UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND (GUARANTEE) LIMITED …usf.org.pk/FCKeditor/editor/filemanager/connectors/aspx/UserFiles/... · 6 Warid Telecom Usman Ishaq, Head of Franchise and Distribution

Page 1 of 33

UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND (GUARANTEE) LIMITED MINUTES OF THE PRE PROPOSAL MEETING

HELD ON NOVEMBER 15, 2007 AT 10:30 AM IN THE AMBASSADOR HALL, MARRIOTT HOTEL, ISLAMABAD.

Pre proposal meeting of Universal Service Fund (Guarantee) Limited was attended by representatives of various operators / prospective bidders. The panel of USF Co. representatives was as under: 1. Mr. Parvez, CEO, USF Co. 2. Mr. Tahir Javed, GM Finance. 3. Mr. Muzammil Akram, GM Law. 4. Mr. Asif Kamal, GM Projects and Technology. Following companies / organizations were presented by their representatives. Sr. No.

Organization Names of Representatives

1 Diallog(Great Bear International)

Maj (R) Kamil Khan, Director Corporate regulatory and public Affairs /Company Secretary Bareera Riaz, Assistant Regulatory Analyst

2 Mobilink Agha Muhammad Qasim, VP Corporate Affairs Aamir Khan, Director Planning (RF) Shahid Kaleem, Director Strategic Projects Malik Muhammad Imran, Head of Department Corporate Accounting Niaz Barohi, Head of Legal Affairs Col Kaleem, Manager Coordination Wuzhat Ali, Manager Marketing

3 Telenor Pakistan Abdul Mobeen, Director Interconnect and regulatory affairs Ali Sadozai, Director Legal Affairs and Company Secretary Saquib Tiwana, Regulatory Executive

4 PTCL Gul Ahmed, EVP Regulatory Affairs Sayyed Azhar Hassan, GM Stretegic Business Plan Abdul Rehman Durwesh, GM Strategic Projects

5 PTA Aasif Inam, Director Commercial Affairs Salman Baig, Deputy Director Technical

6 Warid Telecom Usman Ishaq, Head of Franchise and Distribution North Zameer Hussain, AM Interconnection Ameer Kamal Arif, Manager Sales Operations and Business Analysis Dr Bilal Rasool, AM Optimization Hadia Arshad, Economist

7 TEACH Engr.Ashiq Hussain Javed, Project Manager Engr Ahsan Jaffri

8 TEL-E-COM Shahid Haque 9 MOITT Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Director Telecom

Page 2 of 33

The meeting started with the recitation from Holy Quran. The CEO, USF Co. welcomed the worthy participants and gave brief introduction of the bidding process of three lots, changes in RFA /SSA and presented the detailed event schedule for three lots. The contents of the presentation of CEO are attached as Annexure I. After presentation, each panel member presented the questions received from different operators and gave the answers. Participants were then invited to raise any additional questions or clarifications regarding the bidding process of USF and comments on RFA and SSA. Most of the discussion that followed was based on previously asked questions in writing. However, some new questions and concerns were also raised. Summaries of the questions asked and their responses before the meeting as well as during the pre-proposal meeting are attached as follows: Annex-II: Questions and Answers Pertaining to Financial Aspects Annex-III: Questions and Answers Pertaining to Legal Aspects Annex-IV: Questions and Answers Pertaining to Technical Aspects Annex-V: Errata to the Schedule C of SSA for Three Lots GM Projects & Technology, Mr. Asif Kamal requested all operators to provide data on the locations of existing Network. This data is only for current and existing network and not for future plan. After Question & Answer session, the CEO USF Co., in his closing remarks, reiterated that the draft RFA and SSA documents would be reviewed in the light of comments and inputs of the stakeholders obtained through this meeting. He assured that any change in the documents would be communicated to all, in addition to placing them on the website. Continuing his closing remarks CEO informed participants about the draft Broadband Concept Paper which is available on USFCo’s Website. CEO said that feedback from the participant shall be highly regarded. At the end CEO invited the participants for Lunch and the meeting was concluded with vote of thanks.

Page 3 of 33

ANNEX-I

Page 4 of 33

Page 5 of 33

Page 6 of 33

Page 7 of 33

Page 8 of 33

Page 9 of 33

Page 10 of 33

ANNEX_II

Questions and Answers Pertaining to Financial Aspects

SR. NO. Document Clause No. Query USFCo's Reply

1. Registration Form

Is the registration form to be filled up for each lot or one registration form would suffice for all the three lots? In case of individual registration for each lot would the bidder require to enclose pay order as registration fee?

