Construction of 4 Lane Access Controlled Highway from Vakalpudi Light House to Annavaram (on NH16) Section of NH516F from

Km. 0.000 to Km. 40.621 on

HAM under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase I in the state of Andhra Pradesh

Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
1 Clause No. 1.2 of 1.2 The dates of handing over the Right of Way to the Concessionaire are As per Clause 1.2 of Schedule–A, it is mentioned Refer Notes in Annex-II of
schedule-A specified in Annex II of this Schedule-A. that: Schedule-A (Dates of
ANNEX-II of Dates for providing Right of Way of Construction Zone handing over the Right of
Schedule-A The dates on which the Authority shall provide Right of Way to the “The dates of handing over the Right of Way to Way are link with
Concessionaire on different stretches of the Site are stated below: the Concessionaire are specified in Annex–II of appointed date). However
this Schedule–A.” 3G has been Completed.

However, upon reviewing Annex–II of Schedule–

A, the dates for handing over the Right of Way
(ROW) are not mentioned in the table.

The Bidder therefore requests the Authority to

kindly provide the dates of ROW handover as
referred to in Clause 1.2 of Schedule–A for proper
understanding and planning.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
2 ANNEX-II of Dates for providing Right of Way of Construction Zone As per Annex-II of Schedule-A, the dates for 3G Completed and refer
Schedule-A The dates on which the Authority shall provide Right of Way to the providing Right of Way (RoW) have been Annex-II of Schedule-A
Concessionaire on different stretches of the Site are stated below: indicated. However, to assess feasibility during
execution, the bidder requests clarification on the
current status of land acquisition (LA).

Kindly provide the following details:

→Stage-wise status of LA (e.g., 3A, 3D, Award,
Possession)
→Any anticipated delays or bottlenecks

This information is essential for proper planning,

mobilization, and risk assessment.

Kindly confirm and share the latest LA status.

3 Clause 2.10.1 of 2.10.1. Typical Cross Section (TCS) for Main Carriageway As per Clause 2.10.1 of Schedule–B, a few Typical Refer updated Annexure - II
schedule-B Cross Sections (TCS) are referenced. However, of Schedule –B is being
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
For TCS 2.6-A these TCS drawings are not provided in the provided in the
tender documents. corrigendum no 7.

For example, FIG–2.6A is mentioned in the clause,

but it is not incorporated in Annexure–II of
Schedule–B. Similarly, TCS drawings FIG–2.3A,
FIG–2.3B, and the TCS from Ch. 40+000 to 40+621
are missing from the document set.

The Bidder therefore requests the Authority to

kindly:
i. Provide the missing TCS drawings (FIG–2.6A,
FIG–2.3A, FIG–2.3B, etc.).
ii. Incorporate the applicable TCS for the stretch
For TCS 2.3-A between Ch. 40+000 to 40+621 in Annexure–II of
Schedule–B for proper understanding and design
consideration.

For TCS 2.3-B0

4 Clause 2.10.4 of 2.10.4. Typical Cross Section of Uppada Beach Road (Mulapeta) to Annavaram As per Clause 2.10.4 of Schedule–B, a few Typical Refer updated Annexure - II
schedule-B Cross Sections (TCS) are referenced. However, of Schedule –B is being
For TCS C these TCS drawings are not provided in the provided in the
tender [Link] example, TCS-C is corrigendum no 7.
mentioned in the clause, but it is not
incorporated in Annexure–II of Schedule–B. The
Bidder therefore requests the Authority to kindly
Provide the missing TCS-C drawings.

5 Clause 3 of 3. Carriageway The bidder respectfully requests the Authority to

schedule-A An inventory of the existing carriageway is presented as below. kindly provide additional information as per
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Clause 3 of Schedule-A, which mentions “The
details of existing carriageway are as given
under.” To enable accurate assessment and
bidding, the bidder requests:

A. Clarification on the type of pavement—

whether it is rigid or flexible—and detailed
information about the existing pavement crust
layers. Concessioner shall do
B. Specification of the thickness of each layer of detailed investigation as
the existing pavement. per Clause no. 2.5 of RFP.
C. Confirmation on the availability of any
investigation reports related to the existing
alignment for a better understanding of site
conditions.

The bidder kindly seeks this information to ensure

proper evaluation of the existing carriageway and
to submit an informed and competitive bid.
6 Clause 17 © of (c) Oil / Gas Pipe Line Crossing Details (IOCL / GAIL) As per Clause 17(c) of Schedule-B, it is mentioned Under Clause 17© of
schedule-B that “Oil / Gas Pipeline Crossing Details (IOCL / Schedule –A, it has been
GAIL)” are included, and the footnote states that mentioned the existing Oil /
“The shifting/relocation of OFC cables/wires, Gas pipeline locations.
signboards, gantries, highway lighting, and all
road furniture, etc., falling within the site For scope of work please
mentioned at Annexure–I, is deemed to be part of refer Schedule-B Annex-I.
the scope of work.”
Footnote, Clause 17 Note: The shifting / relocation of OFC cables/wires, Sign Boards, Gantries,
© of schedule-B Highway Lighting and all the Road Furniture etc., falling in the site mentioned at The bidder seeks clarification on whether the
Annexure–I, is deemed to be part of scope of the work. shifting or relocation of Oil/Gas Pipeline
Crossings (IOCL/GAIL) is included within the
bidder’s scope. If it is yes, kindly clarify the scope
of responsibility and specify the concerned
authority for the same. Additionally, please define
the extent of this work within the overall project
scope.

7 Clause 17 (B) of [Link]: The details of existing Electrical Utilities are as follows: As per Clause 17 (B) of Schedule–B, it is Refer to the Cl. no. 13 of
schedule-B (b) Low tension (LT lines)/11KV/33KV Lines mentioned that “Low Tension (LT lines) / 11KV / Schedule - B.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
33KV Lines” exist along the project corridor.

Upon reviewing the provided details:

i. The document includes the number of electrical

poles, but the details of LT lines / 11KV / 33KV
lines and their respective capacities are not
provided. The bidder requests the Authority to
kindly provide the crossing details along with
their capacity.

ii. The total number of crossings is mentioned as

51 Nos., however, chainage-wise details of these
crossings are not available. The bidder requests
the Authority to provide chainage-wise crossing
details along with the type and capacity of each
line.

iii. Additionally, while transformers are

mentioned, their capacity details are not
specified. The bidder requests that this
information be incorporated into the Schedule for
proper assessment and estimation.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
8 Annex-II of As per Annex–II of Schedule–B, Typical Cross Refer updated Annexure - II
schedule-B TCS 2.3- Section (TCS) Fig. 2.3–C2 has been mentioned of Schedule –B is being
A twice:-The first Fig. 2.3–C2 represents the normal provided in the
section, and-The second Fig. 2.3–C2 represents corrigendum no 7.
the super elevation [Link], in Clause
2.10 of Schedule–B, the chainage-wise details for
these two sections are not clearly
[Link], upon reviewing the TCS details
provided in the schedule, it is observed that for
the super elevation section, the applicable TCS is
mentioned as Fig. 2.3–C3, whereas in the
corresponding drawing, it is indicated as Fig. 2.3–
[Link] Bidder therefore requests the Authority to
kindly:
i. Clarify the chainage-wise
applicability of each TCS (normal
and super elevation).
ii. Provide separate chainage details
for the super elevation locations,
similar to other TCS references.
iii. Amend the schedule to ensure
consistency between the referenced
TCS figures (2.3–C2 and 2.3–C3) and
the actual drawings.
9 Clause 1.2.3 of 1.2.3. A suitable paving (paver blocks 100 mm M-35) shall be proposed in case As per Clause 1.2.3 of Schedule-B, it is stated that Refer to the clause. No. 1.2
schedule-B of flush median to prevent spreading of soil on carriageway as per clause No. "A suitable paving shall be proposed in case of of Schedule -B. Width of
6.3.2 IRC: SP:84-2019. flush median to prevent spreading of soil on Median have been
carriageway as per clause No. 6.3.2 IRC: SP: 84- mentioned under Annex-I
2019." of Schedule-B for the entire
However, as per Typical Cross Section Fig 2.2A0, project length. Further, as
Fig 2.2A1, Fig 2.2A2, Fig 2.2B0, Fig 2.3B1, Fig per the applicable TCS the
2.3B2, Fig 2.3C, Fig 2.3C1, Fig 2.3C2, Fig 7.8-B, Fig Median shall be provided.
Clause No. 6.3.2
7.8-D AND Fig 7.8-E (attached Left side), a flush
IRC: SP:84-2019
median is shown along with median plantation.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Annexure - II In view of this, the bidder seeks clarification on
(Schedule- B) the following:
Typical Cross A). If the entire median is paved with paver
Sections blocks, then where will the plantation be done?
Fig 2.2A0, Fig B). If median plantation is to be retained, then
2.2A1, Fig 2.2A2, what width of paver block is required—full width
Fig 2.2B0, Fig or partial width?
2.3B1, Fig 2.3B2, The bidder requests the Authority to kindly
Fig 2.3C, Fig 2.3C1, amend either the TCS or specify the applicable
Fig 2.3C2, Fig 7.8-B, paving width, in order to ensure alignment
Fig 7.8-D, Fig 7.8-E between the cross-section and the technical
specifications.
Kindly confirm.

10 Clause 2.8.2 of 2.8.2. The Service roads shall be constructed at the locations and for the As per Clause 2.8.2 of Schedule–B**, the total Refer updated Annexure - II
schedule-B lengths indicated below: length of service roads is mentioned as 16.820 in Schedule –B is being
[Link], upon detailed review, the bidder provided in the
has observed several discrepancies between the corrigendum no 7.
service road chainages mentioned in the schedule
and the corresponding Typical Cross Sections
(TCS) provided in Annexure–II of Schedule–[Link]
observations are as follows:
1. Sr. No. 1 – Chainage 0+300 to 4+514 (LHS): *
Service road of 7.5 m width is mentioned. * As
per the applicable TCS, this stretch falls under Fig.
2.6A and Fig. 7.8A, but these TCS figures are not
provided in Annexure–II of Schedule–B. Bidder
Request:** Kindly provide the missing TCS
drawings.
2. Chainage 0+300 to 4+446 (RHS):Similar issue as
above — applicable TCS figures are
[Link] Request:** Kindly share or
incorporate the relevant TCS drawings for RHS
service road.
3. Sr. No. 3 – Chainage 18+700 to 19+822 (Both
Sides):-Both-side service roads are mentioned.-
The applicable TCS as per the schedule are Fig.
2.3A and Fig. 7.8A; however, these TCS do not
show service roads in their cross-section.-Bidder
Request:** Kindly amend either the TCS or the
**service road chainage** for consistency.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
[Link]. No. 6 – Chainage 24+931 to 25+483:-Service
road is mentioned in the schedule.-Applicable TCS
are **Fig. 7.3B and Fig. 7.8A, but these TCS show
slip roads, not service roads.-Bidder Request: **
Kindly review and amend accordingly to avoid
[Link], several other similar
discrepancies have been observed across the
[Link] **Bidder has attached detailed
calculations and observations** for the
Authority’s [Link] Bidder therefore requests
the Authority to:i. Review and verify the
**chainage-wise service road details** and the
**corresponding TCS applicability**.ii. Provide
the missing TCS drawings (e.g., Fig. 2.6A, Fig.
7.8A, etc.).iii. Amend Schedule–B and
**Annexure–II accordingly to ensure accuracy
and consistency between the service road details
and the TCS references.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.

