adb-77-2014 procurement of 220kv transmission line ... · technical and financial proposal 14 -05...

EVALUATION RESULTS OF TENDER NO. ADB-77-2014

Tender No. ADB-77-2014

Tender Description

Procurement of 220kv Transmission Line material under Power Transmission Enhancement Investment Program Tranche-IV (Lot-I to VI) (ADB Loan No. 3203-Pak)

Tender Procedure Single stage single envelope Tender Published National Newspapers/PPRA’s Website/NTDCL’s Website/ADB’s Website

Technical and Financial Proposal 14-05-2015 opened on

PPRA Ref No.(TSE) TS233451E

Number of Participants

Lot No. I II III IV V VI

No. of Bidders Participated 13 09 03 04 07 06

Lot-I (220kV Steel Towers) Sr. No.

Name of the Bidder who submitted the Bid

Quoted Bid Price CIF (Karachi) (US$)

Evaluated / Discounted Corrected Bid Price CIF (Karachi) (US$)

Contract Award in Discounted / Corrected Bid Price (US$)

Reasons of Rejection, if any

Winning Bidder, price it

offered, duration and summery/ scope of the Contract Award

1. M/s. Thanh Long Vietnam – SGI Pakistan (JV).

US$ 4,899,991.86 +

PKR 235,200,423

7,988,832.72 - NON-RESPONSIVE As per bidding document: the qualification criteria regarding technical Experience (in case of JV) at least any one partner of JV should fulfill the requirement in respect of manufacturing or supplying as per JV agreement between the parties. Further, for contractual experience, 100% quantity of equipment / goods should have been manufactured & supplied in any one year (continuous period of 12 months) during past 5 years by the manufacturer of those goods and minimum 25% of said material must have been supplied either to NTDCL/Pakistan or any entity outside the country of manufacturer. The bidder doesn’t meet qualification & experience criteria.

-

As per JV agreement, the share of supply of goods is max. 68% & min. 32% of tender quantity for M/s. Thanh Long JSC Vietnam & M/s. SGI respectively. The documents furnished in the bid indicates supplier of material as M/s. Thanh Long JSC and does not M/s. VINECO as manufacturer of supplied material. Therefore, the qualification of M/s. VINECO as a manufacturer of steel towers as well as their satisfactory operational experience & production capacity is not ascertained.

2. M/s. Shandong Qixing Iron Tower Co., Ltd., China.

US$ 7,508,612.63 8,208,571.50 7,433,526.50 Accepted being lowest evaluated substantially responsive Bidder.

US$ 7,433,526.50, CIF (Karachi) + Related Services

3. M/s. Jiangsu Guohua Tube Manufacture Co., Ltd., China.

US$ 7,682,739.91 8,457,802.86 - Responsive but higher in price -

4. M/s. Chonging Suntop Iron Tower Manufacture Co., China.

US$ 7,929,587.42 8,612,913.22 - Responsive but higher in price -

5. M/s. Qingdao Huijintong Power Equipment Co., Ltd., China.

US$ 8,115,781.16 8,734,543.80 - NON-RESPONSIVE i) The submitted Power of Attorney

to sign the bid is neither original nor notarized as per requirement of the bidding documents. The values of ultimate strength & yield strength of high tensile steel and wild steel and the weights of basic body/stubs of offered

-

tower material are not as per specified requirements.

6. M/s. Zhejiang Shengda Steel Tower Co., Ltd., China.

8,762,155.86 - - Not evaluated in detail due to higher prices

-

7. M/s. Power China Zhengzhou Power Equipment Work. P.R. China.

9,150,249.19 - - -

8. M/s. AIC China For Steel Structure Ltd., China.

9,229,011.11 - - -

9. M/s. Guangdong Disheng Power Steel Structure, China.

9,372,899.96 - - -

10. M/s. Wenzhou Taichang Pylon Manufacture Co., Ltd., China.

9,674,491.35 - - -

11. M/s. Nanjing Daji Steel Tower Manufacturing Co., Ltd., China.

9,731,689.76 - - -

12. M/s. Zhejiang Hongsung Industry Co., Ltd., China.

9,801,239.12 - - -

13. M/s. Guangdong Electric Line Appliance Factory China.

11,037,092.35 - - -

Lot-II (ACSR Rail Conductors) Sr. No.