Since all lots are completely individual lots, therefore, separate Registration Forms along with separate Pay Orders (for each lot) will be required.

2.

As per the Services and Subsidy Agreement (“SSA”) clause 7.02, USF Service Provider is obligated to have insurance cover with in 30 days of the Effective date of SSA. Would there be relaxation/extension in the 30 days insurance period owing to the particular requirements of each commercial general liability and property insurance?

USFCo does not foresee a scenario where the USF service provider cannot arrange insurance policy within 30 days

3. RFA

A lien of USF Company will be created to the extent of subsidy amount on USF Network. Owing to financing requirements, could a further lien be created on USF Network with the prior written consent of USF Company?

No

4. RFA

Creation of specific lien on any equipment which is partially subsidized by USFCo is not practically possible considering our booking of costs and nature of the assets, as we cannot specifically allocate some equipment out of whole site according to percentage of subsidy received form USFCo. It is recommended to create equal 1st charge rank pari passu with other lenders upto amount of subsidy, which is practical and also secure USFCo upto extent of their percentage'.

Pari passu lien is not agreeable. USFCo will have exclusive lien on the USF Network to the extent of the amount of USF Subsidy. Such a lien arrangement has already been agreed with an operator in the Pilot Lot and should, therefore, not be an issue for the rest of the operators.

Page 11 of 33

5. RFA Is there any reserve price? There is no reserve price.

6. RFA 39(d)

Please clarify if bid bond shall be returned to the recipient of the LOI if the USF Services and Subsidy agreement is not signed and the recipient of the LOI is not responsible for the non-signing of the agreement.

all bid bonds will be returned at the appropriate stage in the process, unless a bidder had engaged in conduct that properly results in forfeit of the bid bond.

7. RFA 42.11

The 5 year projected financial statements required by USFCo are company sensitive documents and since the USFCo’s Board of Directors includes nominees from the Telecommunications operators, we maintain that this requirement should be withdrawn. The provision of equipment lien and proof of the financing capacity provided in response to Section 35 of the RFA should be sufficient to demonstrate the financial strength of the USF Service Provider required to finance the project and to provide USF service as per contractual requirements.

The required information is necessary in order to evaluate the financial standing of the company for the coming years. Essentially this purpose can be achieved by analysis of P&L, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow projections for the next 5 years. The reports submitted to USFCo for this purpose will be treated as confidential.

8. RFA 42.11

Whether USFCo should require the submission of these reports only by companies which are small in size and do not have a sound financial background or future outlook.

Since the USF rules are equally applicable on all the companies, therefore such application of rules cannot be allowed as this would amount to discrimination.

Page 12 of 33

RFA 42.11

Is the assessment of Financial Strength a key factor in deciding the award of contract? Lien and Performance Bond are enough to secure USFCo against any financial exposure.

It may be clarified that apart from securing USFCo against any financial exposure, it is the responsibility of USFCo to satisfy itself that the USF Operator has the financial capability to deliver and carry out its contractual obligations. Lien and performance bond act as remedy available to USFCo to protect itself against any financial exposure.

9. RFA 43(c) Please confirm if the upper limit for maximum USF subsidy amount proposal has been removed by USFCo.

There is no upper limit

10. RFA 48.5(b) New USF subsidy proposal should comply with the requirements of section 43 (and not 42) Observation is correct. Change being made.

11. RFA 49 USFCo should clearly specify the extent to which the project is partially or fully funded by the World Bank.

Offer of World Bank is under consideration. In case it is approved the bidders will be informed accordingly. However the referred clause still applies in substance.

12. RFA 49 Has USFCo made contingency plans to ensure that enough funds are available in case World Bank pulls out of the USF projects?

USFCo has enough funds at its disposal to cater for these 3 lots. Moreover since World Bank is not involved at this point in time, the question of them pulling out does not arise.

13. RFA 49 Would Schedule "G" still apply if World Bank is not involved in these lots?

A major part of Schedule "G" is designed keeping in view the local environmental laws. So in essence the Schedule "G" still applies.

14. RFA 55.1 Sections 56.5 and 56.6 should be referred in the last sentence of this clause (instead of clauses 33.5 and 33.6)

The clause is ok and does not need change.

