No Dig India Show 2024
14th International Conference & Exhibition on Trenchless Technology
Solutions for Water, Wastewater, Oil & Gas, Electricity & Telecommunication Utility Industry
18th & 19th November 2024
Panaji, Goa, INDIA
Why dig Trenches when there are better solutions
With reference to NIB No. NEEPCO/PEN/IND/001, following amendments are being made in Corrigendum XI:
10. | Part 1 | Clause 6.2.1 | This requirement does not provide NEEPCO with the appropriate level of assurance regarding the experience level of the materials being utlized or the instalallation contractor. Industry best practice includes a minimum of 25-30 pipeline CFRP repair projects completed in the past 3 years. Additionally we would add that given the special circumstances and size of this project that NEEPCO should require installer to have completed a minimum of three (3) CFRP pipe repair projects which included at least 305 lineal meters addressed within the scope of work. We will provide owner contact information with certification that it is accurate, and we would be pleased to set up communication with the appropriate contacts. Collecting reference letters, given the timing, is not feasible. We also recommend that NEEPCO immeidatley speak directly to power generation facilities in the US who have used CFRP for pipeline repairs to gain more insight into project expectactions and lessons learned. We would be pleased to provide contacts. |
Please refer Annexure-A of this corrigendum. |
11. | Part 1 | Clause 6.2.1 | A minimum of 10 years and 10,000 m2 surface area of documented FRP rehabilitation experience with a minimum of 1 km tota pipeline rehabilitated and diameter of pipe that allows for man entry. The pipeline rehabilitation projects must be verifiable with reference letters, work orders or Certificates from respective Owners. The pipe rehabilitation experience should include minimum 750m of retrofit/rehabilitation work from inside of encased/buried steel pipe with pressured flow with in‐situ wet layup GFRP/ CFRP system. |
|
12. | Part 1 | Clause 6.2.1 | Section 6.2.1: It is hereby requested that the last sentence of this section be removed, “The pipe rehabilitation experience should include minimum 750m of retrofit/rehabilitation work from inside of encased/buried steel pipe with pressured flow with in-situ wet layup CFRP system;” as the other experience requirements in this paragraph are fine and they will more than suffice. |
|
16. | Part 1 | Clause 6.3 (ii) | Section 6.3ii – Liquid Asset: It is hereby requested that the liquid asset portion of these bid docs be removed and not required in order to encourage a more competitive international bidding environment. |
The prospective bidders shall furnish certified details about their net worth, liquid assets, account receivable, values of contract at hand and balance sheets for past years. The benchmarking for acceptance shall be decided by NEEPCO and informed to all prior to opening of the financial bids. |
17. | Part 1 | Clause 6.3 (iii) | Section 6.3iii – Net Worth: It is hereby requested that the net worth requirement portion of these bid docs be removed and not required in order to encourage a more competitive international bidding environment. Section 6.3 – Audited Financials: it is hereby requested that only two years of audited financials for the preceding 5 years be required to bid on this project and that a letter of adequacy and commitment from a banking institution of international repute not be required. |
|
27. | Part 3 | Clause 11 | Custom Duty, Custom clearance Charges, Transporation, Taxes, GST etc. shall be payable by client as per Clause 7.2 of Part‐5 |
The provisions given at Cl. 7.2, Part-V indicates the basis of arriving at the cost estimate. However, bidders shall work out their cost for the purpose of bidding following the relevant bid conditions viz, Clause No. 11 of Part-3(ITB), Clause 61 of Part-IVA of Bid Document etc. and their subsequent corrigendum’s to be read with Clause No. 2 of Part-4(B). |
30. | Part 3 | Clause 23.3 | ‐ 18% on 15% of item No.2 is not clear as IGST ‐ Who will take warranty if works are split in 2 vendors. ‐ Inland Transporation, custom duty, clearance charges and other inland taxes as per Clause 7.2 of Part‐5. |
1. Regarding 18% on 15% of item No.2 is not clear as IGST, Corrigendum- V dated 15-04-2019 may be referred. 2. In the event of splitting of work, the respective PIA shall be responsible for the warranty of the portion of work executed by him. 3. The provisions given at Cl. 7.2, Part-V indicates the basis of arriving at the cost estimate. However, bidders shall work out their cost for the purpose of bidding following the relevant bid conditions viz, Clause No. 11 of Part-3(ITB), Clause 61 of Part-IVA of Bid Document etc. and their subsequent corrigendum’s to be read with Clause No. 2 of Part-4(B). |
76 | Part 7 | Form-A: Bill of Quantities | Revised Form-A: Bill of Quantities, Part-7 of Bid Document is enclosed as Annexure 2. | |
Corrigendum XIII |