11 Clause 2.8.4 of 2.8.4. Slip Road: The height of embankment of slip road shall confirm to clause As per Clause 2.8.4 of Schedule–B, the total Refer updated Annexure - II
schedule-B 4.2.1. (Clause No. 4.2.1 IRC: SP: 84-2019). The Slip roads shall be constructed at length of slip roads is mentioned as 9,770 [Link] of Schedule –B is being
the locations and for the lengths indicated below: reviewing the details, the bidder has observed the provided in the
following discrepancies:- corrigendum no 7.
Sr. No. 2 – Chainage 12+315 to 13+165 (RHS): The
schedule mentions slip roads on both sides with a
total length of 0.85 × 2 = 1.70 [Link], the
applicable TCS for this stretch (Fig. 2.3A and Fig.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
7.8A) do not show slip [Link] clarify the
correct slip road provision for this [Link]
Locations:Similar discrepancies have been
observed in other chainages where slip roads are
mentioned in the schedule but not shown in the
corresponding TCS. Kindly review all slip road
locations for [Link] Bidder has attached
detailed calculations and observations for the
Authority’s [Link] Bidder therefore
requests the Authority to:
i. Review and confirm the correct slip road
chainages and lengths.
ii. Clarify the applicability of TCS figures for each
slip road.
iii. Amend Schedule–B and Annexure–II
accordingly to ensure consistency and avoid
ambiguity.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.

12 Clause 2.8.1 of 2.8.1. Service Road: The height of embankment of service road shall confirm to As per Clauses 2.8.1 and 2.8.3 of the tender document, The bottom of subgrade
schedule-B clause 4.2.1. the embankment is to be constructed in accordance shall be at least 1500 mm
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Clause 2.8.4 of 2.8.4. Slip Road: The height of embankment of slip road shall confirm to clause with Clause 4.2.1 of Schedule-B, which states that the above HFL/Existing ground
schedule-B 4.2.1. (Clause No. 4.2.1 IRC: SP: 84-2019). embankment top shall be a minimum of 1.0 m above level for a
the Highest Flood Level (HFL).However, the bidder greenfield/bypass stretch.
Clause 4.2.1 of
notes that if the same embankment criteria (i.e., 1.0 m
IRC:SP:84-2019
above HFL) is applied to the service road, it results in a
higher profile for the service road, which is not
practically feasible or appropriate from a design and
execution [Link], the bidder
respectfully requests the relaxation of this requirement
specifically for the service road embankment, or
clarification on applicable embankment height
standards for the service road portion of the
[Link] confirm and advise if any relaxation or
alternative criteria can be adopted.
13 Cluse 2.8.5 of As per Clause 2.8.5 of Schedule–B, it is Please refer to the Cl. no.
schedule-B mentioned: 8.4 of Schedule-B and
"A separator (Metal Beam Crash Barrier) between notes.
main carriageway and service/slip road shall be
provided to prevent the pedestrians, local
vehicles, and animals entering the highway."
Observations and Request:
The schedule mentions the provision of a Metal
Beam Crash Barrier (MBCB) between the Main
Carriageway (MCW) and Service/Slip Roads, but
the chainage-wise lengths are not specified.
The applicable TCS figures in Annexure–II of
Schedule–B do not show this MBCB.
Bidder requests the Authority to kindly:
i. Provide the chainage-wise lengths of the Metal
Beam Crash Barrier where it is to be installed
between MCW and Service/Slip Roads.
ii. Clarify whether the MBCB is provided on a
separator or directly on the carriageway edge.
iii. Incorporate the Metal Beam Crash Barrier in
the TCS figures of Annexure–II for consistency and
proper understanding of construction
requirements.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
14 Footnote (i) of Above length of the service/slip roads is minimum specified. The actual length The bidder understands that an increase in length up to No Change. Refer clause
Clause 2.8.5 of the service/slip/connecting roads shall be determined by the 5% from the specified length in the referred Clause, as 2.8.5 in schedule B.
Concessionaire/ Contractor in accordance with the approved plan & profile and per the standards and specifications, will not be treated
as a Change of Scope.
design approved from the Independent Engineer. Any increase/ decrease up to
However, any increase in length due to other reasons
5 percent length from the length specified in this Clause of Schedule-B shall not
like 3rd Party, Local Requirment and induction of New
constitute a Change of Scope. For increase and decrease beyond 5% COS as per Change of Scope, will be considered a Change of
provision of the contract shall be given on incremental basis. Any additional Scope. Kindly confirm.
requirement at new location shall be dealt in CoS clause as per respective CA.
15 Clause 2.9 of 2.9. The Acceleration, deceleration lane, right turning storage lane, entry/exit i. The referred provision is given under Clause 2.9, No Change. Refer clause
schedule-B lanes shall be constructed in addition to length given in above table and shall Schedule-B which is for Grade Separated 2.9 and other connected
be deemed to be part of the scope and no Change of Scope shall be considered Structure, and the bidder understood that it is clauses of schedule B.
for the same. (Clause No. 2.12.2 IRC: SP: 84-2019). Any structures falling within applicable only for Grade Separated Structures
acceleration/deceleration lane/taper shall be constructed to the required referred in the Clause 2.9 of Schedule-B, kindly
width. This increase in width shall not be treated as change of scope. Grade confirm.
Separated Structures (clause No. 3.4 IRC: SP: 84-2019): Grade Separated ii. Minimum vertical clearance for Grade
Structures (clause No. 3.4 IRC: SP: 84-2019): Grade separated structures shall Separated Structures given under Clause 2.9,
be constructed as per paragraph 2.13 of the Manual. Proposed levels at Schedule-B, are as below:
structure locations as shown in plan & profile specified in Annexure-III of
schedule A are minimum requirement and only for guidance and any increase 1. VUP: 5.5m
in levels shall not constitute any change of scope. Entry/ Exit arrangement from 2. LVUP: 4.0m
main carriageway shall be 50m before/ after the start/ end of approach road to 3. SVUP: 4.0m
grade separator i.e. start/ end of valley curve (clause No. [Link] IRC: SP:84- 4. Flyover (Grade Separator)" 5.5m
2019). RCC barrier shall start from start of valley curve and end after grade
separator at end of valley curve. The bidder understood that the vertical profile
increases over and above FRL indicated in the
Where crash barrier on the median side is not continuous along the project alignment plan as per Annexure-III of Schedule-A
highway, 50m long MBCB Safety barriers on median side shall be provided on due to the above vertical clearance for the
both sides approaches of the structures. MBCB provided towards median side VUP/LVUP/SVUP/Flyover (Grade Separator)
of each of the structure with corresponding end treatment. (Clause No. 4.3.5 structures specified in the 2.9 of the Schedule-B,
and 4.9, IRC 119). for which Change of Scope is not applicable.
However, if vertical clearance of the above Grade
Separated Structures increases due to the local
requirement/ third-party requirements in
Implementation stage of the project then
increase in profile with respect to designed
profile of Concessionaire due to this will attract
Change of Scope, kindly confirm.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
16 Footnote (d) of (d). 2 (two) height barriers on either side of the underpasses for height less As per Footnote (d) of Clause 2.9.6 in Schedule-B, Subjected to the provision
Clause 2.9.6 than 5.5m to be provided. it is mentioned that “2 Nos. of height barriers on of IRC / Good industry
either side of the underpasses for height less than practice.
5.5 m are to be provided.”
However, the drawing for the specified height
barrier is not available in the provided
documents.
The bidder therefore requests the Authority to
kindly provide the height barrier drawing
referenced in Footnote (d) of Clause 2.9.6 of
Schedule-B.
17 Footnote (1), Note: The bidder understands that an increase in length No Change. Refer clause
Clause 2.10 of 1. Any variations in the lengths specified in the above table shall not constitute is not categorized as a change in scope under 2.10 in schedule B.
schedule B a Change of Scope. normal circumstances like as per standard
specification. However, any increase in length
resulting from factors such as third-party
requirements, local needs, or the introduction of
new elements within the scope of work should be
considered a change of scope.
The bidder kindly requests confirmation of this
understanding.
18 Footnote 6, Clause 6. Carriageway width tapering shall be provided 1 in 50 as per Clause no 2.5.4 As per Footnote VI of Clause 2.10 of Schedule–B, Refer note 7 of clause 2 of
2.10 of schedule-B of Manual. Intermediate Sight Distance (Desirable Minimum Sight Distance) it is stated: NHAI circular No
shall be followed for design of all vertical curves (Summit and Valley Curves) “Carriageway width tapering shall be provided 1 11.54/2023 dated
including structures as well as highways in 50 as per Clause no. 2.5.4 of Manual.” 30.10.2023. “Sample
Clause 2.5.4 of However, on reviewing Clause 2.5.4 of IRC:SP:84– Schedule B & Schedule C for
IRC:SP:84-2019 2019, the following is mentioned: preparation of RFP for Four
“As far as possible, the median shall be of uniform or Six Laning of Highway
width in a particular section of the highway. works".
However, where changes are unavoidable, a
transition of 1 in 50 shall be provided.”
It is observed that the maual Clause 2.5.4 reffer
to median width tapering, not carriageway
tapering. Thus, there is a discrepancy between
the schedule footnote and the IRC clause.
The bidder respectfully requests the authority to
Review and amend the footnote to correctly refer
to median tapering instead of carriageway
tapering, in line with Clause 2.5.4 of IRC:SP:84–
2019.
Kindly confirm and issue the necessary correction
or clarification.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
19 Clause 3.2 of 3.2 At-grade intersections below Grade Separators/ Interchanges: At-Grade As per Clause 3.2 of Schedule-B, the junction type Refer updated Clause 3.2 of
schedule-B Intersections below Grade Separators/ Interchanges: These shall be provided as has been indicated as T & Y junctions, and under Schedule –B is being
given in para 2.9 of this Annexure-I of the Schedule B. (clause No. 3.4.7 of IRC: the length development column, it is mentioned provided in the
SP: 84-2019). that development will be carried out on both corrigendum no 7.
[Link] Row 1, 14, 17 (Ch. 0+105, 12+730,
14+883), the junction type is shown as T & Y, but
the development length is provided on both
sides, which creates [Link] requests
clarification on the following points:A. Scope of
Developmenti. For T & Y junctions, development
is generally required only on the connecting arm.
The mention of development on both sides is
unclear.B. Junction Classificationi. Kindly clarify
whether these junctions are to be developed
strictly as T & Y junctions, or treated as Cross
junctions with approaches on both sides.C.
Amendment Requesti. If both-side development
is not applicable for simple T & Y junctions,
request the Authority to amend the schedule to
reflect the correct scope — either by modifying
the junction type or correcting the length
development provisions.D. Missing Informationi.
At Ch. 23+392, the junction type is not
mentioned. The bidder requests the Authority to
kindly provide the junction type.
20 Para I of Clause 4 of 4 Road Embankment and Cut Section Please clarify whether the finished road level as The concessionaire is at
Schedule-B Construction of road embankment/cuttings shall conform to the Specifications shown in the plane and profile drawing to be liberty to improve /
and Standards given in section 4 of the Manual. Notwithstanding anything to strictly followed, or necessary changes can be upgrade the profile of
the contrary contained in this Agreement or Manual, the proposed profile of applied in vertical profile satisfying the codal
the project satisfying
the project highway as indicated in the Annex-III of Schedule A shall be treated provision and considering the HFL criteria as
as minimum requirement. mentioned in Para I of Clause 4 of Schedule-B. the design requirement
and considering the FRL
provided in DPR profile
as minimum
requirement of FRL. The
provision of Schedule B
& C shall not be change
only the design
component may be
submitted for consent /
Approval.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.