Page 13 of 33

15. SSA 4.01

We maintain that the penalties need to be made more reasonable and in line with the extent of work left outstanding at the time of completion of the Final Implementation date. Details regarding the penalties should be mutually agreed between USFCo and the USF Service Provider in the USF Services and Subsidy Agreement.

All remedies are reasonable, however there would be no exercise of the remedies while any dispute resolution process was pending.

16. SSA 4.02

We maintain that the penalties need to be made more reasonable and in line with the nature and the extent (deviation from the acceptable value) of the QOS parameter(s) which is/are not met. Details regarding the penalties imposed for not meeting these parameters should be mutually agreed between USFCo and USF Service Provider in the USF Services and Subsidy Agreement.

All remedies are reasonable, however there would be no exercise of the remedies while any dispute resolution process was pending.

17. RFA

In part 3 of the RFA certain documentation has already been provided to USFCO in the pilot project bid such as operator’s operational experience, financial capability, license etc. Do we have to submit the same again? USFCo is requested to consider that the documents once provided may not be provided again.

The required documents will have to be submitted again. In future projects USFCo might reconsider. In order to facilitate the bidders, USFCo has decided to reduce the no. of copies (required under clause 45.1 of the RFA) from "Original + 4 copies" to "Original + 3 copies"

18. RFA

Can a Bank draft in the name of USFCO be provided in place of bid bond? USFCO to consider the same.

Yes such an arrangement is allowed and was already exercised in Pilot Lot.

Page 14 of 33

ANNEX_III

Questions and Answers Pertaining to Legal Aspects

SR. No. Document Clause

No. Query USFCo's Reply

1. Registration Form Is the potential bidder requiring registering

separately for all the three lots?

Separate registration would be required for the three lots. Rule 24(4) of the USF Rules, 2006 clearly envisages that. Separate registration is also required because USFCo has to see at the time of registration whether or not up-to-date USF contributions have been made. For efficient management of the project also separate registration is needed

2. Registration Form

What about previous registration i.e. in case bidder applied in the last bidding and would that registration help us in any way while bidding for the fresh lots?

Same as above

3. RFA /

Registration Form

Applicant Eligibility

(RFA)

What about the information already provided by a bidder for fresh registration such as the information regarding person authorized for registration, copy of license earlier provided, audited/un-audited reports of USF submission of already submitted?

Fresh updated information would be needed. If there is no change in the information already provided then all that the participant has to do is to submit the same again.

Page 15 of 33

4. RFA Annex-4

Would it be mandatory for the bidder to obtain fresh letter from PTA as per Annex-4: Form of Letter Regarding Compliance with License(s) for registration for each lot or one such freshly issued letter would suffice?

It is mandatory for the bidder to obtain letter from the PTA for the purpose of registration. This is so because USFCo has to satisfy itself whether or not the applicant seeking registration has a valid license for the relevant region and telecommunication service and secondly whether or not USF contributor has made up-to-date payments. It may be clarified that the letter from PTA in the form of Annex-4 is not required at the time of registration.

5. Service & Subsidy

Agreement

Clause 10.01 ©

Reference to Clause 10.01c, what is the upper limit of the members of Relationship Liaisons Committee?

There is no upper limit of the members of the Relationship Liaisons Committee. However, it goes without saying that number has to be reasonable.

6. SSA What are remedies available to USF Service Provider in case of material breach by the USF Company?

The remedies available to a service provider in case of material breach by the USFCo have been stated in clauses 15.03 and 15.04 of the SSA. Under clause 15.03 if any Party commits a material breach of the agreement, the other party not in default has the right to terminate the agreement after notice period specified in that clause and after giving an opportunity to the defaulting party to cure the default. Schedule E lists the material events of default both by the USFCo and the service provider. In addition to the events of default listed in Schedule E, a breach which cannot be cured would be regarded as material breach under clause 1(a)(viii) of Schedule E. Schedule E sufficiently defines what constitutes material breach.

Page 16 of 33


Agreement

clause 13.04(b)

As per clause 13.04(b) In case of a Force Majeure event which last for more then six months, the Service Provider may be deemed by the USF Company to be in material breach of SSA? Despite non-applicability of penalties, why a Force Majeure event is deemed material breach on account of Service Provider?