1. M/s. Newage Cables (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore.

US$ 6,634,730 +

PKR 362,705,000 (Ex-works)

9,216,614.02 (Ex-works)

US$ 5,960,641.43 +

PKR 330,974,172

Accepted being lowest evaluated substantially responsive Bidder.

US$ 5,960,641.43 + PKR 330,974,172 Ex-works + Related Services

2. M/s. Hangzhou Cable Co., China.

US$ 7,928,900. (CIF)

9,667,706.48 (CIF)

- NON-RESPONSIVE

i. The bidder has not submitted the form of Related Services with the bid.

ii. The format of manufacturing authorization is different to that attached with the bidding document.

iii. The notarial certificate of Power of Attorney is not original, hence authenticity could not be ascertained.

iv. The copies of Contracts / end – user certificates are not notarized as per requirement of bidding documents.

v. The cross section of the offered conductor is 483.3 mm2 against the specified value of 517.38 mm2.

-

vi. The rated ultimate strength of

the offered conductor is 117,48 kg against the requirement of 118,74 kg.

vii. The minimum ultimate strength after stranding of the offered aluminum is 15.51 kg/mm2

against the specified requirement of 15.7 kg/mm2.

viii. The cross section of the offered steel wire is 33.43 mm2 against the specified value of 33.54 mm2. The lagging thickness of wooden reel offered is 30mm against the requirement of 50mm.

3. M/s. Wuxi Jiangnan Cable Co. Ltd., China.

US$ 8,377,160 (CIF)

9,957,730.31 (CIF)

- Responsive but higher in price

-

4. M/s. Chongqing Taishan Cable Co., Ltd., China.

US$ 8,189,300.5 (CIF)

9,967,167.08 (CIF)

- NON-RESPONSIVE i. The bidder has not submitted the

form of related services with the bid.

ii. The financial documents for the year 2014 have not been attached. The Bank credit certificates are also more than two years old.

iii. Signature of authorized local agent has not been appended on the bidding forms as per requirement of the bidding documents. No signatures exist on bidding forms of manufacturing facility data,

-

company information etc, copies of contracts, Performance certificates, and Contractual experience. Most of the pages are not signed, only stamp exists. Due to non-availability of signatures on the most of the information / documents of the bid, the fulfillment of qualification & experience criteria of the bidder could not be ascertained

5. M/s. Jiangsu Hengtong Power Cable Co., Ltd.

US$ 8,837,470 (CIF)

10,138,861.48 (CIF)

- NON-RESPONSIVE i. The financial documents for the

year 2014 have not been attached.

ii. The format of Power of Attorney is different to that attached with the bidding document.

iii. Important information on the bidding form of declaration of local agent have been omitted i.e. Scope of services to be supplied to principal, NTN No. of local agent, Name of authorized representative, Specimen signature of authorized representative. From the documents provided in the bid, the qualification & experience cannot be established.

-

6. M/s. Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co. Ltd.

10,396,610.98 (CIF)

- -

-

7. M/s. Henan Kosen Cable Co., Ltd., China.

10,445,871 (CIF)

- - -

8. M/s. ZTT International Limited (ZTT), China.

10,526,871.48 (CIF)

- - Not evaluated in detail due to higher prices

-

9. M/s. Jiangsu Zhongchao Cable Corporation, China.

10,538,350.26 (CIF)

- - -

Lot-III (OPGW alongwith accessories) Sr. No.