The bottom of subgrade

shall be at least 1500 mm
above HFL/Existing ground
level for a
greenfield/bypass stretch.
21 Clause 4.2 of 4.2 Based on site/design requirement, the Concessionaire shall design the As per Clause 4.2 of Schedule-B, it is mentioned:“- The bottom of subgrade
schedule-B alignment plans and profiles of the project highway based on site/design -------------------------. However, it is clarified that shall be at least 1500 mm
requirement mentioned in Schedule B with approval from the Independent bottom of subgrade level shall be at least 1500 above HFL/Existing ground
Engineer/Authority Engineer within the available Right of Way. However, it is mm above HFL/Existing ground level whichever level for a
clarified that bottom of subgrade level shall be at-least 1500 mm above is higher for a greenfield/ bypass greenfield/bypass stretch.
HFL/Existing ground level whichever is higher for a greenfield/ bypass stretch. stretch.”Whereas, as per Clause 4.2.1 of the
Clause 4.2.1 of Manual, it is stated:“The bottom of sub-grade
manual shall be 1.0 m above the High Flood Level
(HFL)/level of water table if the road has been
overtopped in the past.”Thus, there is an
inconsistency between Schedule-B and the
[Link], the bidder seeks clarification
on the following:A. Which requirement shall
prevail for bottom of subgrade level:(i) 1.5 m
above HFL/Existing Ground Level (as per
Schedule-B, Clause 4.2), or(ii) 1.0 m above
HFL/Water Table (as per Manual, Clause 4.2.1).B.
If Schedule-B requirement prevails, bidder
requests the Authority to kindly incorporate the
same into Schedule-D for consistency with
specifications and standards.C. If the Manual
requirement prevails, bidder requests the
Authority to kindly amend Schedule-B Clause 4.2
[Link] clarification is essential for
design uniformity, cost estimation, and ensuring
compliance with contractual specifications.
22 Para II of Clause 4 4 Road Embankment and Cut Section As per Clause 4, Para 2 of Schedule-B, it is No Change. Refer para II of
of Schedule-B The side slopes shall not be steeper than 2H:1 V. In case, there is a ROW specified that side slopes shall not be steeper clause 4 in Schedule – B.
constraint than, suitable soil retaining structures shall be provided. . (Clause than 2H:1V, and in case of ROW constraints,
No. 4.2 IRC: SP:84-2019) suitable soil-retaining structures are to be
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Clause [Link] of provided, with no flexibility for slope
IRC:SP:84-2019 modifications.

However, Clause [Link] of IRC: SP:84-2019

states:
"Side slopes shall not be steeper than 2H:1V
unless soil is retained by suitable soil-retaining
structures,"
which allows flexibility in side slope design when
appropriate retaining structures are provided.

This creates a discrepancy between Clause 4, Para

2 of Schedule-B and the relevant IRC guideline.

The bidder respectfully seeks the following

clarifications:

a) Kindly clarify whether flexibility in slope design

is permitted in accordance with Clause [Link] of
IRC:SP:84-2019, especially where soil-retaining
structures are proposed.

b) Request to amend Clause 4, Para 2 of

Schedule-B to align with the provisions of Clause
[Link] of IRC:SP:84-2019.

If no amendment is made, the bidder shall

interpret and implement slope design in line with
the IRC guideline (Clause [Link] of IRC: SP:84-
2019).

Kindly confirm.
23 Clause 5.2.2 of 5.2.2. Recommended Pavement Design: Notwithstanding anything to the As per Clause 3.2 of MoRTH Circular Code No. No change. Refer clause 5
Schedule-B contrary contained in this Agreement or the manual, the Concessionaire shall 1330 dated 20.09.2024, it is clearly stated that:“In of Schedule B.
design the pavement of main carriageway and slip road for minimum design respect of pavement design, only the Pavement
traffic of 100 MSA Type (Rigid/Flexible/Bonded Concrete
Clause 5.3 of 5.3. In order to meet the intended functional requirement of respective Pavement/Perpetual Flexible
Schedule-B pavement layers on main carriageway, the minimum thickness of respective Pavement/CRCP/White Topping/Short Slab
pavement layers for main carriageway and connecting crossroads/ service Concrete Pavement) shall be specified along with
roads/ slip roads/ entry/ exit locations, acceleration/ deceleration lane, right minimum design traffic (Million Standard Axles)
turning lanes shall, however, in no case be less than as given below: and Design Period. Pavement composition and
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Clause 5.3.2 of 5.3.2 Main carriageway, Slip Road, paved shoulder, median side paved strip, minimum layer thickness shall not be specified.
Schedule-B entry/ exit locations, acceleration/ deceleration lane, right turning lanes: Minimum and Maximum subgrade CBR shall not
Flexible pavement with CTSB & WMM. be mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ and the same will
be in accordance with applicable pavement
design standards.”However, as per Clause 5.3 of
Schedule-B, it is mentioned that the minimum
thickness of respective pavement layers for the
main carriageway is provided in Clauses [Link]
provisions under Clause 5.3 of Schedule-B appear
Para II of Clause to conflict with the above MoRTH Circular, as they
5.2.1 of schedule-B specify “minimum” pavement layer thickness and
and Circular RE/NH- composition, which may limit bidders from
34049/01/2020- adopting value engineering practices and
S&R 20th innovative material technologies, as encouraged
September 2024 by the said [Link] for Clarification:A)
The bidder requests that the specified pavement
composition and minimum layer thickness in
Schedule-B be removed or revised to align with
MoRTH Circular Code No. 1330 dated
20.09.2024.B) The bidder understands that if the
Authority replies “As per Schedule / As per RFP,”
the bidder shall proceed with the pavement
design for 100 MSA and a 20-year design period in
accordance with Clause 5.3 and the above MoRTH
[Link] confirm and provide clarification.
24 Clause 5.2.3 of 5.2.3. The pavement for service road/Connecting roads shall be designed for As per Clause 3.2 of MoRTH Circular Code No. No change. Refer clause 5
Schedule-B projected traffic subject to Service Roads for minimum 20 MSA 1330 dated 20.09.2024, it is clearly stated that: of Schedule B.
Clause 5.3 of 5.3. In order to meet the intended functional requirement of respective
Schedule-B pavement layers on main carriageway, the minimum thickness of respective “In respect of pavement design, only the
pavement layers for main carriageway and connecting crossroads/ service Pavement Type (Rigid/Flexible/Bonded Concrete
roads/ slip roads/ entry/ exit locations, acceleration/ deceleration lane, right Pavement/Perpetual Flexible
turning lanes shall, however, in no case be less than as given below: Pavement/CRCP/White Topping/Short Slab
Clause 5.3.4 of 5.3.4. Crossroads/ service roads Concrete Pavement) shall be specified along with
Schedule-B minimum design traffic (Million Standard Axles)
and Design Period. Pavement composition and
minimum layer thickness shall not be specified.
Minimum and Maximum subgrade CBR shall not
be mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ and the same will
be in accordance with applicable pavement
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Para II of Clause design standards.”
5.2.1 of schedule-B
and Circular RE/NH- However, as per Clause 5.3 of Schedule-B, it is
34049/01/2020- mentioned that the minimum thickness of
S&R 20th respective pavement layers for the main
September 2024 carriageway is provided in Clauses 5.3.4.

The provisions under Clause 5.3 of Schedule-B

appear to conflict with the above MoRTH Circular,
as they specify “minimum” pavement layer
thickness and composition, which may limit
bidders from adopting value engineering
practices and innovative material technologies, as
encouraged by the said circular.

Request for Clarification:

A) The bidder requests that the specified
pavement composition and minimum layer
thickness in Schedule-B be removed or revised to
align with MoRTH Circular Code No. 1330 dated
20.09.2024.

B) The bidder understands that if the Authority

replies “As per Schedule / As per RFP,” the bidder
shall proceed with the pavement design for 20
MSA and a 20-year design period in accordance
with Clause 5.3 and the above MoRTH Circular.

Kindly confirm and provide clarification.

25 Clause 6.1 of 6. Roadside Drainage As per Clause 6.1 of Schedule-B, it is mentioned Refer updated Annexure - II
schedule-B 6.1 Drainage system including surface and subsurface drains for the Project that a roadside drain shall be provided from Ch. - is being provided in the
Highway including crossroads shall be provided as per section 6 of the manual. 1+130 to Ch. 4+514. corrigendum no 7.
RCC Drain cum footpaths shall conform to the cross- sectional features and
other details as given in Annexures to Schedule-B and shall be provided as Observation:
under: Details of RCC Drain Cum Footpath (Clause No. 2.13 & 6.2.6 IRC: SP: 84- Upon reviewing the Typical Cross Section (TCS)
2019) schedule, the applicable TCS appears to be Fig.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
2.6A. However, this particular TCS is not included
in Annexure-II of Schedule-B.

Bidder’s Request:
The bidder kindly requests the Authority to
provide the missing TCS (Fig. 2.6A) so that the
same can be cross-examined and verified with the
drain length mentioned in the schedule.

Clause 2.10 of
schedule-B
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
26 Para I, Clause 6.3 of 6.3. Median Drain (Clause No. 6.3 IRC: SP: 84-2019) RCC box type Lined drain As per Clause 6.3, it is mentioned: Refer clause 2.10 in
schedule-B shall be provided in the centre of the median at super elevation locations. schedule - B
"RCC box type lined drain shall be provided in the
centre of the median at super elevation
locations."

Request for Clarification:

The bidder requests the Authority to kindly
provide:

A. The locations of the median drains at super

elevation points.

B. The lengths of these drains.

C. The sizes of the RCC box type drains to be

provided.

This information will assist the bidder in preparing

the design in accordance with the project
requirements.
27 Para II, Clause 6.3 Draining of storm water from one carriageway to other carriageway is not As per Clause 6.3, it is mentioned: Refer clause no 2.10 of
of schedule-B permitted. "Draining of storm water from one carriageway to Schedule - B.
another carriageway is not permitted. The
Concessionaire shall design the median drain
based on site/design requirements mentioned in
Schedule-D with approval from the Independent
Engineer and shall be connected with the nearest
culvert/outfall."
Request for Clarification:
The bidder requests the Authority to kindly
provide:

A. The drainage arrangement at the median.

B. The sizes and GAD (General Arrangement
Drawing) of the proposed drainage arrangement.
This information will assist the bidder in preparing
the design in accordance with the project
requirements.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
28 Clause 6.8 of 6.8 Drainage arrangement of Retaining Structures (No Clause in IRC: SP: 84- Kindly confirm that these are PVC pipes or MS Subjected to the provision
schedule-B 2019) Vertical Drop-down drainage pipes with suitable cleaning provision shall pipes. of IRC / Good industry
be provided at suitable interval. Drainage fixtures and dropdown pipes shall be practice.
of rigid, corrosion resistant material not less than 100mm dia. The Storm water
of main carriageway draining on service road is not permitted.
29 Clause 7.3.2 (2) of 2) All river bridges & underpasses without slip roads shall be provided with As per Clause 7.3.2 (2) of Schedule-B, details Already provided in
schedule-B steps for accessing the bottom in all four-cone filling portion for easy regarding major and minor bridges, including corrigendum no. 6.
assessable bridges and approaches. And the type of structures shall be their total proposed lengths, have been
bifurcated in different tables. mentioned.