Under Clause 13.04 of the SSA USFCo may, in its sole discretion, deem the service provider to be in material breach of the agreement in accordance with clause 15.03 which entitles it to terminate the contract if a Force Majeure Event lasts for more than six months. The reason is that the obligation of the service provider to perform its obligations under the contract, inter-alia, of completing the milestones is independent of fault. This principle of strict liability is modified in case of force Majeure for a period up to six months. After that the principle of strict liability revives and failure to perform after six months even on account of force Majeure entitles the USFCo to terminate the contract.

8. RFA 22

We maintain that this clause should be removed and PTA’s approval should be sufficient for transfer and changes in the ownership of the USF Service provider. We understand that the Performance Bond and Equipment Lien provisions provide adequate security to USFCo against any risk or performance management purposes.

Since, USFCo would be entering into an agreement with the service provider, it has to satisfy itself whether or not the change in the ownership and assignment of contract would affect the rights of the USFCo under the contract and the person stepping into the shoes of the outgoing service provider qualifies and has the ability to perform the contract during the contract duration. Where PTA allows transfer and change in the ownership, it does so in the context of the license granted by it after satisfying itself whether the new person stepping into the shoes of the old licensee would be able to perform the obligations under the license.

Page 17 of 33

9. RFA 38

In case of a consortium, please clarify if the proposed USF Provider is required to have a separate name (i.e. other than the consortium members/shareholders)

Under clause 38.1 only a USF contributor can lead a consortium and can bid for USF subsidy on behalf of the consortium. Under clause 38.1.2 of the RFA it is the consortium leader that will enter into contracts on behalf of the consortium. Thus, the USF service provider and the consortium leader in the case of a consortium would be the same person. The equipment has to be in the name of the consortium leader that would execute the contract and accept responsibility on behalf of all members of the consortium. The other members of the consortium can enter into appropriate agreements and arrangements with the consortium leader.

10. RFA 38

In case of a consortium, please clarify if the USF Service Provider can offer USF Services under brand names registered against any consortium member/shareholder.

Same as above.

11. RFA 38

In case of a consortium, please confirm if the licenses possessed by shareholders can be listed under USF Service Provider’s name or should they be listed against relevant shareholder’s names.

Same as above.

12. RFA 38

In case of a consortium, please confirm if the equipment to be used for providing the USF Services should be bought: a. under the name of the USF Service Provider b. under the name of the lead member on behalf of the Consortium (even if the lead member does not possess the license in its own name to establish and operate this equipment). c. under the name of any consortium shareholder/member.

under the name of the USF Service Provider (Consortium Leader)

Page 18 of 33

13. RFA 61.2 Annexure 7 should be referred in this clause (instead of Annexure 5)

Change is being made. Annex 5 may be read as Annex 7 in this clause.

14. SSA 3.02


In case of transfer or change in the ownership of USF Service provider USFCo's prior approval is necessary

15. SSA 15.02(a)

We maintain that this clause should be amended so as to give the Service Provider right to give notice to USFCo if any of the events of default occur for USFCo.

There is no need to amend clause 15.02. The right of the service provider to terminate the contract is provided in clause 15.03 and 15.04(b) and (c) of the SSA, and under these clauses USF service provider has been adequately protected in case of default by the USFCo.

16. SSA 15.02(b) We maintain that this clause should be amended so as to give the same rights to USF Service Provider which have been proposed for USFCo.

Same as above.

Page 19 of 33

17. SSA 15.04(b)

USF Service Provider would be entitled to terminate the Agreement in case of material default by USFCO. However, upon such termination the USF Service Provider is only entitled to subsidy payments for Project Implementation Milestones achieved prior to effective date of termination. This seems unfair – considering that the USF Service Provider would have entered upon the project on the basis that full subsidy would be provided, and this should not therefore be denied to the USF Service Provider where termination is on account of material default by USFCO itself. It would be reasonable to require full subsidy in this case.

The subsidy payments are linked with the completion of milestones. The service provider cannot be entitled to subsidy payments for the milestones it has not implemented.

18. Schedule “E” to SSA 1.a.(iii)

Since this clause is related to material events of default, it is necessary that the type and number of repeated failures and the cumulative effect of repeated failures on public use of the USF services should be defined in tangible terms.

In our view clause 1(a)(iii) of Schedule E sufficiently defines “repeated failure” as one the cumulative effect of which significantly affects public use or enjoyment of the USF services in the USF Areas.