1. M/s. Fujikura Hengtong Aerial Cable System Ltd., China.

305,785.24 313,132.38 304,012.02 Responsive and accepted being lowest evaluated substantially responsive Bidder.

US$ 304,012.02, CIF (Karachi)

+ Related Services

2. M/s. ZTT International Limited (ZTT), China.

295,059.60 340,659.60 - NON-RESPONSIVE

The attached notarial certificate do not depict the name ZTT anywhere and the signatures of the authorized representative found on the bid were different to those appended on the Power of Attorney (Major Deviation).

The Para (d) of bid submission sheet was not filled / left blank. Further, it was not mentioned that bidder offered any discount or not. Whereas, the bidder attached a letter dated 14.5.2015 in the original copy of bid only, stating to low down its tender price for Lot-III. The scrutiny of letter by evaluation commitee revealed no original signatures of authorized person were appended therewith. (Major Deviation).

The titles of authorizing &

-

authorized persons as mentioned in PoA and notarial certificate are not the same. The PoA is not original as well as the stamp of notary Public is scanned stamp (Major Deviation). The business license submitted with the bid indicated M/s. Jiangsu Zhongtian Technology Co., involved in the manufacturing of Optical Fiber Cable etc. instead of M/s. ZTT. A clarification letter was submitted indicated that M/s. ZTT is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Jiangsu Zhongtian Tech. Co., the said letter bears only stamp and is without any signatures.

3. M/s. Shandong Pacific Optics Fiber & Cable Co., Ltd. China.

351,560 362,106.80 - Responsive but higher in price

-

Lot-IV (Transmission Line Hardware) Sr. No.








1. M/s. Sinotech Co., Ltd. China.

559,895.60 559,895.60 - NON-RESPONSIVE The discrepancies were found in the Power of Attorney which was issued by Mr. Song in the status of authorizer as Chief Representative of local office instead of Chairman of BoD / Board Resolution etc. Non-establishment of Contractual experience, authenticity of performance certificates besides other discrepancies in the technical data of offered material was observed.

-

2. M/s. Chengdu Electric Power Works, China.

606,233.50 624,420.51 - NON-RESPONSIVE The format of Power of Attorney for signing the bid not notarized besides, discrepancies in the bid submission sheet, bid security, bidding form of local agent, transmittal letter (i.e. overwriting & using ink pen instead of typing). Further, the bidder has not submitted the audited balance sheets for last three

-

years as per requirement of bidding document.

3. M/s. ISELFA Morsetteria S.R.I. Italy.

704,094.60 704,094.60 704,094.60 Responsive and accepted being lowest evaluated substantially responsive Bidder.

US$ 704,094.60, CIF (Karachi) + Related Services

4. M/s. SARA Energy Construction Trade and Industries Co., Inc. Turkey.

738,536.71 760,719.71 Responsive but higher in price -

Lot-V(Dampers) Sr. No.




Contract Award in Discounted / Corrected Bid Price




1. M/s. Henan Electric Equipment Material, Co., China.

US$ 536,783.74 557,750.97 - NON-RESPONSIVE

The discrepancies observed in Power of Attorney & transmittal letter, bidding form of Manufacturer’s Authorization (i.e. name and the signature of authorized person to sign the bid as well as the date bid of signing), General Information bidding form, manufacturing Facility Data bidding form, difference of dates as mentioned on the submitted documents i.e. Bid Submission Sheet and Price Schedule for goods to that of Power of Attorney.

Besides, the bidder offered conditional delivery schedule and following condition were added by the bidder under FORCE MAJEURE, clause-32 of GCC Section – VII of the Bidding Documents: Delay in establishment of letter of credit. Delay in nomination of inspector.

-

2. M/s. Chengdu Electric Power Works, China.

US$ 522,279.20 590,842.82 - NON-RESPONSIVE

The bidder did not submit the form of Related Services with the bid. The format of Power of Attorney for signing the bid has not been notarized.