Bidder’s Request:
The bidder kindly requests the Authority to
provide the span arrangement or the span
configuration details to be considered for
determining the span of all bridges.

In case the response is “as per Schedule and RFP”,

the bidder shall interpret that the span
arrangement shall be as per the provided GAD
drawings. Any subsequent variation or
modification in the span arrangement during
execution shall be treated as a change of scope.

Kindly clarify.

30 Footnote, Clause Note: (a). Founding level of foundation cannot be raised above the founding As per Footnote of Clause 7.3.2 of Schedule–B, No change. Refer Clause
7.3.2 of schedule-B level shown in the GAD. (b). Well/ pile cap top level cannot be lowered below the following points are mentioned:a) The 7.3.2 of schedule – B.
the level shown in the GAD. (c). Span arrangement to be decided as per the founding level of the foundation cannot be raised
concerned Authority Guidelines considering Navigational requirement. (d). All above the founding level shown in the GAD.b)
Structures to be designed for Special Vehicle (SV) loading, Class 70R, Class A The well/pile cap top level cannot be lowered
and Congestion Factor, whichever is critical, as per latest IRC Provisions. (e). below the level shown in the GAD.c) The span
Individual length of spans proposed in GAD are not to be reduced. (f). Project arrangement is to be decided as per the
Highway is proposed to be constructed to four lane configurations. concerned Authority’s guidelines considering
navigational requirements.d) All structures are to
be designed for Special Vehicle (SV) loading, Class
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Major Bridge At Ch. 70R, Class A, and congestion factor, whichever is
0+565 critical, as per the latest IRC provisions.e)
Individual span lengths proposed in the GAD are
not to be reduced.f) The project highway is
proposed to be constructed to a four-lane
[Link]’s Observations:i. Upon
reviewing the provided GADs, it is observed that
the foundation levels for both major and minor
bridges are not [Link]. Similarly, the pile
cap top levels are not indicated in the [Link].
Additionally, the navigational span details (if any)
and their corresponding chainages have not been
[Link]’s Request:The bidder kindly
requests the Authority to:1. Provide the
foundation levels for all bridges (major and
Major Bridge At Ch. minor).2. Provide the pile cap top levels as per
12+021 and Ch the design intent.3. Clarify and confirm how many
16+400 spans are to be considered as navigational spans,
along with their chainage locations, particularly
for minor [Link] bidder also seeks
clarification whether the details shown in GADs
are minimum criteria, or whether the bidder is
allowed to adopt their own design assumptions
— including type of foundation, depth of pile, and
depth of foundation — based on the actual
geotechnical investigation report obtained during
detailed [Link] check and clarify.

31 Clause 7.3.5 of 7.3.5 Structures in marine environment: - Technical Schedules All the structure As per Footnote (8), Clause 2 of Schedule–B, it is No change. Clause 7.3 is
schedule-B shall be design for extreme condition as per IRC: 112. Also, Ministry Circular No. mentioned:“Circular No. RW/NH-34066/09/2017- self-explanatory.
RW/NH-34066/09/2017-S&R (B) dated 12.02.2021 on reinforcing Steel Bars: S&R (B) dated 12.02.2021 on reinforcing Steel
Clause [Link] of Ministry's Specifications for Road and Bridge Works and Bars: Clause [Link] of Ministry's Specifications
Circular No. RW/NH 34049/03/2020-S&R(B) dated 22.01.2021 on use of for Road and Bridge Works and Circular No.
Stainless Steel in Bridges on National Highways and other centrally sponsored RW/NH-34049/03/2020-S&R(B) dated 22.01.2021
projects to be constructed in marine Environment are to be followed. on use of Stainless Steel in Bridges on National
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Latest Guide lines Highways to be constructed in marine
Circular No. Environment Susceptible to Severe
RW/NH- Corrosion.”Upon review, it is observed that the
34066/09/2017- latest amendment to this circular is Circular No.
S&R (B) dated 03- RW/NH-34066/09/2017-S&R (B) dated
09-2024. [Link] bidder therefore requests the
Authority to kindly:i. Amend Schedule–D to
reflect the latest guideline circular dated
03.09.2024 for reinforcing steel [Link]. Confirm
that all provisions related to the circular are to be
followed as per the latest amendment.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
32 Footnote Clause An Inspection Gallery along with a caged ladder (access from the Deck Slab) to Clause 7.3.2 – Footnote (Inspection Gallery and Refer updated Appendix - A
7.3.2 Schedule–B be provided at each Pier Location for facilitating Regular Inspection of Bridge GAD Reference) drawing is being provided
Structures. An indicative General Arrangement Drawing (GAD) has been As per Footnote of Clause 7.3.2 of Schedule–B, it in the corrigendum no 7.
prepared and is attached at Appendix-A which may be made a Part of is mentioned that:
Concession/ Contract Agreement. “An Inspection Gallery along with a caged ladder
(access from the Deck Slab) to be provided at
each Pier Location for facilitating regular
inspection of bridge structures. An indicative
General Arrangement Drawing (GAD) has been
prepared and is attached at Appendix–A which
may be made a part of the Concession/Contract
Agreement.”
Bidder’s Observation:
Upon reviewing the tender documents and the
appendices provided, the indicative General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD) referenced in the
above clause could not be located or found in the
document set.
Bidder’s Request:
The bidder kindly requests the Authority to
provide the referenced indicative GAD
(Appendix–A) for better understanding of the
intended provision of the Inspection Gallery and
Caged Ladder details at each pier location.
Kindly check and clarify.
33 Clause 7.4.2 of 7.4.2 Road Over Bridges (road over rail) shall be provided at the following As per Clause 7.4.2 of Schedule–B, a Road Over Already provide in
schedule-B location, as per GAD drawings attached. Bridge (ROB) is specified at Ch. 39+566, with the corrigendum no 6. Refer
following configuration: -Span arrangement: 2 × the Approved GAD of ROB
18.0 m + 1 × 48.0 m + 1 × 18.0 m-Type of vide No. GM/W/SC/BR/R-
superstructure: Composite Girder + Bowstring 20/2022 dated 14.03.2022.
Girder + Composite Girder-Width: 2 × 12.5
mBidder’s Observation:Upon reviewing the
tender documents, it is noted that the approved
or submitted drawings for the above ROB are
not available in the provided document [Link]
bidder requests the Authority to kindly provide
the approved or submitted drawings for the ROB
at Ch. 39+566 from the concerned authority, to
enable proper understanding of the design intent,
span configuration, and structural detailing during
estimation and execution [Link] provide.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
34 Footnote (iii) iii) All charges payable to the Railways like D&G, Capitalized maintenance, As per Footnote (iiii), Clause 7.4.2 of Schedule-B, No change. Refer Clause
Clause 7.4.2 of signalling, cabling, OHE modification, earthing etc. except P&E charges shall be it is mentioned that “All charges payable to the 7.4.2 of schedule – B.
Schedule-B borne by the Concessionaire. Railways like D&G, Capitalized maintenance,
signalling, cabling, OHE modification, earthing etc.
except P&E charges shall be borne by the
Concessionaire."
The bidder respectfully requests the Authority to
kindly clarify:
A. What type of supervision is required under
this provision.
B. Whether the cost of such supervision has been
considered during DPR preparation, or not
Kidnly clarify.
35 Footnote (iv) Necessary inspection arrangement for inspection of bearings shall be made as As per Footnote (iv) of Clause 7.4.2, Schedule–B, No change.
Clause 7.4.2 of per the guidelines issued vide BS 113 of November 2014 by Railway Authorities. it is stated that:
Schedule-B “Necessary inspection arrangement for inspection
of bearings shall be made as per the guidelines
issued vide BS–113 of November 2014 by Railway
Authorities.”
Bidder’s Observation:
The referenced document “BS–113, November
2014” issued by the Railway Authorities is not
provided in the tender documents. Moreover, the
specific type of inspection arrangement required
for bearing inspection (such as inspection gallery,
access ladder, platform, or any other system) has
not been clearly defined.
The bidder kindly requests the Authority to:
i. Provide a copy of the guidelines issued vide BS–
113 (November 2014) by the Railway Authorities
for proper reference.
ii. Clarify the type and extent of the inspection
arrangement required for bearing inspection to
ensure compliance with the intended provisions.
Kindly clarify.
.36 Footnote (v) Clause The Concessionaire shall do instrumentation in the Railway superstructure As per Footnote (8), Clause 2 of Schedule–B, it is As per latest guide line /
7.4.2 of schedule-B across Railway bridge portion to ensure and carry out regular monitoring of the mentioned:“The Concessionaire shall do circular applicable at the
health of bridge to meet its serviceability and functionality requirement during instrumentation in the Railway superstructure time of bid due date.
the Concession period as per NHAI Circular No. NHAI/GM/ROB-RUB/2012 dated across Railway bridge portion to ensure and carry
25.04.2016 and its Annexures. out regular monitoring of the health of bridge to
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Latest Guide lines meet its serviceability and functionality
Circular No. requirement during the Concession period as per
NHAI/GM/ROB- NHAI Circular No. NHAI/GM/ROB-RUB/2012
RUB/2019/139024 dated 25.04.2016 and its Annexures.”Upon
dated 06.08.2019 review, it is observed that the latest amendment
to this circular is Circular No. NHAI/GM/ROB-
RUB/2019/139024 dated [Link] bidder
therefore requests the Authority to kindly:i.
Amend Schedule–B to reflect the latest guideline
circular dated 06.08.2024 for instrumentation in
the Railway superstructure across Railway bridge
[Link]. Confirm that all provisions related to
the circular are to be followed as per the latest
amendment.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
37 Clause 8.4 of 8.4 Safety Barrier: As per Clause 8.4 of Schedule–B, the following Refer clause 2.10 and
schedule-B 2. Thrie-beam Single faced metal crash barrier types of safety barriers are mentioned: update Annexure – II (TCS)
6. Concrete Single faced barriers on outer edge. 2. Thrie-beam single-faced metal crash barrier is being provided in the
7. Concrete Single faced barrier on both outer and inner edge 6. Concrete single-faced barrier on outer edge corrigendum no 7.
7. Concrete single-faced barrier on both outer
and inner edges

Bidder’s Observation:
To verify and cross-check the applicability and
locations of the above barrier types, it is
necessary to refer to the corresponding Typical
Cross Sections (TCS).
However, from Chainage –1+130 to 4+514, the
applicable TCS is indicated as Fig. 2.6A, but this
TCS drawing is not provided in Annexure–II of
Schedule–B.
Without this drawing, it is not possible to confirm
the placement, configuration, and continuity of
the safety barriers with respect to the project
alignment and cross-sectional arrangement.

Bidder’s Request:
The bidder therefore kindly requests the
Authority to:
i. Provide the missing TCS Drawing – Fig. 2.6A for
review and verification.
ii. Cross-check and confirm the type and length of
the safety barriers mentioned under Clause 8.4,
ensuring they are consistent with the applicable
TCS and project chainages.
iii. Amend the Schedule, if required, to ensure
proper alignment between the safety barrier
details and the referenced TCS drawings.

