The Applicant shall have minimum annual average turnover of INR 20 Crore from consultancy assignments during last three financial years (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) preceding the PDD.

No change in RFP.

3 3.1.4 b 23 IDECK Kindly clarify whether large Institutional Campus projects with an area of more than 100 acres, will be eligible under this category.

Yes

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


4 3.1.3 23 KPMG We request authority to provide break-up of marks for approach & methodology (write-up for proposal) and presentation.

As mentioned in RFP, conceptual clarity, understanding of the context, approach to the project and work plan and methodology will be considered while awarding marks for this component.

5 3.1.5 24 KPMG We request authority to consider the WO copies as an adequate proof of the project work along with fee received – certified by authorized signatory.

As per RFP.

6 3.1.6 24 KPMG As scope of services also includes planning and environmental impact assessment, we request authority to include planner and an environmental expert to be part of team which will be evaluated. We propose the team structure to be as below:

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


7 3.2 25 KPMG If the number of such pre-qualified Applicants is less than 3 (three), we request authority to pre-qualify only supplementary number of Applicants to ensure the number of pre-qualifies applicants to be 3.

No change in RFP.

8 Schedule-1 point 2

31 KPMG It is observed that sometimes significant time gets elapsed in-between submission and acceptance of reports which includes observations from the authority and carrying out compliance on the observations by consultants. Therefore, we request authority to reconsider the deliverable timelines incorporating time spent in the process for acceptance of the submitted report. We propose revised timelines to be as below:

The due date for next deliverable shall be counted from the date of comments / acceptance from the Authority.

9 Schedule-1 points 2,3

31 KPMG Acceptance of report milestone should be considered after complete compliance by the consultants on one (1) set of observations by the authority.

No change in RFP.

10 Schedule -2

32 KPMG The scheme is in its initial phase, and scope of services of this RFP only involves feasibility studies, therefore, we request authority to allow the consultant to engage with states/centre for any future works arising in the project.

As per RFP, there is no conflict of interest for any such future consulting engagement.

11 Schedule -2

32 KPMG A cooling off timeline of 3 months may be proposed by the authority to define recent connections

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


12 Schedule 2 point 5

33 KPMG As mentioned in the RFP itself that effective operation of ‘Chinese walls’ is a difficult proposition therefore, to ensure that there is no potential scope of any conflict of interest authority may completely reject the idea of ‘Chinese walls’ without having any exceptions.

No change in RFP.

13 3.1.5 24 BCG We have signed confidentiality agreements with our clients that limit our ability to disclose their names & the contracts / work orders with them. While we shall be happy to disclose the same where we are legally permitted to, we request you to accept the certificate with a brief description of our client (without disclosing their names), the nature of services we performed for them, the duration of the project and a tentative contract value duly attested by CA.

It is pertinent to furnish all the details about the assignments being submitted for evaluation of technical proposal.

14 General

NA BCG As per standard process, we will like to propose standard legal terms and provisions to be part of the contract in best interest of both the client and BCG. Attached is the legal document terms to be evaluated. (Refer attachment)

TORs will be as per RFP and the work order which will be issued for award of consultancy.

15 2.2.2 7 CRISIL We request the client to increase the minimum average annual turnover of INR 25 Crore for last three years and allow minimum firm experience of 10 years. Hence, allowing following changes to the ‘eligibility criteria’: (B) Financial Capacity: The Applicant shall have minimum annual average turnover of INR 25 Crore from consultancy assignments during last three financial years (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) preceding the PDD.

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


(C) Firm Experience: Consultancy Firms with minimum 10 years of experience preceding the PDD.

16 3.1.3 23 CRISIL Proposed scoring criteria looking into the project & draft scheme guidelines and also from the consultants Smart City Project Experience regarding the importance of project conceptualization and feasibility assessment stage we would like to propose the following:

S.N Criteria Marks

1 Relevant Experience of the Applicant

30

i. Experience in 3.1.4 (a)

15

ii. Experience in 3.1.4 (b)

15

2 Relevant Experience of the Team

45

i. Team Leader cum Planning Expert

15

ii.