19. Schedule “E” to SSA 1.a.(iv)


In case of transfer or change in the ownership of USF Service provider USFCo's prior approval is necessary

20. Schedule “E” to SSA 1.a.(vi) Section 52 of the RFA should be referred in this

clause instead of section 45.3 Change is being made. The reference is to section 52 instead of section 45.3 In the clause-in-question.

Page 20 of 33

21. Schedule “E” to SSA 1.a.(viii)

The nature and type of other material breaches referred in this clause (which are not covered in the schedule E) should be such that they cause a significant degradation (extent to be agreed mutually between the USF service provider and USFCo in the SSA) in the availability of the USF services.

Clause 1(a)(viii) of Schedule E is very clear and has brought into its fold all material breaches which are not capable of being cured.

Page 21 of 33

ANNEX_IV

Questions and Answers Pertaining to Technical Aspects

SR. No. Document Clause No. Query USFCo's Reply

1. RFA Annex-5

Last time a comprehensive check list was given by you to facilitate submission of proposal, however, this time this check list is missing. As regards Annex-5 i.e. compliance check list available along with information package replaces the previous check that i am talking of. If yes then a does not give any item wise information which could facilitate the potential bidders. Therefore issuance of check list would be much required?

This time explicit compliance for all clauses & sub clauses need to be provided individually (in written) in form of a compliance sheet as per format mentioned in “Annex 5 of RFA”.

2. SSA Section 2.05

Infrastructure sharing Section 2.05 of the SSA states: “As required pursuant to Rule 27 of the USF Rules, the USF Service Provider shall share the USF Network infrastructure and facilities with at least one requesting USF contributor, on a first come first served basis and at cost based rates and at rates based on reasonable cost.” a. Will the USF service destination be serviced by one Service Provider only?

USFCo Service Providers would not be granted exclusive rights for telecom service provisioning in a USF area. Any licensed operator has equal rights to build its own network.

Page 22 of 33

3. SSA Section 2.05

b. Given that the second operator (CMO) requires to share a USF funded infrastructure of first operator, say a WLL operator, will the first operator get requirements from the second to build accordingly, or will the second operator build/extend the required infrastructure?

While building infrastructure by first operator, exact required capacity can't be predicted. It is expected that the infrastructure shall be able to provide sufficient room for the second operator to install similar equipment. The exact modalities for the infrastructure sharing shall be governed by the PTA Guidelines in this regard.

4. SSA Section 2.05 c. Will this be USF funded? No

5. SSA Section 2.05

d. Will the sharing for the second operator be mandatory, as the available infrastructure from first operator may not meet the requirements from the second sharing partner. For instance, the first operator’s tower height is required to be higher for the second operator to attain Line-of-Sight for backhauling?

The sharing is mandatory. The manner and methodology of infrastructure sharing will be worked out by the operators and relevant PTA guidelines

6. SSA Section 2.05

e. It is assumed that sharing is mandatory only for infrastructure build using USF subsidy. The already existing infrastructure in USF area does not come under the scope of this RFA requirement.

This is right

7. SSA Section 2.05

f. If the second operator should be a USF contributor? Yes

Page 23 of 33

8. RFA Section 4.4

Ref section 4.4 of RFA, Given that the (USF funded) Infrastructure sharing is mandated; the sharing may force first operator to place a site far from his cell plan and hence not provide the intended level of service. Would there be relaxations in such instances?

USFCo does not foresee a scenario where a small shifting of BTS site would result in deterioration in intended level of service.

9. Schedule B to SSA

1(b)(ii) - Public

Internet Access

“The 50 kbps Internet data transfer rates … , assuming 1% active (non dormant) data sessions among all subscribers.” a. Is this assumption based on average of total subscribers?

This assumption is based upon the total active loading of a given network element. For example: there are 100 or less calls (Voice + Internet calls) going on a BTS at a given instance. Bidder will design enough resources on the BTS to carry 1 internet call of the defined average data rate.


1(b)(ii) - Public

Internet Access

Data rate depends upon the signal quality which in turn depends upon the distance from the BTS therefore; it is not possible to provide such high data rate at higher distances.

The data rate will be judged at positions possessing good quality signal while loading the BTS as per RFA to assess the designed resources.


1(b)(ii) - Public

Internet Access

If 50 Kbps is data rate for a single subscriber? Yes.


1(b)(ii) - Public

Internet Access

Data coverage should be defined as application specific. RFA Criteria shall be followed in this regard.