Discrepancies have also been found in the transmittal letter, Bid Submission Sheet, bid security, absence of bidding form of local agent. The bidder has not submitted audited balance sheets (in the absence of which, the authenticity of values mentioned in the financial bidding forms of Financial Situation, Size of Operation, Cash Flow Capacity could not be ascertained).Type tests were also incomplete.

-

3. M/s. Performed Line Products Ltd, Thailand.

US$ 589,387.88 611,670.21 - NON-RESPONSIVE M/s. Performed Line Products, Thailand is lowest evaluated responsive bidder. However, as per status of bid validity, M/s. Performed Line Products, Thailand did not extend bid validity.

-

4. M/s. DAMP S.R.I, Italy.

EURO 573,203.45 633,866.55 Euro 573,203.45 + Euro 7,080

RESPONSIVE and Accepted being lowest evaluated substantially responsive Bidder.

Euro 537,203.45 + Euro 7,080, CIF (Karachi) + Related Services

5. M/s. SARA Energy Construction Trade and Industries Co., Inc. Turkey.

US$ 613,010.59 655,019.57 - RESPONSIVE but higher in price -

6. M/s. ISELFA Morsetteria S.R.I. Italy.

US$ 674,229.76 - -

Not evaluated in detail due to higher prices.

-

7. M/s. Nuova Elettromecca ica Sud S.P.A. Italy.

US$ 998,718.44 - - -

Lot-VI (INSULATORS) Sr. No.








1. EMCO Industries Limited, Lahore.

US$ 502,363.67 +

PKR 51,090,386 (Ex-works)

942,697.84 (Ex-works)

RESPONSIVE (but the bidder conditionally extended Bid Validity) Some discrepancies were found in the PoA, bidding form of size of operation, submission of incomplete annual reports etc. Further, the figures mentioned in the bidding form of cash flow capacity could not be verified from the annual reports attached in the bid. However, while extending the validity of bid, M/s. EMCO has responded as under:

“As a very special case and having good relations with NTDCL, we may extend the validity of our offer up-to 11-11-2015. However the delivery period will be mutually decided at the time of finalizing the order keeping in view prevailing load shedding of natural gas & electricity”.

In view of NTDCL, the above said confirmation is not firm. Further, they have taken condition regarding extension in delivery period which is not in line with the provisions of the Bidding Documents and guidelines of ADB which states that bidders shall not be requested or be permitted to change the price or other conditions of their bid while extending their bid validity.

2. M/s. Henan Electric Equipment Material company, China.

US$ 821,813.85 1,315,138.88 (CIF)

- NON-RESPONSIVE

The discrepancies observed in the Power of attorney (the date & signature), Bid Submission Sheet, Price Schedule for goods, General Information bidding form, Manufacturing Facility Data, Bidding form of Manufacturer’s authorization, Bid transmittal/covering letter (name & signature of Authorized person to sign the bid, & the date of signing). Besides, the bidder offered conditional delivery schedule and following condition were added by the bidder under FORCE MAJEURE, clause-32 of GCC Section – VII of the Bidding Documents: Delay in establishment of letter of credit. Delay in nomination of inspector.

-

3. Shandong High Voltage Porcelain Insulators Co. Ltd., China.

US$ 1080,426.60 (CIF)

1,312,460.59 (CIF)

US$ 1,080,426.60 + US$ 70,000

RESPONSIVE and Accepted being lowest evaluated substantially responsive Bidder.

US$ 1,080,426.60 + US$ 70,000, CIF (Karachi)

+ Related Services

4. M/s. Suzhou Porcelain Insulator Works Co. Ltd., China.

1,460,536.71 (CIF)

- -

Not examined in detail due to higher prices.

-

5. M/s. Inner Mongolia Jingcheng High Voltage Co. Ltd. P.R., China.

1,464,571.07 (CIF)

- - -

6. Dalian Insulator Group co. Ltd., China.

1,726,333.15 (CIF)

- - -