Finance cum economic development Expert

10

iii. Environmental Expert

10

iv. Tourism Sector Expert

10

3

Proposed Approach & Methodology (including presentation)

25

Conceptual clarity/ Understanding of the context / Approach to the Project / Work

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


Plan & Methodology

Grand Total 100

17 3.1.4 24 CRISIL We request the client to allow extra marks for more than 5 projects in this category. Thereby allowing 3 marks per assignment in India and maximum of 27 marks for assignments in this category. (b) Experience of undertaking projects in India or abroad involving City level Perspective area planning / smart city plans / Industrial Corridors / SEZs / Aerotropolis and similar large area development planning projects with minimum area of about 100 acres. Should have consultancy fees of at least Rs. 25 Lakhs (each project) (3 marks each project undertaken in India & 5 marks for each international project. Maximum marks 27).

No change in RFP.

18 3.1.5 24 CRISIL In recent times, long term consultancy assignments have payment milestones for longer intervals. Also, as part of general government advisory practice many times these fees for the ongoing assignments are delayed for a longer period of time than scheduled payment milestone. So, we request the client to amend this clause as given below: Completion of assignments should be certified by completion certificates/ auditor certification of receipt of full payment of the assignment/ self-attestation by the authorized signatory. On-going assignments along with the supporting documents to be provided (Work Order, Client Letter, and Completion Certificate etc.) shall be considered.

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


19 3.1.5 24 CRISIL Since the Draft Scheme Guidelines for Development of STZ’s identify projects which are closer in commercial/urban domain we request you to consider project experience in transaction advisory for commercial sector to be considered as well.

No change in RFP.

20 3.1.6 24 CRISIL To complete the task mentioned in TOR it is important to have an Infrastructure cum Environmental Expert as part of the consultant team

No change in RFP.

21 2.2.2 7 Feedback Infra

Given the capacity required to undertake the assignment, the minimum turnover of the consultant should be higher. We recommend minimum eligibility criteria should be INR 100 Cr to attract the participation from serious consultants from multi-dimensional experience.

No change in RFP.


30 Feedback Infra

Would the consultant be required to do the feasibility study of one or multiple tourism economic zones

As per Terms of Reference under the RFP.

23 1.1.2 2 Grant Thortan

Schedule 1 mentions only the TOR along the Payment terms and Deliverables. Request you to provide Draft guidelines as well.

Please refer to Corrigendum no. 8-(02)/2018-SD dated. April 24th, 2019 published on the CPPP portal and uploaded on www.tourism.gov.in


Request you to allow the consortium (minimum of two members) to participate in the submission of Proposal

No change in RFP.

25 2.20. 18 Grant Thortan

This seems too high. Request you to kindly reduce the performance security to 5%

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by



Considering the overall scope of work for the assignment, we believe that more weightage shall be given to the Key personnel to be deployed for the assignment as compared to the Applicant’s Experience and the proposed Approach and Methodology. We, therefore request to consider the following: i. Relevant Experience of the Firm:

30 marks ii. Relevant Experience of the team:

40 Marks iii. Proposed Approach and

Methodology: 30 Marks

No change in RFP.

27 Schedule-1 point 2

30 Grant Thortan

In the light of the above, we would like to make the following submission: a. The major activities are dependent

on availability of officials of concerned departments and will require substantial time to carry out the above activities in various states.

b. Selection of the most suitable site/sites needs to be carried out on key site suitability parameters and destination competitiveness factors.

c. Detailed Feasibility Study of each site

d. Recommendation of the most suitable/viable sites for the integrated development of STZ

e. Hence, we request you to revise the Timeline as:

i. Inception Report – T+15 ii. Draft Feasibility Report –

T+90 iii. Stakeholder Consultation –

T+105 iv. Final Feasibility Report –

T+120

No change in RFP.


We believe that the criteria is too restrictive. Request you to kindly

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


allow/consider ongoing assignments irrespective of the % realization of fees


We request you to include the following team members:

Team Leader cum Planning Expert

Finance cum Economic Development Expert

Architect cum Infrastructure Planning Expert

(the expert will be responsible for land use assessment, conceptual planning and zoning of STZ, assessment of infrastructure, facility planning, costing etc.)

No change in RFP.

30 2.1 7 Almondz We would request you to modify the term “Applicant” meaning: Detailed description of the objectives, scope of services, Deliverables and other requirements relating to this Consultancy are specified in this RFP. In case an applicant firm possesses the requisite experience and capabilities required for undertaking the Consultancy, it may participate in the Selection Process either individually (the “Sole Firm”) or as a member of a Consortium of firms in response to this invitation the term applicant (the Applicant”) means the Sole Firm or the Consortium, as the case may be. The manner in which the Proposal is required to be submitted, evaluated and accepted is explained in this RFP.