Page 24 of 33

13. Schedule D

“Available” means that the services are fully operational and are accessible by at least sixty per cent (60%) of the total population in each of the identified villages in accordance with the Agreement…” a. Given that bidder cover 100% of total un-served areas identified, USF to clarify what 60% population service accessibilities imply?

Not 100% Areas, rather 100% muzas are to be covered. At least 60% population of each muza needs to be covered.


Agreement

Article 8 - Technical Auditors

As mentioned in article eight of SSA, for the appointment of Technical Auditor, a Technical Auditor Agreement (“TAA”) will be developed and executed between Technical Auditor and USF Company. The TAA would prescribe, among others, the methodology, test and reporting structure to be used by the Technical Auditor in performing his role. Would USF Service Provider be made part of the development process of TAA with specific reference to methodology, test and reporting system?

USF Service Provider will not be made part of the development process of TAA


Agreement Section 9

Are the reports filed under article 9 of the SSA deemed confidential? As the reports will include confidential and proprietary information like implementation plan, network description, marketing and distribution plan etc.

Yes the reports will be treated as confidential by USFCo.

Page 25 of 33

16. Schedule A to SSA

1(c)(ii) - Public

Messaging

Clarification required regarding the practical execution of the ‘Public Messaging’ service required under Schedule A clause 1 (ii). What exactly is expected from USF Service Provider? Will the practical execution plan be at the discretion of USF Service Provider?

"What exactly is expected from USF Service Provider?" The clause is self explanatory. "Will the Practical execution plan be at the discretion of USF Service Provider?" Yes, the Practical execution plan will be at the discretion of USF Service Provider as long as the relevant clause of SSA is complied.

17. Schedule C to SSA Will USFCo share the coordinates and

satellite imagery with the registered bidders? USFCo will share the Coordinates

18. RFA 26

Technical Auditor has been given a substantial role with respect to determination of whether the required milestones and QOS parameters have been met for Subsidy payments and also in determination of Force Majeure. To ensure transparency, the Technical Auditor needs to be an independent person engaged for the project's) who is acceptable to both parties. Ideally, the Technical Auditor should be named in the Agreement between USF and the USF Service Provider

Technical Auditor will be of recognized competence and impartiality. The dispute resolution processes under the SSA (Article 10) offer further protection to the USF Service Provider.

19. RFA 26 QoS monitoring should be responsibility of the PTA only

Besides PTA monitoring, Technical Auditor of USFCo will also be responsible to check the QoS of USF Network as per the Services and Subsidy Agreement.

Page 26 of 33

20. Schedule B” to SSA 2.(i)

High data rate requirement directly affects the choice and cost of proposed internet access solution which in turn determines the subsidy proposal amount. We therefore maintain that the minimum data transfer rate requirement should be reduced from 50kbps to a reasonable value (separate values for upload and download) which is attainable though normal GPRS at the individual user end so that the cost for providing internet access in un-served or under-served areas does not become unnecessarily high

Being technology neutral USFCo will evaluate the solution independent of technology. Average data transfer rate of 50 Kbps shall be provided at Muzas with telecenters (population 10,000 or higher)

21. Schedule C to SSA

For internet services please specify if we can use GPRS for private internet services. Please also specify that for Public internet services we can only use EDGE as specified in the previous bid?

Same as above.


According to USF summarized data, there are 404 unserved villages, but when the district wise data (with coordinates) is combined, the total sums up to 252 villages.

Table-1, i.e., "Summary Sheet" of Schedule C of three lots have arithmetical errors. Table-2, i.e., "Population Ranges, Telecenter and Payphone Facilities" of Chagai Lot also has arithmetical error in serial # 7 & 9. The corrected tables are attached as Annex-V.

Page 27 of 33


For the Public Call Office for villages with population more than 2000, do the bidder need to establish a physical public call office or the same can be out sourced to some third party by providing a PCO terminal?

This depends upon the service provider’s business plan as long as the Articles 16.09 & 16.10 of SSA are complied.


For the telecenter, will the model for outsourcing be allowed to a third party. In case the same is allowed how that need to be reflected in the bids?

Same as above.


Any new terminal which is quoted will need to be approved by PTA at a later stage. Will quoting such an equipment will be allowed?

All type approval related issues should be taken up with PTA.

26. RFA

20.3 (a)

Section 20.3 (a) of RFA states that all the equipment used shall be new when installed. Can equipment already available in stock not used can be used?

Unused (New) equipment available in stock can be used.