Kindly clarify.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
38 Clause 13 of 13. Shifting of Utilities(a) High Tension (HT) lines HT Tower Lines (AP TRANSCO) Reference: Clause 13(a) of Schedule–B mentions Clause no 2.5 of RFP may
schedule-B High Tension (HT) [Link]’s Observations: be referred.
A. In the column “Distance from center line”, the And also Refer Clause no –
unit is not specified, creating ambiguity for proper 13 of Schedule – B.
assessment.
B. The vertical clearance of these utilities from
the proposed road level is not provided.
C. For proper cross-verification and alignment
with the project design, the plan/layout of the
utilities is [Link]’s Requests:
i. Kindly specify the units for the distance from
center line.
ii. Kindly provide the vertical clearance of HT lines
from the proposed road.
iii. Kindly provide the utility plan/layout for
verification and alignment [Link]
information is essential for accurate design,
planning, and safe execution of the project.
39 Annexure-II of As per TCS Figures: 2.2–A3, 2.3–B3, 2.3–C2, At the The Concessionaire shall do
Schedule-B outlet portion in the above TCS, certain markings detailed design, for all the
TCS Fig 2.2-A3, Fig are shown (highlighted in the attached copy). The elements to developed
2.3-B3, Fig 2.3-C2 nature or specification of this material is not TCS, plan and profile in
mentioned. accordance with the
provision of schedule – D.
Bidder’s Request: However DPR drawings are
i. Kindly clarify what material is indicated at the for reference purpose only.
outlet in these TCS.
ii. Alternatively, can this portion be considered as
compacted earthwork for execution purposes?

Purpose: This clarification is required to ensure

accurate quantity estimation and proper
execution in line with the intended design.
40 Clause 7.2.5 of 7.2.5 New Culverts (given in table below) shall be constructed for width equal Reference: Clause 7.2.5 of Schedule–B – Culvert GAD already been
schedule-B to the proposed roadway width of the Project Highway & as per typical cross- at Ch. 3+490 provide in corrigendum
section given in schedule B. The details are given as under: the bidder Observation: no 6.
1. The span of the culvert is mentioned as 1 × 6 However RCC Box
×2.
culvert structure has
2. The initially provided GAD file (GAD–SCH OF
been proposed.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Plan and Profile at STR OF CULVERTS dated 16-08-25) cannot be
Ch 3+490 opened.
3. Upon reviewing the Plan and Profile, it is
observed that the RCC Drain is Y-type, i.e., one
branch upstream at the right side and two
branches—one upstream and one downstream.

Bidder’s Request:
i. Kindly re-upload the GAD file so that it can be
reviewed.
ii. Provide proper assessment and design details
for this specific Y-type culvert, including a revised
GAD if required, to ensure correct understanding
for execution and quantity estimation.

GAD File of Culverts GAD-SCH OF STR OF CULVERTS (16-08-25)

41 Clause 1 of Toll Plaza Tolling system shall be provided in entire length of the project and Reference: Clause 1 of Schedule-C – Toll Plaza Refer Clause 1 of Schedule
schedule-C the same is integrated with the adjoining packages. The Toll Plazas shall be System – C and drawings.
provided as per NHAI circular No. 17.5.82 dated 24/5/2021 and Schedule D. The clause specifies a Toll Plaza System at Ch. The FOB shall be
Minimum Lane requirement in the opening year are as follows. 0+985 on the connecting road to KSEZ, having 2 + constructed at Main
2 lanes at entry and 2 + 2 lanes at exit. Carriageway Toll Plaza
Toll Plaza shall be provided confirming to (Clause No. 10.2 IRC: SP:84-2019) at However, after reviewing the Plan and Profile locations only
the following locations: drawings, no toll plaza location is shown at this
Chainage.
Additionally, there are multiple entry/exit
locations and service/slip roads mentioned in the
schedule at ch 12+730 and 28+180, but it is
unclear whether toll plaza facilities (including toll
booths and building structures) are required at
these points.
Bidder’s Request for Clarification:
i. Kindly confirm whether a toll plaza building,
control room, and associated facilities are
required to be constructed at the location Ch.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Plan and Profile at 0+985 of the connecting road to KSEZ.
Ch. 0+985 of ii. Please clarify whether toll plaza buildings are to
Connecting Road to be provided at all entry/exit points, service roads,
KSEZ or slip roads, or only at the main carriageway toll
plazas located at Ch. 1+050 and Ch. 38+094.
iii. Similarly, the bidder requests confirmation
regarding the requirement of Foot Over Bridges
(FOBs) — whether these are to be constructed at
all toll plaza locations or only at the main
carriageway toll plazas as mentioned in the
approved drawings.

42 Foot note 9 clause Provide Staircase on either side of the FoB at Median Island location by As per Note 9 of Clause 1 of Schedule-C, it is The provision of FoB and
1 of Schedule C widening the island appropriately. mentioned that: Staircase is not required for
"Provide Staircase on either side of the FOB at Loop and ramp locations
Median Island location by widening the island i.e. @ Km. 12+730, Km.
appropriately." 28+180, Km. 0+985
The bidder observes that the toll are located at (Connecting road of KSEZ).
loop and ramp locations, and seeks clarification The FoB and Staircase is
on whether it is necessary to provide a Foot Over only required for Main
Bridge (FoB) with staircases at these locations Ch. Carriageway Toll Plaza
12+730, ch 0+985 at connecting road to KSWZ locations.
and Ch. 28+180.
Kindly confirm if the provision of FoB and
staircases is required at the loop and ramp
locations, or if this note is applicable only to other
specific scenarios like main carriageway toll plaza.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
43 Clause 2.2 of 2.2 Traffic Signs: (Clause No. 9.2 IRC: SP:84-2019) As per Clause 2.2 of schedule-C, it is mentioned Refer clause 8.2 of
schedule-C Traffic Signs include roadside signs, overhead signs and Kerb mounted signs etc. that the MoRT&H Circular No. RT- Schedule-B.
shall be 25035/07/2023-RS(Part) (221534) dated 20th
provided along the entire Project Highway and on all Side, Roads joining the July, 2023 shall be applicable for signage works.
main However, the bidder notes that a newer circular
carriageway/service road as per IRC 67-2022 and MoRTH Guidelines no. RT with the same reference number, MoRT&H
25035/07/2023 RS(Part) (221534) dated 20.07.2023. Circular No. RT-25035/07/2023-RS(Part)(221534)
dated 24.12.2024, has been issued by MoRT&H,
which supersedes the provisions of the earlier
circular dated 20.07.2023.
In this regard, the bidder requests clarification on
the following:
A). Whether the latest circular dated 24.12.2024
is to be followed for the purpose of signage
works,
B). Whether the circular dated 20.07.2023
mentioned in the Schedule–B is still applicable.
Further, the bidder submits that:
If the new circular dated 24.12.2024 is applicable,
then Clause 8.2 of schedule-B may kindly be
amended to reflect the same.
If the older circular is to be followed, then any
increase in signage quantity during execution, the
same should be considered under Change of
Scope (COS).
We request the Authority to kindly clarify and
confirm the applicable circular.
44 Clause 2.7 of 2.7. Boundary wall and Fencing: Reference: Clause 2.7 of Schedule–C – Boundary Refer circular RW / NH –
schedule-C Boundary wall shall be provided along the entire length on either side Wall 24036 /27/2010-PPP dated
(including transverse requirements at structure locations) as per the detail Observation: As per Clause 2.7 of Schedule–C, it is 04th February 2019
given below in accordance with IRC: SP: 84/87. Road boundary walls shall be mentioned that a boundary wall is to be provided (Provision of Boundary wall
provided at the boundary on both sides of the right of way available under the along the entire length of the project. and Toe wall.
control of the Authority, except at ingress and egress points. The boundary The clause also states that the GAD (General
walls shall be of reinforced cement concrete as per figure enclosed as Arrangement Drawing) of the boundary wall shall
Annexure A. be provided in Annexure–A of Schedule.
However, after reviewing the tender documents,
At all CD structure locations, the boundary wall shall be discontinued by turning Annexure–A of Schedule is not found, and hence
and joining it with the wing/return wall to allow crossing through these the GAD of the boundary wall is not available for
structures during dry seasons. In case Chain-link fencing, provide detailed reference.
drawings as Annexure A. In case of Pre cast panel fencing, provide cast in situ Bidder’s Request for Clarification:
coping beam on top of fencing. provide detailed drawings as Annexure A i. Kindly provide the General Arrangement
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
in all TCS Drawing (GAD) of the Boundary Wall as
mentioned in Clause 2.7 of Schedule–C /
Annexure–A of Schedule.
ii. The second paragraph of Clause 2.7 specifies
that at all CD structure locations, the boundary
wall shall be discontinued and joined with the
wing/return wall to permit crossing during dry
seasons. It also mentions that in case of Chain-
Link Fencing, detailed drawings shall be provided
as Annexure–A. However, the drawing for chain-
link fencing is also not found in the documents.
Kindly provide the detailed drawing for Chain-Link
Fencing.
iii. Bidder also requests to kindly confirm the total
length of Boundary Wall to be provided along
with chainage details, and further clarify how
much length (if any) is to be provided as Chain-
Link Fencing in lieu of Boundary Wall.
45 Clause 2.7 of Way side Amenities / Service Areas/Rest Area As per Clause 2.7 of Schedule-C, way-side amenities are Already provided in
schedule-C mentioned in the table to be constructed at Chainage corrigendum no. 6.
17+750 Both side and 40+600 on the RHS. Also
mentioned in Schedule.

However, the area to be covered is not specified in

schedule and plan & Profile. The bidder kindly requests
clarification on the area allocated for the way-side
amenities.