As per provisions of RFP, consortium of firms is not allowed to participate.

31 2.1 7 Almondz We request you to Confirm the number of partners in “Joint Venture” / “Consortium”. Please Confirm

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


32 3.1.4 23 Almondz We request you to modify / amend it as: Experience in undertaking projects in India or abroad that demonstrate consultant’s capacity to undertake Central / State level Program management projects/ Design/ Feasibility involving multiple implementation agencies in infrastructure sectors. The projects should have consultancy fees of at least INR 1 Crore (each project) (2 marks each project undertaken in India & 5 marks for each international Project. Maximum marks 10)

No change in RFP.

33 3.1.4 23 Almondz Experience of projects in India or abroad involving City level Perspective area planning / smart city / Industrial Corridors / SEZs / Aerotropolis / similar large area development planning projects with minimum area of about 100 acres. Should have consultancy fees of at least INR 5 crores (each project) (5 marks for each project undertaken. Max Marks = 10)

34 3.1.5 24 Almondz We request you to accept it as: Completion / Ongoing assignments should be certified by completion certificates/ auditor certification of receipt of full payment of the assignment/ self-attestation by the authorized signatory.

No change in RFP.

35 2.19 17 aXYKno Exemption of payment of Bid /Tender Processing Fee, Earnest Money Deposit may please be allowed as per the special Provisions for Micro & Small-Scale Enterprises (MSME) for bidders having MSME Registration Certificate or allow EMD in the form of Bank Guarantee

As per provisions of Public Procurement Policy for MSEs, the exemption will be allowed, provided, the bidder furnishes the relevant

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


documents (circular / notification /certificate) for claiming exemption.

36 3.1.4 24 aXYKno 1. Please confirm whether City Level Development Planning Assignments or any Infrastructure Land Development Planning Projects will be considered in this category. 2. Similar Assignment value should not be considered for eligibility. Since the value is usually based on competitive bidding or negotiation, the criteria of fee received /receivable should not be considered for qualification /evaluation for better competitive participation Since most of the tenders are based on L1 basis, the value quoted by the bidders may not be commensurate with the value of the project cost. Instead of this the project cost of the similar assignment should be criteria for evaluation

As per provisions of RFP.


31 aXYKno Kindly relax the payment terms and provide 10-20% mobilisation advance.

No change in RFP.

38 2.1.1 7 Creative Footprints

It would be beneficial to allow Consortiums, as this expertise are typically not available with a single entity. Moreover, Consortiums are more responsible rather than one lead consultant accompanied by sub-consultants.

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


39 3.1.4a 23 Creative Footprints

1. With Master Plans for Non-Motorised Transport, which include preparation of Place Making Schemes, be considered eligible?

2. Will TOD Vision Plan be considered under this section?

3. Will TOD Master Planning for Railway station precinct considered eligible?

4. In case, a larger assignment has multiple parts, where each part qualifies, can this single project be granted points for each part and as a whole?


40 3.1.4b 24 Creative Footprints

1. Will TOD Master Planning for Railway station precinct considered eligible?

2. In case, a larger assignment has multiple parts, where each part qualifies, can this single project be granted points for each part and as a whole?



Typically, Master Planning projects take a long time to be completed. As such, even if the consultant has completed all works, the client may hold back the payments and not issue completion. In such cases, if the client certifies that bills to the tune of INR 15lakhs for category 3.1.4. (a) and INR 25 lakhs for category 3.1.4. (b) and equivalent works have been submitted by the consultant, will it qualify?



Will an Urban Designer who has worked with a notified planning authority, and worked on planning assignments, qualify?

As per RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by



31 Creative Footprints

Since these are calendar days and 1/3 of the days accounted for might by holidays, following updated deliverable schedule is recommended: 1. Inception report T+2 2. Draft Feasibility Report T+8 3. Stakeholder Consultation T+10 4. Final Feasibility Report T+15 Also, since payments are linked to acceptance and not submission, a note may be added that:

No change in RFP.


31 Creative Footprints

The Payment milestones may be aligned with deliverables: Consultancy fees as percentage of contract amount: 1. Acceptance of Inception report -

20% 2. Acceptance of Draft Feasibility

Report -40% 3. Completion of Stakeholder

Consultation - 15% 4. Acceptance of Final Feasibility

Report -25%

No change in RFP.