Page 28 of 33


In schedule C to the SSA some areas are shown where coverage is mandatory and some areas are shown where coverage is optional. Please clarify following: a. In case where coverage is mandatory what is the minimum coverage requirement in such an area? b. In case where coverage is optional what is the minimum coverage requirement in such an area? c. What impact will it have on the evaluation of the bid if coverage in optional area is not provided by an operator?

a. At least 60% population of each muza needs to be covered. b & c. Optional Muzas will have no impact on the evaluation


If during survey it is found out that some service provider already exist in the area do that area still need to be covered in the proposal?

Yes

Page 29 of 33

ANNEX_V

ERRATA TO SCHEDULE C OF SSA FOR THREE LOTS

Page 30 of 33

Page 31 of 33

Page 32 of 33

Page 33 of 33

Errata - SCHEDULE C to SSA

Table - 1

* the Unserved Muzas cover only those Muzas which have Population > 0, according to Population Census Organization

S No District Total Rural Served Unserved Total Served Unserved Total Served Unserved*

1 Kharan 259,270 225,203 83,663 141,540 48,051 11,681 36,370 390 145 227

2 Chagai 131,792 116,877 42,711 74,166 50,545 9,975 40,570 48 16 30

3 Nushki 126,810 95,832 39,824 56,008 6,815 1,562 5,253 44 15 27

4 Mastung 182,711 155,799 70,527 85,272 5,728 1,373 4,355 278 126 138

700,582 593,711 236,725 356,986 111,139 24,591 86,548 760 302 422

Chagai Lot

Population Area Muzas

Total

Summary Sheet

6 Source: Pakistan Census Projected Population 2007


Table - 2

S No District No of Muza S No District Payphone Telecenter1 26 1 Kharan 11 02 201 2 Chagai 12 13 11 3 Nushki 8 14 0 4 Mastung 6 0

5 1 37 26 297 128 19 3

10 2411 812 113 1814 12015 616 0

48374

372

Total>2,000 and <= 10,000

>100

>10,000

<100>100

>10,000

<100

>100<100

Mastung>2,000 and <= 10,000

>10,000

<100>100

>10,000

>10,000

Nushki>2,000 and <= 10,000

<100>100

Population Ranges

Kharan>2,000 and <= 10,000

Chagai

2.1 - Districts with Population Ranges 2.2 - Telecenter and Payphones Requirements

Total

>2,000 and <= 10,000

Chagai LotPopulation Ranges, Telecenter and Payphone Facilities



Table - 1


S.No. District Total Rural Served Unserved Total Served Unserved Total Served Unserved*

1 Khairpur 1,915,474 1,458,875 1,380,734 78,141 15,910 6,828 9,082 382 348 34

Sukkur Lot


Summary Sheet


1 Khairpur 1,915,474 1,458,875 1,380,734 78,141 15,910 6,828 9,082 382 348 34

2 Sukkur 1,140,018 577,272 500,158 77,114 5,165 2,194 2,971 251 168 76

3 Ghotki 1,254,511 1,050,945 820,999 229,946 6,083 2,292 3,791 284 214 67

4Naushahro Feroz

1,235,803 1,054,309 893,058 161,251 2,946 1,990 956 372 191 39

5 Nawabshah 1,219,498 893,680 782,179 111,501 4,502 3,146 1,356 310 274 36

6,765,304 5,035,081 4,377,128 657,953 34,606 16,450 18,156 1,599 1,195 252Total



Table - 1


S.No. District Total Rural Served Unserved Total Served Unserved Total Served Unserved*

1 Leiah 1,431,054 1,246,875 1,156,370 90,505 6,291 4,965 1,327 721 638 83

2 Muzaffargarh 3,438,917 2,830,804 2,701,507 129,297 8,249 7,383 866 976 917 44

3 DG Khan 2,132,100 1,834,853 1,538,262 296,591 11,922 5,554 6,368 819 497 308

4 Rajanpur 1,427,619 1,224,670 1,090,207 134,463 12,318 5,468 6,851 532 433 104

8,429,689 7,137,202 6,486,346 650,856 38,780 23,369 15,411 3,048 2,485 539

Dera Ghazi Khan Lot


Total

Summary Sheet


Documents

UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND (GUARANTEE) LIMITED …usf.org.pk/FCKeditor/editor/filemanager/connectors/aspx/UserFiles/... · 6 Warid Telecom Usman Ishaq, Head of Franchise and Distribution