46 Clause 5.1 of Truck lay-byes: Reference: Clause 5.1 of Schedule–B – Truck Lay Refer 2.5 of RFP & Refer
schedule-B 5.1 The truck lay-bye shall be provided at below given location and as per the Bay Plan & Profile drawings.
design mentioned Observation:
in Schedule-D. As per Clause 5.1 of Schedule–B, the Truck Lay
Bay locations are mentioned at Ch. 29+900 (RHS)
and Ch. 34+873 (LHS). In the “Remarks” section, it
is stated that:
“Only development of land shall be done
(Complete area shall be filled and compacted
with borrow area soil up to minimum 1.5 m
height above existing Ground level and
construction of boundary wall around the area).
The connecting road from main carriageway to
wayside amenity should be constructed as per
Manual.”
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Bidder’s Observation and Clarification Required:
i. Bidder requests to kindly clarify the total area
(in sqm or hectares) proposed to be developed
for the Truck Lay Bay at both the mentioned
chainages.
ii. Bidder also requests to specify the total length
of boundary wall to be constructed around each
Truck Lay Bay location.
iii. In the remarks, it is stated that “The
connecting road from main carriageway to
wayside amenity should be constructed as per
Manual.” However, this clause refers to Truck Lay
Bay, not Wayside Amenities.
Bidder requests to kindly clarify and amend
whether the term “Wayside Amenity” mentioned
here is typographical or if the connecting road is
to be designed as per the same guidelines
applicable for Wayside Amenities.
47 Clause 5.3 of 5.3 Truck Lay Bye pavement: Provide pavement Composition As per Clause 3.2 of MoRTH Circular Code No. Already provided in
schedule-B (Flexible/Rigid/Paver Blocks) as 1330 dated 20.09.2024, it is clearly stated that: corrigendum no. 6.
follows: “In respect of pavement design, only the
Pavement Type (Rigid/Flexible/Bonded Concrete
Pavement/Perpetual Flexible
Pavement/CRCP/White Topping/Short Slab
Concrete Pavement) shall be specified along with
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Para II of Clause minimum design traffic (Million Standard Axles)
5.2.1 of schedule-B and Design Period. Pavement composition and
and Circular RE/NH- minimum layer thickness shall not be specified.
34049/01/2020- Minimum and Maximum subgrade CBR shall not
S&R 20th be mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ and the same will
September 2024 be in accordance with applicable pavement
design standards.”
However, as per Clause 5.3 of Schedule-c, it is
mentioned that the minimum thickness of
respective pavement layers for the trucklay bay is
provided in Clauses 5.3 of schedule-C
The provisions under Clause 5.3 of Schedule-B
appear to conflict with the above MoRTH Circular,
as they specify “minimum” pavement layer
thickness and composition, which may limit
bidders from adopting value engineering
practices and innovative material technologies, as
encouraged by the said circular.
Request for Clarification:
A) The bidder requests that the specified
pavement composition and minimum layer
thickness in Schedule-B be removed or revised to
align with MoRTH Circular Code No. 1330 dated
20.09.2024.
B) The bidder understands that if the Authority
replies “As per Schedule / As per RFP,” the bidder
shall proceed with the pavement design for
maincarrigway MSA and a 20-year design period
in accordance with Clause 5.3 and the above
MoRTH Circular.
Kindly confirm and provide clarification.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
48 Clause 10 of 10. Environmental Management Plan The Contractor shall implement the As per Clause 10 of Schedule-C, it is stated:"The Environmental Clearance is
schedule-B Environmental Management plan & action Plan for undertaking possible Concessionaire shall implement the not required.
mitigation measures in accordance with environmental clearance accorded by Environmental Management Plan & Action Plan
Ministry of Environment and Forests and climate change. The conditions & for undertaking possible mitigation measures in
directions stipulated by the MOEF shall be complied by the contractor. accordance with Environmental Clearance
accorded by Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The conditions &
directions stipulated by the MoEF&CC shall be
complied with by the Concessionaire."This implies
that Environmental Clearance (EC) under the
applicable MoEF&CC norms is required for this
[Link] bidder kindly requests the Authority
to:→it state that Environmental Management
Plan Attach MOEF Mitigation Report in Schedule
D but in schedule D it cant be attaced. Bidder
request to Provide the applicable MoEF&CC
clause(s) and reference norms under the EIA
Notification or any updated guidelines that are
applicable to this project.→Confirm whether the
project falls under Category A or B as per
MoEF&CC classification.→Share a copy of the
granted Environmental Clearance (EC), if already
obtained.→If not granted, please provide the
status of the enviromental clearance application
(submitted, under review, etc.).This information
is crucial for accurate compliance planning and
incorporation of mitigation measures in the bid.
49 Clause 13 of 13. Highway Patrol Units: As per Clauses 13, 14, and 15 of the Schedule-C, it As per Concessioner
schedule-c Highway Patrol units Shall be established and operate at toll plaza location as is mentioned that vehicles such as Highway Patrol Agreement.
per Schedule- D Clause 12.10 (strictly as per details mentioned in Annexure-C), Units, Emergency Medical Services, and Crane
which shall continuously patrol the highway in a stretch not exceeding 50 km (if Services shall be provided prior to PCOD/COD.
the stretch is more than 50 km additional 1 number of patrol vehicle per 50 km Additionally, it is stated that the tenure for these
or less shall be provided). The vehicle shall be brand new with fuel, driver, and vehicles will be for the entire O&M period.
insurance all-inclusive for the entire contract period. Highway Patrol units shall
be fitted with GPS and GSM based vehicle tracker system. Highway Patrol The bidder requests clarification regarding the
Vehicles shall be stationed on layby constructed on Project Highway @ every tenure and specific requirements for these
20 km of each Toll Plaza. vehicles.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Clause 14 of 14. Emergency medical services:
schedule-c The Contractor shall, at its own cost, construct a medical aid post at each toll
plaza with a minimum size of 5 x 5 sq.m with a toilet (to be used for the
patients of minimum size of 3 x3 sq.m) and hand it over to the Authority, no
later than 30 (thirty) days prior to PCOD/COD. The Medical Aid Post(s) shall be
deemed to be part of the project and shall vest in the Authority. Medical Aid
Post shall be set up at Administrative Block with round the-clock services for
victims of accidents on the Project Highway. One number Ambulance shall be
provided in a stretch not exceeding 50 km (if the stretch is more than 50 km
additional 1 number of ambulances per 50 km or less shall be provided). The
Ambulance shall be brand new with fuel, driver, medical staff and insurance all
inclusive for the entire contract period. Ambulance fitted with GPS and GSM
based vehicle tracker system shall be provided to be integrated with the Video
Incident Detection System with ATMS, as per Schedule- D, Clause 12.11 (strictly
as per details mentioned in Annexure-D), along with all necessary manpower
(including paramedical staff), medicines, equipment's etc. and shall be
maintained in an effective manner throughout the contract period starting
from the appointed date. Ambulance shall be stationed on layby constructed
on Project Highway @ every 20 km of each Toll Plaza
Clause 15 of 15. Crane Service:
schedule-c Crane Service shall be provided on project highway, as specified in the manual
Clause 12.12. One number crane shall be provided in a stretch not exceeding 50
km (if the stretch is more than TO km additional 1 number of crane per 50 km
or less shall be provided). Crane having capacity of minimum 20T shall be made
available. The crane shall be brand new with fuel, driver, and insurance all-
inclusive for the entire contract period. Cranes shall be stationed on layby
constructed on Project Highway @ every 20 km of each Toll Plaza.
50 sr. no 9, Clause 2.2 As per sr. no 9, Clause 2.2 of Schedule–D, it is Deleted
of Schedule–D mentioned:“Circular No. RW/NH-34066/09/2017-
S&R (B) dated 12.02.2021 on reinforcing Steel
Bars: Clause [Link] of Ministry's Specifications
for Road and Bridge Works and Circular No.
RW/NH-34049/03/2020-S&R(B) dated 22.01.2021
on use of Stainless Steel in Bridges on National
Highways to be constructed in marine
Environment Susceptible to Severe
Corrosion.”Upon review, it is observed that the
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Latest Guide lines latest amendment to this circular is Circular No.
Circular No. RW/NH-34066/09/2017-S&R (B) dated
RW/NH- [Link] bidder therefore requests the
34066/09/2017- Authority to kindly:i. Amend Schedule–D to
S&R (B) dated 03- reflect the latest guideline circular dated
09-2024. 03.09.2024 for reinforcing steel [Link]. Confirm
that all provisions related to the circular are to be
followed as per the latest amendment.

51 Para II-Clause 1 of The Concessionaire/Contractor shall deploy at its own Cost and Expenses, the As per Para II-Clause 1 of schedule-B,Para V- Refer circular “NHAI/ Policy
schedule-B Grading/ Paving/ Compaction Equipment fitted with System of Automated & Clause 4.1 of schedule-B, Clause 5.1.1 of Guidelines/ Standard
Intelligent Machine aided Construction (AI-MC) for finishing of all Grades schedule-B, and Clause 3 of Schedule-D, it is Documents/2025 Policy
including Embankment, Subgrade, GSB, WMM. The System of Automated & stated that:"The concessionaire/contractor shall Circular No.11.66/2025
Intelligent Machine- aided Construction (AI-MC) used by the Concessionaire/ deploy grading, paving, and compaction dated 08th April, 2025”.
Contractor shall be capable of delivering accuracy as per the applicable IRC equipment fitted with 3D Machine Guidance &
specifications. During the Construction Period, the Concessionaire/ Consultant Control System (MGCS) for finishing of all grades
shall furnish all the Physical Progress Data (All desired type of Surface Grading including embankment and subgrade. The
Data, Compaction and Temperature Data etc.) obtained through System of hardware and software used by the contractor
Automated & Intelligent Machine-aided Construction (Al-MC)/ CMS to shall have features and specifications mentioned
Authority for monitoring of Construction on Daily Basis. These Digital Data and at Schedule-D and Para II, Annexure-I of
desired output shall be made available at the Location (Server/ Cloud) finalised Schedule-B."In this regard, the bidder respectfully
by Authority. requests the following clarifications:A) .Vendor
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Para V-Clause 4.1 The Concessionaire/ Contractor shall deploy Grading, Paving and Compaction Details:3D MGCS deployment is relatively new in
of schedule-B Equipment equipped with System of Automated & Intelligent Machine-aided road construction. Despite our efforts, bidder
Construction (AI-MC) for finishing of all Grades including Embankment, and have been unable to identify qualified vendors for
Subgrade. The System of Automated & Intelligent Machine aided Construction the supply and integration of MGCS-compliant
(AI-MC) for Motor Graders/ Paver and the same in Compactors and Dozers shall hardware and [Link] provide a list of
be done with help of 3D Digital Model generated from Design to ensure Quality approved or recommended vendors based on
Standards as per IRC Specifications and Productivity improvement. Further, which specification arrived by the authority.B)
Concessionaire/ Contractor shall ensure the Generation of measurable Digital Cost & Rate Inclusion:The bidder also seeks
Records that can be shared on a Digital Drive or can viewed in real time. The confirmation on whether the cost of 3D MGCS is
Hardware and Software used by the Concessionaire/ Contractor shall have to be included in the project cost during DPR , and
Features and Specifications mentioned at Schedule D. if so: 1. What is the standard rate or cost
Clause 5.1.1 of 5.1.1 Concessionaire/Contractor shall develop 3D Digital Models and use considered for 3D-MGCS? 2. Is there any
schedule-B suitable System of Automated & Intelligent Machine-aided Construction (Al- benchmark or estimate available that was
MC) for Motor Graders and Paver and the same in Compactors and Dozers to considered during DPR/tender
ensure Quality Standards as per IRC Specifications and Productivity preparation?These details are requied for
improvement. Further, Contractor shall generate measurable Digital Records accurate cost analysis, vendor sourcing, and
that can be shared on a Digital Drive or can viewed in real time. The Hardware submitting a feasible and competitive [Link]
and Software used by the Contractor shall have Features and Specifications kindly request early clarification in the interest of
mentioned at Schedule D. fair and informed bidding.
Clause 3.1 of 3.1 Definition of Automated & Intelligent Machine-Aided Construction (AI-MC)
schedule-D Automated & Intelligent Machine-aided Construction (AI-MC) has been
adopted to Highway Construction Projects to achieve better Construction
Quality with respect to compaction in confirmation with IRC:SP:97-2013, in a
Safer Environment. Construction Efficiencies of Construction Machineries are
being enhanced through Location referencing. Automated & Intelligent
Machine-aided Construction (AI-MC) involves using Construction Equipment
mounted with on-board Computers, using a combination of 3D Modelling Data
along with Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)/ Universal Robotic Total
Station (UTS) Technology and Intelligent Guidance to control the manoeuvring
of Construction Equipment. AI-MC provides Horizontal and Vertical Guidance in
real time to Construction Equipment Operators. AI-MC Equipment has the
potential to achieve designed Grades on the First Pass, without assistance of
traditional staking.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
52 Interchanges at Ch. As per the interchanges at Ch. 0+105 km Already provided in
0+105 Km Schedule mentioned in the Schedule (Page 73) and as per corrigendum no. 6.
Page 73 Clause 2.9.8 of Schedule–B, the details are not
clearly visible. Upon reviewing the Plan and
Profile near Ch. -0+100 towards Achampeta, it is
observed that the end portion of this section is
not fully shown.
The bidder requests the Authority to kindly:
i. Provide separate, clear, and readable drawings
for the interchange at Ch. 0+105 km.
ii. Similarly, provide clear drawings for all other
interchanges at the following locations: Ch.
12+730 km, Ch. 16+135 km, Ch. 28+180 km, and
Ch. 40+294 km.
iii. Ensure that the drawings are readable so that
the length and chainage can be cross-checked
with the details mentioned in Clause 2.9.8 of
Schedule–B.
Plan and Profile at
Ch. -0+100
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
53 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2 of Schedule–B, a Minor Bridge Refer the corrigendum no 6
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in is specified at Ch. 4+161 with a total proposed of GAD drawings already
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). length of 15 [Link] reviewing the Plan and provide.
Profile, it is observed that the span is mentioned
as 1 × 10 [Link] bidder requests the Authority to
kindly:i. Verify this discrepancy between
Schedule–B and the Plan & [Link]. Amend
either Schedule–B or the Plan & Profile to reflect
Plan and Profile At the correct span/length consistently.
Ch 4+161

54 Clause 2.9.4 of 2.9.4. Small Vehicle Underpasses (SVUP) As per Clause 2.9.4 of Schedule–B, the SVUP at No change.
schedule-B Ch. 4+480 is specified with a carriageway width Refer clause no 2.9.4 in
of: Schedule-B.