45 2.2.2 a 7 INMAAS We kindly request the client to consider a minimum of 3(Three) eligible assignments as specified in clause 3.1.4

No change in RFP.

46 2.2.2a 7 INMAAS We kindly request the client to consider a minimum annual average turnover of INR 05 Crores form the consultancy assignments during last five financial years preceding the PDD

No change in RFP.


30 INMAAS In order to have better understanding and to submit comprehensive technical proposal, we kindly request the client to submit comprehensive technical proposal, we kindly request the client to provide detail of zones. If any already been selected to be taken up under the study.

Please refer Terms of Reference under the RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by



31 INMAAS Considering the scope of work, we kindly request the client to consider the following deliverable schedule

1. Inception report -T+20 2. Draft Feasibility Report -T+75 3. Stakeholder Consultation -

T+85 4. Final Feasibility Report -

T+100

No change in RFP.


30 INMAAS Based on the review of detailed scope of work, we understand that there are no detailed field surveys / investigations required to develop field survey / investigations required to develop five special tourism zones (SEZ/STZ). We kindly request the client to confirm the same.

Please refer Terms of Reference under the RFP.


30 ASFEE Infra

Recommend that Ministry gives some more no. of potential STZ for analysing and preparation of FS

No change in RFP.

51 3.1.4 23 ASFEE Infra

Recommended that DPR & FS Projects of Road Sector etc. be considered as equivalent for evaluation. For FS projects, most of the factors for consideration remain the same.


52 3.1.6 24 ASFEE Infra

Recommended that DPR & FS Projects of Road Sector etc. be considered as equivalent for evaluation. For FS projects, most of the factors for consideration remain the same.

No change in RFP.

53 1.8 5 ASFEE Infra

Recommended that Extension of time by 2-3 weeks after issue of clarifications of points

No change in RFP.

54 2.2.2 7 Total Synergy

Request to consider lowering the minimum financial capacity for eligibility in this project to INR 3 Crore per annum instead of INR 5 Crores, so that the firms like us can also participate.

No change in RFP.

55 1.1.1 54 Darashaw Requesting you to provide the locations of the proposed five Special Tourism Zones across the country.

Please refer Terms of Reference

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


under the RFP.

56 2.16.3 16 Darashaw The appendix has only Form 1 – 10 and not Form 1-15. Kindly clarify?

There are only Forms 1-10 for technical proposal.

57 2.16.3 16 Darashaw Only form 1 and 2 are provided in the financial proposal. Kindly provide Form 3 of Appendix-II

There are only Forms 1-2 for financial proposal.

58 2.20.1 18 Darashaw We request you to reduce the performance security to 5% of contract value

No change in RFP.

59 3.1.3 23 Darashaw The Approach & Methodology Marks are subjective in nature, which cannot be calculated by the bidders in self-analysis. It is felt that 45 marks for A&M are quite high as the proportion of subjective marking becomes high. Minimum qualifying score is 70 out of 100. Hence, it is requested that maximum marks for A&M should be kept limited to 25 – 30 and balance 70 – 75 marks to be given to firms experience and key experts (which is more objective in nature)

No change in RFP.

60 2.13.6 24 Darashaw The marking for team members seems to be subjective. We request you to further elaborate the basis for marks for experience etc. (for e.g. basis for allocation of 10 marks for team leader and 7 marks for finance cum economic development expert).

No change in RFP.


31 Darashaw We request you to change the timeline of deliverables as follows: 1. Inception Report T + 21 2. Draft Feasibility Report - T + 70 3. Stakeholders’ Consultation T + 80 4. Final Feasibility T + 120 Where T = date of signing of agreement or date of work order whichever is later. We request that T

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


should not be defined from the date of issue of LOA. A separate work order to be issued after signing of consultancy agreement.


31 Darashaw We request the authority to kindly release 75% of the Stage 2 payment on submission of Draft Feasibility Report and balance 25% on acceptance of the Draft Feasibility Report. Similarly, we request the authority to kindly release 75% of the Stage 3 payment on submission of Final Feasibility Report and balance 25% on acceptance of Final Feasibility Report.

No change in RFP.

63 General

NA PWC We request the following to be clarified:

Bidder’s overall liability should be capped at an amount not exceeding one time the fees paid to the bidder under this engagement without any exceptions and exclusions.

In no event should bidder be liable or responsible for any consequential, incidental, indirect, punitive, exemplary or special damages of any nature whatsoever.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby clarified that the relationship of bidder under this Agreement is solely with Client, and accordingly, no person who is not an executing party to this Agreement, shall have any rights to enforce this Agreement (whether in contract, tort or otherwise).

No change in RFP.

64 General

NA PWC We request the following to be clarified: We would need the Contract to specify that our deliverables are meant for Client's sole use and benefit; and that there would be no third-party

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


beneficiaries. This is standard consulting/ Big 4 practice.

65 2.3 9 PWC As per the general practice in Government consulting assignments, the Liquidated Damages for any breach of agreement should be subjected to a maximum of 5% of the Contract Value. Therefore, we request the authority to kindly consider modifying the referred clause to the following: “ Liquidated Damages for any breach of this agreement shall be subject to maximum of 5% of all the amounts due and payable to the consultant”

No change in RFP.

66 2.2 7 PWC We request the authority to kindly modify the requisite turnover for the firms in order to restrict the bidders to only firms with better quality and experience. Modified criteria requested: “The Applicant shall have minimum annual average turnover of INR 200 Crore from consultancy assignments during last three financial years (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) preceding the PDD”

No change in RFP.

67 3.1.4 23 PWC We request the authority to detail out the definition of eligible assignments under Tourism sector. Generally, tourism sector includes all assignments relating to Amusement parks, convention centres, hotels, museum / memorial parks etc. Please advise if our understanding is correct?

As per the provisions of RFP.

68 2.2 7 JLL We request you to consider as criteria, a minimum annual average turnover of not less than INR 50 crore from consultancy assignments during last three financial years (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) preceding the PDD

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


69 2.1.1 7 Anarock While our firm has been established 3 years ago, the team members are industry experts with vast experience in the field of consultancy. Considering the same, request the authority to kindly consider the bidding in Consortium

No change in RFP.

70 1.1.1 4 Deloitte Is a single anchor SPV in partnership with the States being envisaged or are separate SPVs envisaged with each State selected for the respective STZ? Please clarify.

Please refer the Terms of Reference of the RFP.

71 1.1.2 4 Deloitte Draft Scheme Guidelines are currently not enclosed with the TOR as Schedule-1. It is requested to kindly share the draft Scheme Guidelines at this stage for our better understanding of the assignment.

Please refer to Corrigendum no. 8-(02)/2018-SD dated. April 24th, 2019 published on the CPPP portal and uploaded on www.tourism.gov.in

72 2.2.2 7 Deloitte Considering the expertise required and special inputs in analysing the feasibility of development of STZ, it is suggested to increase financial criteria to minimum INR 50 Cr. for ensuring at par competition.

No change in RFP.

73 2.20 18 Deloitte It is requested to consider the Performance Guarantee as 05%, which is also a common practice in Consultancy assignments of such nature.

No change in RFP.

74 2.24.3 21 Deloitte It is requested to kindly clarify the tentative date / month for award of consultancy for confirming the availability of experts.

Please refer Clause 1.8, Pg. 5 of RFP

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


75 2.27 21 Deloitte We request you to kindly review this clause considering the following: 1. This assignment requires interactions and discussions in several rounds, especially with other stakeholders and MOT, considering this is a Scheme / Policy guideline. 2. Comments / suggestions from several stakeholder ministries / GOI Agencies, especially DIPP, DEA and Ministry of Finance are envisaged here. The timelines for availability of concerned stakeholders / meetings and receiving feedback /suggestions is beyond the control of the consultant. Whereas, without the same, it would not be possible to conclude the deliverables. As such, it is requested to kindly delete this penalty clause or agree that this will be applicable only in case of delay attributable to the Consultant and shall be reviewed on a case to case basis.

No change in RFP.

76 3.14 23 Deloitte It is our understanding that assignments pertaining to “Preparation of Development Plan” shall also be deemed as eligible assignments. Please confirm.

Yes, development plans are eligible.

77 3.1.5 24 Deloitte It is requested to also consider ongoing assignments where more than 60% of the work is completed and appropriately substantiated, irrespective of payments received. (in certain cases, payment milestones are deferred or also delayed due to funds availability and hence it is requested not to be linked). Please consider.

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


78 Schedule 1 point 1b

30 Deloitte It is our understanding that this shall be a desk study through secondary sources and shall be subject to any direct relevant cases and availability of data in public domain specifically pertaining to development structure related to finances, cost recovery, sustainability, environmental impact, re-settlement and rehabilitation of local population, etc. As such, this research shall be on best effort basis.