LHS: 11 m, RHS: 11 m

However, upon reviewing the Plan and Profile, it

is observed that the width appears to cover the
entire road, including the main carriageway as
well as the service road.

The bidder requests the Authority to kindly:

i. Clarify the correct width of the SVUP —
whether the stated 11 m per side is only for the
carriageway or includes the service road.
ii. Amend Schedule–B or the Plan & Profile
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Plan and Profile at accordingly to reflect the accurate width for
Ch 4+500 proper execution and design.

55 7.2.5 New Culverts (given in table below) shall be constructed for width equal As per Clause 7.2.5 of Schedule–B, the box culvert Refer clause 7.2.5 is being
to the proposed roadway width of the Project Highway & as per typical cross- at Ch. 5+820 is specified with:Span: 1 × 3 × 3 m, updated in Schedule-B and
section given in schedule B. The details are given as under: Skew angle: 0°However, upon reviewing the Plan updated drawing is being
and Profile, the skew angle is shown as 30°.The provided in the
bidder requests the Authority to kindly:i. Confirm corrigendum no 7.
Clause 7.2.5 of the correct skew angle for the box culvert at Ch.
schedule-B 5+[Link]. Amend Schedule–B and/or the Plan &
Profile accordingly to ensure consistency and
plan and Profile at avoid ambiguity during execution.
ch. 5+820

56 Clause 7.2.5 of 7.2.5 New Culverts (given in table below) shall be constructed for width equal As per Clause 7.2.5 of Schedule–B, the box culvert Refer clause 7.2.5 is being
schedule-B to the proposed roadway width of the Project Highway & as per typical cross- at Ch. 6+970 is specified with: updated in Schedule-B and
section given in schedule B. The details are given as under: updated drawing is being
Span: 1 × 3 × 3 m, Skew angle: 0°
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
provided in the
However, upon reviewing the Plan and Profile, corrigendum no 7.
the skew angle is shown as 18°.
plan and Profile at
The bidder requests the Authority to kindly:
ch. 6+970
i. Confirm the correct skew angle for the box
culvert at Ch. +970.
ii. Amend Schedule–B and/or the Plan & Profile
accordingly to ensure consistency and avoid
ambiguity during execution.

57 Clause 7.2.5 of 7.2.5 New Culverts (given in table below) shall be constructed for width equal As per Clause 7.2.5 of Schedule–B, the box culvert Refer clause 7.2.5 is being
schedule-B to the proposed roadway width of the Project Highway & as per typical cross- at Ch. 7+840is specified with: updated in Schedule-B and
section given in schedule B. The details are given as under: Span: 1 × 2 X 2 m, Skew angle: 0° updated drawing is being
However, upon reviewing the Plan and Profile, provided in the
the skew angle is shown as 43°. corrigendum no 7.
The bidder requests the Authority to kindly:
i. Confirm the correct skew angle for the box
culvert at Ch. 7+840.
ii. Amend Schedule–B and/or the Plan & Profile
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
plan and Profile at accordingly to ensure consistency and avoid
ch.7+840 ambiguity during execution.

58 Clause 7.2.5 7.2.5 New Culverts (given in table below) shall be constructed for width equal As per Clause 7.2.5 of Schedule–B, the box culvert Refer clause 7.2.5 is being
Schedule B to the proposed roadway width of the Project Highway & as per typical cross- at Ch. 8+662 is specified with: updated in Schedule-B and
section given in schedule B. The details are given as under: Span: 1 × 3 X 3 m, Skew angle: 0° updated drawing is being
However, upon reviewing the Plan and Profile, provided in the
the skew angle is shown as 1°. corrigendum no 7.
The bidder requests the Authority to kindly:
i. Confirm the correct skew angle for the box
culvert at Ch. 8+662.
ii. Amend Schedule–B and/or the Plan & Profile
plan and Profile at accordingly to ensure consistency and avoid
ch.7+840 ambiguity during execution.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
59 Plan and Profile at As per the Plan & Profile, the chainage from Ch. Toe wall have been
Ch 12+000 11+819 to Ch. 12+000 shows a water-logged area, provided. Please refer
including a pond and a nalla. applicable TCS of clause no
Concern: 2.10 in Schedule – B.
The tender documents and Clause 11(ii) of
Schedule–B do not specify any retaining wall, toe
wall, or precautionary measures for this water-
logged area.
Bidder Requests Clarification:
i. Kindly confirm whether any special structural
measures (e.g., retaining wall, toe wall, drainage
improvement) are required at this water-logged
section.
ii. If such measures are required, please provide
the scope of work and specifications for these
measures.
iii. Kindly clarify whether the existing Schedule–B
adequately covers the works at this location or if
additional provisions are necessary.
Clause 11 (ii) of
schedule-B
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
60 Plan and Profile at As per the Plan & Profile, the Chainage from Ch. Toe wall has been
Ch 12+000 to 12+000 to 12+300 shows a water-logged area, provided. Please refer
12+300 including a pond and a [Link]: The tender applicable TCS of clause no
documents and Clause 11(ii) of Schedule–B do not 2.10 in Schedule – B.
specify any retaining wall, toe wall, or
precautionary measures for this water-logged
[Link] Requests Clarification:
iv. Kindly confirm whether any special
structural measures (e.g., retaining
wall, toe wall, drainage
improvement) are required at this
water-logged section.
v. If such measures are required,
please provide the scope of work
and specifications for these
measures.
Clause 11 (ii) of vi. Kindly clarify whether the existing
schedule-B Schedule–B adequately covers the
works at this location or if additional
provisions are necessary.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
61 Plan and Profile at As per the Plan & Profile, the chainage from Ch There is Cross Drainage
Ch 3+900 to 4+00 3+900 to 4+000 shows a water-logged area, structure have been
including a pond and a nalla. provided at the locations
for the smooth passage of
Concern: water.
The tender documents and Clause 11(ii) of
Schedule–B do not specify any retaining wall, toe
wall, or precautionary measures for this water-
logged area.

Bidder Requests Clarification:

i. Kindly confirm whether any special structural
measures (e.g., retaining wall, toe wall, drainage
improvement) are required at this water-logged
section.
ii. If such measures are required, please provide
Clause 11 (ii) of the scope of work and specifications for these
schedule-B measures.
iii. Kindly clarify whether the existing Schedule–B
adequately covers the works at this location or if
additional provisions are necessary.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
62 Plan and Profile at Reference: Plan & Profile; Schedule–B The Concessionaire shall do
Ch. 9+600 Observation: As per the Plan & Profile, a wall is detailed design, for all the
shown at Ch. 9+600. However, this scope is not elements to developed
included in Schedule–[Link] Requests plan and profile in
Clarification: accordance with the
vii. Kindly confirm whether the provision of schedule – D.
construction of this retaining wall is However DPR drawings are
part of the project scope. for reference purpose only.
viii. If it is included, please provide the
detailed scope of work for this wall,
including dimensions, materials, and
design requirements.
ix. In case it is not part of the scope,
please clarify and amend Schedule–
B to remove this item for
consistency.
63 Clause 12 of 12. Open Well within RoW: Nil As per Clause 12 of Schedule–B, the number of Refer updated clause 12 in
schedule-B open wells within the ROW is nil. However, the Schedule –B is being
plan and profile at Plan & Profile at Ch. 12+730 indicates six wells provided in the
Ch. 12+730 and a water-logged area. The scope of work for corrigendum no 7.
these items is not defined in Schedule–B.

Bidder Requests Clarification:

i. Kindly confirm whether the filling or treatment
of these wells and the water-logged area is part
of the project scope.
ii. If included, please provide the detailed scope
of work, including dimensions, design
requirements, and any specific structures (e.g.,
retaining walls, toe walls, or drainage measures).
iii. If these are not part of the project scope,
please clarify and amend Schedule–B or the Plan
& Profile accordingly to ensure consistency.
64 Clause 12 of 12. Open Well within RoW: Nil As per Clause 12 of Schedule–B, the number of Refer updated clause 12 in
schedule-B open wells within the ROW is nil. However, the Schedule –B is being
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
plan and profile at Plan & Profile at Ch. 117+400 indicates one pond. provided in the
ch 12+730 The scope of work for these items is not defined corrigendum no 7.
in Schedule–[Link] Requests Clarification:i.
Kindly confirm whether the filling or treatment of
these wells and the water-logged area is part of
the project scope.

65 Clause 7.2.5 of 7.2.5 New Culverts (given in table below) shall be constructed for width equal As per Clause 7.2.5 of Schedule–B, the box culvert The clause 7.2.5 Schedule-
schedule-B to the proposed roadway width of the Project Highway & as per typical cross- at Ch. 24+910is specified with: B (Km. 24+910- Box
section given in schedule B. The details are given as under: Span: 1 × 3 X 3 m, Skew angle: 0° Culvert) is being updated in
However, upon reviewing the Plan and Profile, Schedule-B and updated
the skew angle is shown as 3° and chainage will drawing & refer revised
be 24+931. Schedule provided in the
The bidder requests the Authority to kindly: corrigendum no 7 .
i. Confirm the correct skew angle and chainage.
ii. Amend Schedule–B and/or the Plan & Profile
accordingly to ensure consistency and avoid
ambiguity during execution.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
plan and Profile at
ch.24+931

66 Plan and Profile at As per the provided Plan & Profile at Ch. 40+300, Refer updated drawings
40+300 two boxes are marked — and revised Schedule –B is
-The first box is shown at Ch. 40+300, and being provided in the
-The second box is shown between Ramp–2 and corrigendum no 7.
Loop, at approximately Ch. 40+500.
However, the purpose or representation of these
marked boxes is not defined in the tender
documents.
Bidder Requests Clarification:
i. Kindly clarify what these two boxes represent in
the Plan & Profile.
ii. Please specify whether there is any related
scope of work for the Contractor associated with
these boxes (e.g., structures, utilities, or
provisions).
iii. If applicable, provide corresponding drawings
or references to ensure proper understanding
and alignment of scope.
67 Clause 2.9.7 of 2.9.7. Interchanges (IC) (Clause No. 3.4 IRC SP: 84-2019) As per Clause 2.9.7 of Schedule–B, an underpass Please refer GAD Drawing
schedule-B is mentioned; however, the barrel length is not nos: ARKI/DPR/NHAI/AP-
specified in the schedule. Upon reviewing the 17354/MNB/901 SH -01.
Plan & Profile and GAD, it is stated that the length
shall be as per the Highway Plan & Profile. Yet, no
specific length details are provided in these
[Link] Requests Clarification:
x. Kindly provide the barrel length of
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Underpass GAD at the underpass.
Ch 0+710 xi. Please specify how much length is to
be considered as U-through and
how much as box structure.
xii. Request to incorporate these details
in Schedule–B for consistency and
clarity.