79 Schedule 1 point 1c

30 Deloitte Since this is a Policy / Guidelines level study, the following is requested: 1. Based on the review of global cases and review on the Indian / State context, practicalities, etc, the Consultant shall recommend the ideal area requirements and options (if need be considering the greenfield / brownfield or State / UT / Smaller States, etc cases). 2. We understand that a competition on lines similar to Smart City Challenge is envisaged to be run for selection of the 5 STZs, as such our interpretation of “likely locations” is the broad requirements / parameters for selection of likely locations. 3. Considering the objectives, we do not envisage the selection / shortlisting of sites at this juncture. Further, the drawing of criteria / evaluation mechanism for the challenge and running the same is also not envisaged in the scope of services. “Recommendation of area requirements and criteria / parameters for selection of likely Sites”

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


As such it is requested to consider rewording this as below: “Recommendation of area requirements and criteria / parameters for selection of likely Sites”


30 Deloitte Since this is a Policy / Guidelines level study, the following is requested: 1. For fulfilling the objective of this study, it would be more important to review the applicability of the guidelines for both scenarios, i.e. Greenfield and Brownfield with Pros & Cons (benefits & likely challenges) in each case, and recommend the various parameter that would mitigate issues in each case, for considering in guidelines, if need be. As such it is requested to consider rewording this as below: “Review the applicability of the guidelines for greenfield and brownfield scenarios and its benefits, challenges and recommend the suitability of the drawn guidelines and challenges with mitigation suggestions, if any, in each case”

No change in RFP.


30 Deloitte It is requested to kindly consider the following: 1. There may be a few challenges for

the envisaged assessment in case of brownfield case. Also, existing statistics pertaining to the same may not be available.

2. It is our understanding that the estimates shall be limited to only the projections for employment through the STZ.

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


As such it is requested to consider rewording this as below: “Projection of manpower requirement and employment generation potential”


30 Deloitte It is our understanding that since the locations are not identified at this stage, this would only be a broad identification of all likely impacts, that will need to be considered while carrying out an impact assessment for any selected location / site.



30 Deloitte It is our understanding that since the locations are not identified nor masterplans firmed up at this stage, the assessment of costing pattern shall be based on the global cases, consultant’s experiences, etc and would be a broad and preliminary projection only.

Please refer the Terms of Reference of the RFP


30 Deloitte It is requested to kindly consider the following: 1. since the locations (including greenfield / brownfield) are not identified nor masterplans firmed up at this stage, it would not be possible to carry out the detailing of financial models at this stage. However, for a policy / guidelines level assessment, the broad models of financing, quantum of government subsidy, economic benefit to Government from the scheme can be assessed. As such it is requested to consider rewording this as below: “Recommendation on financing models (VGF grants, equity, etc.), likely quantum of government subsidy / grants, loans, etc. and economic benefit from the Scheme”

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


85 Schedule 1 point 1d

31 Deloitte The following is requested please: 1. We understand that the stakeholder consultations meetings shall be held at New Delhi only. Please confirm. 2. Considering the involvement of Ministries, MOT would be in the best position for following up with the Stakeholders. The consultant shall however support the Ministry in the follow-up on best effort basis. 3. Since the timelines for response from stakeholders shall not be in the control of the Consultant, suitable consideration should be given to the Consultants timelines for the subsequent / linked activity & deliverable, without levy on any penalty unilaterally.

As per RFP and clarifications given above.


31 Deloitte Based on our experience, the timelines are very tight. We would also request you to kindly appreciate the following:

The study involves stakeholder interactions / consultations at intermittent stages.

The subsequent deliverables are linked to the approval / suggested changes on the previous deliverables.

It is our understanding that the suggestions / comments on the draft report will have to be incorporated in the final report and re-submission of updated draft report is not envisaged.

As such, we would request to kindly consider the following timelines:

Draft Feasibility Report : T+70

Stakeholder Consultation : T+80

No change in RFP.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


Final Feasibility Report : T1 + 25 (where T1 is date of receipt of comments / suggestions from all Stakeholders or date of receipt of go-ahead from MOT for proceeding with the Final Feasibility Report)


31 Deloitte We request to kindly consider the following payment schedule:

Acceptance of Inception Report – 20%

Submission of draft Feasibility Report – 30%

Acceptance of Draft Feasibility Report / receipt of comments from stakeholder for incorporation in Final

Feasibility Report – 30%

Acceptance of Final Feasibility Report – 20%

No change in RFP.

88 Schedule 2

32 Deloitte Considering that the Scope of Services of this RFP is limited to the review of guidelines only, we understand that there shall be no conflict of interest / restriction on the Consultant for participating in the following:

Any future consultancy services that the Ministry of Tourism or any other Ministry of the Government of India may envisage pertaining to STZs.

Any Consultancy role with the State Governments pertaining to the STZs, that may emerge in future.

Any Consultancy roles with any developer / implementing agenc(ies) in the STZ components / STZ.

As per RFP, there is no conflict of interest for any such future engagement.

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


Please consider.

89 2.24 20 Deloitte Please confirm whether a Consultancy Agreement will be entered into with the Selected Consultant. It is requested to kindly share the draft Consultancy Agreement.

Please refer to Clause 2.24 of RFP. TORs will be as per RFP and the work order which will be issued for award of consultancy.

90 General

NA Deloitte It is requested to kindly include the following clause: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the contract, Client agrees that the Consultant shall not be liable to Client, for any losses, claims, damages, liabilities, cost or expenses (“losses”) of any nature whatsoever, for an aggregate amount in-excess of the fee paid under the contract for the service provided under the contract, except where such losses are finally judicially determined to have arisen primarily from fraud or bad faith of the consultant. In no event shall the consultant, be liable for any consequential (including loss of profit and loss of data), special, indirect, incidental, punitive, or exemplary loss, damage or expense relating to the services provided pursuant to this contract.”

No change in RFP.

91 General

NA Deloitte The following is our general understanding pertaining to the Scope of Services:

The scope of services does not envisage any travel to any States

The timelines for conclusion of the assignment shall be as confirmed by the Ministry.

All Stakeholder interactions / meetings shall be led by the


S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


Ministry, duly considering the protocol requirement by other Ministries / Stakeholders

The scope of services does not envisage the role of drawing, the site selection criteria, the selection challenge, modalities and selection process.

The scope services does not envisage any market testing interviews, etc.

92 Schedule 1 point 1b

30 NA Pertaining to query raised during Pre-Bid Meeting held on 7th May 2019, with reference to numbers of Global Case Studies to be undertaken by the Selected Consultant.

The number of Global Case Studies to be undertaken as a part of engagement shall be at-least 5 (Five).

93 3.1.5 24 NA Pertaining to query raised during pre-bid meeting seeking clarification on documentary evidence in support of completed/ongoing assignments to be submitted by the bidders in technical proposal.

Completion of

assignments

should be

certified by

completion

certificates/

auditor

certification of

receipt of full

payment of

the

assignment/

self-attestation

by the

authorized

signatory.

On-going

assignments

for which 60%

of work has

been

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


completed,

along with

minimum of

60% fee

received shall

be considered,

provided the

above is

certified by the

authorised

signatory.

Supporting

documents to

be provided

include Work

Order, Client

Letter, and

Completion

Certificate/aut

horised

signatory’s

certification

etc.

94 3.4.1 25 NA Pertaining to Computation of Combined Scores in respect of MSEs with reference to query received regarding exemption from submission of EMD to MSEs.

The MSEs

bidding for the

project will be

governed as

per the

provisions of

GFR 2017 and

‘Manual for

Procurement

of

Consultancy &

Other

Services, 2017’

released by

S.No

Clause of RFP

Pg No

Query raised by


M/o Finance.

The

computation

of Combined

Score in

QCBS is given

at Annexure.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Proposal Due Date (PDD) has now been shifted to June 10th,

2019 (Monday). The timings for submission and opening of proposals shall remain

unchanged.

ANNEXURE

Computation of Combined Scores -

Combined Score = Bb = (0.8) * Tb + (0.2) x (Cmin / Cb *100); in case of non-

MSE bidders

(0.8) * Tb + (0.2) x (Cmin’ / Cb *100); in case of MSE

bidders

where

Cmin= minimum (min. quotation by Non- MSE bidders, min. quotation from MSE bidders)

Cmin’= minimum (min. quotation from MSE bidders, Cmin x 1.15)

The rest of the notations will retain their definitions as given in the RFP.

Documents

‘Selection of Consultants for Analysing the Feasibility of ...tourism.gov.in/sites/default/files/RESPONSE TO PRE... · New Delhi- 110001 Minutes of the Pre-bid Meeting held on 07.05.2019