68 Clause 2.9.3 of 2.9.3. Light Vehicle Underpasses (LVUP) As per Clause 2.9.3 of Schedule–B, the LVUP at Refer Clause 2.9.3 of
schedule-B Ch. 2+450 is mentioned with a roadway width of Schedule – B.
11 m (LHS) and 11 m (RHS).
However, upon detailed review:
The corresponding GAD section shows the
following:
-LHS: 0.5 m (Crash Barrier) + 0.5 m (Shyness) + 2.0
m (Paved Shoulder) + 7.0 m (Carriageway) + 0.5 m
(Shyness) = 10.50 m, RHS: same as LHS = 10.50 m
(this mentioned in cross section A-A)
Further, reviewing the Plan, the total width is
shown as:
-0.5 m (Crash Barrier) + 11.0 m (Carriageway) +
0.5 m (Crash Barrier) = 12.0 m
This shows inconsistency between the Schedule–
B, GAD, and Plan documents.
Bidder Requests Clarification:
i. Kindly confirm the correct roadway width for
the LVUP at Ch. 2+450.
ii. Amend the Schedule–B, Plan, or GAD
accordingly to ensure consistency across all
documents.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD Width of Ch
2+450

Plan of LVUP at Ch
2+450

69 Clause 2.9.3 of 2.9.3. Light Vehicle Underpasses (LVUP) As per Clause 2.9.3 of Schedule–B, all 10 nos. of Refer Clause 2.9.3 of
schedule-B LVUPs are mentioned with a roadway width of 11 Schedule – B.
m (LHS) and 11 m (RHS).
However, upon detailed review:
The corresponding GAD cross section (A–A) shows
the following:
-LHS: 0.5 m (Crash Barrier) + 0.5 m (Shyness) + 2.0
m (Paved Shoulder) + 7.0 m (Carriageway) + 0.5 m
(Shyness) = 10.50 m, RHS: same as LHS = 10.50 m
Further, as per the Plan, the total width is
indicated as:
-0.5 m (Crash Barrier) + 11.0 m (Carriageway) +
0.5 m (Crash Barrier) = 12.0 m
This indicates inconsistency among the Schedule–
B, GAD, and Plan documents.
Bidder’s Request for Clarification:
i. Kindly confirm the correct roadway width for all
the 10 LVUPs.
ii. Request to amend the Schedule–B, Plan, or
GAD accordingly to ensure uniformity and
consistency across all documents.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD Width of Ch
2+450

Plan of LVUP at Ch
2+450

69 Foot note (8)Major As per Footnote (8) of the Major Bridge GAD at Refer Clause no 7.3.5 in
Bridge GAD Ch Ch. 0+560, it is mentioned that “the Schedule – B.
0+560 reinforcement steel shall be Fe 500 conforming to
IS 1786.”However, Clause 7.3.5 of Schedule–B
Clause 7.3.5 of 7.3.5 Structures in marine environment: -
specifies that “Reinforcement bars of Stainless
schedule-B All the structure shall be design for extreme condition as per IRC: 112. Also,
Steel in bridges on National Highways and other
Ministry
centrally sponsored projects to be constructed in
Circular No. RW/NH-34066/09/2017-S&R (B) dated 12.02.2021 on reinforcing
marine environments are to be followed.”This
Steel Bars:
creates ambiguity regarding the type of
Clause [Link] of Ministry's Specifications for Road and Bridge Works and
reinforcement steel to be used for this
Circular No.
[Link] Requests Clarification:i. Kindly
RW/NH 34049/03/2020-S&R(B) dated 22.01.2021 on use of Stainless Steel in
confirm whether the reinforcement steel for this
Bridges on
bridge is to be Fe 500 conforming to IS 1786 as
National Highways and other centrally sponsored projects to be constructed in
mentioned in the GAD note, or Stainless Steel as
marine
per Clause 7.3.5 of Schedule–[Link]. Please provide a
Environment are to be followed.
clear confirmation of the applicable specification
for reinforcement steel for this particular bridge.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
70 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a Major Bridge (MJB) is Refer GAD drawings and
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 0+566 on the Spur Road, and the Clause no 7.3.5 in Schedule
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). width section is indicated as a 2-lane bridge. – B.

For a 2-lane bridge, the bidder refers to

IRC:SP:73-2018, Fig. 7.6 (Typical Cross Section of
IRC:SP:73-2018: Bridge for 2-Lane Highway with Paved Shoulder
Fig 7.6 Typical and Protected Footpath, Open Country –
cross section of Plain/Rolling Terrain), where the total width is
bridge for 2-Lane specified as:
Highway with
paved shoulder and 0.5 m (Crash Barrier) + 1.5 m (Footpath) + 0.5 m
protected footpath (Steel Barrier) + 13.0 m (Carriageway including
(Open country - shyness both sides) + 0.5 m (Steel Barrier) + 1.5 m
Plain/rolling (Footpath) + 0.5 m (Crash Barrier) = 18.0 m total
terrain) width
GAD at Ch. 0+566
However, the provided GAD indicates a total
width of 16.0 m, which is not aligned with the IRC
manual.

Bidder Requests Clarification:

i. Kindly confirm the correct total width of the
MJB at Ch. 0+566.
ii. Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
clearly indicate the approved width of the
structure to avoid any ambiguity during
execution.

71 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a Major Bridge (MJB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 12+021 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 12.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–B. corrigendum no 7.

However, after reviewing the General

Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is shown
as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–B.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD at Ch. 12+021 Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of the MJB at
Ch. 12+021.
ii. Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.

72 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a Major Bridge (MJB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 16+400 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 16.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–B. corrigendum no 7.

However, after reviewing the General

Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is shown
GAD at Ch. 16+400 as 16.0 meter (LHS) and 12.50 m (RHS), which is
not consistent with Schedule–B.

Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of the MJB at
Ch. 16+400.
ii. Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.

73 Clause 7.3.1 of 7.3.1 Existing bridges to be re-constructed/widened: 1. Existing bridges As per Clause 7.3.1, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B proposed for reconstructed as new structures: (Clause No. 7.3 iv(a) IRC: SP: 84- provided at Ch. -1+067 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 12.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–[Link], after reviewing the corrigendum no 7.
General Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is
shown as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–[Link] Requests:i. Kindly confirm the
correct width of the MNB at Ch. -1+[Link].
Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD at Ch. -1+067

74 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a Minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated GAD of CH.
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 3+006 on the Main Carriageway 3+006 is being provided in
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the skew angle is indicated as 48deg the corrigendum no 7.
in Schedule–B.
However, after reviewing the General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the skew angle is
shown as 47 deg, which is not consistent with
GAD at Ch. 3+006 Schedule–B.
Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of the MNB at
Ch. 3+006.
ii. Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.

75 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 3+006 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 12.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–[Link], after reviewing the corrigendum no 7.
General Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is
shown as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–[Link] Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of
the MNB at Ch. 3+006.
ii. Request the Authority to amend
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD at Ch. 3+006 Schedule–B to incorporate the width
as per the approved GAD to ensure
consistency between documents.

76 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 11+390 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 12.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–B. corrigendum no 7.
However, after reviewing the General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is shown
as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–B.

Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of the MNB at
Ch. 11+390.
ii. Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.
GAD at Ch. 11+390
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
77 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 35+644 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 11.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–[Link], after reviewing the corrigendum no 7.
General Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is
shown as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
GAD at Ch. 12+310 Schedule–[Link] Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of
the MNB at Ch. 35+644.
ii. Request the Authority to amend
Schedule–B to incorporate the width
as per the approved GAD to ensure
consistency between documents.
78 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 34+177 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 11.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–B. corrigendum no 7.

However, after reviewing the General

Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is shown
as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–B.

Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of the MJB at
GAD at Ch. 34+177 Ch. 34+177.
ii. Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
79 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 35+644 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 11.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–[Link], after reviewing the corrigendum no 7.
General Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is
shown as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–[Link] Requests:i. Kindly confirm the
GAD at Ch. 34+644 correct width of the MNB at Ch. 35+[Link].
Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.

80 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 37+344 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 12.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–B. corrigendum no 7.
However, after reviewing the General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is shown
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD at Ch. 37+344 as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–B.

Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly confirm the correct width of the MNB at
Ch. 37+344.
ii. Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.

81 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per the GAD, a Minor Bridge is proposed at Ch. Refer updated GAD
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in 37+368, having: drawing in the
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). corrigendum no 6.
Span: 1 × 15 m, Skew: 45° and Width: 12.50 m × 2

However, after reviewing the Structure List for

Minor Bridges in Clause 7.3.2 of Schedule–B, this
bridge is not mentioned.

Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly confirm whether this Minor Bridge at Ch.
37+368 is part of the project scope.
ii. If included, request the Authority to amend
Schedule–B to incorporate this Minor Bridge and
its specifications for consistency.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD at Ch. 37+368

82 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated clause 7.3.2
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 38+263 on the Main Carriageway in Schedule –B is being
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW), and the width is indicated as 2 × 12.0 m provided in the
in Schedule–[Link], after reviewing the corrigendum no 7.
General Arrangement Drawing (GAD), the width is
shown as 12.50 m, which is not consistent with
Schedule–[Link] Requests:i. Kindly confirm the
correct width of the MNB at Ch. 38+[Link].
Request the Authority to amend Schedule–B to
GAD at Ch. 38+263 incorporate the width as per the approved GAD
to ensure consistency between documents.

83 Clause 7.3.2 of 7.3.2 Additional New Bridges: New bridges at the following locations on the As per Clause 7.3.2, a Minor Bridge (MNB) is Refer updated GAD
schedule-B Project Highway shall be constructed. GADs for the new bridges are attached in provided at Ch. 38+263 on the Main Carriageway drawing in the
the drawings folder. (Clause No. 7.3 ii IRC: SP: 84-2019). (MCW) with the following details: corrigendum no 6.
Width: 2 × 12.0 m, Total span length: 15 m and
Skew angle: 47°
However, after reviewing the available tender
documents, the corresponding GAD for this Minor
Bridge is not provided.
Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly provide the approved General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD) for the Minor Bridge
at Ch. 38+263.
ii. Confirm whether the bridge dimensions and
skew mentioned in Schedule–B are final and to be
followed during execution.
84 GAD of PUP Ch PUP Span: 1X4X3 As per the GAD for PUP at Ch. 23+392, the
23+392 following is indicated:
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
Proposed PUP span: 1 × 4 × 3 Refer updated GAD
However, in Clause 2.9.5 of Schedule–B, this PUP drawing in the
is not listed (NIL). Additionally, at the same corrigendum no 6.
chainage (Ch. 23+392), the Plan & Profile shows a
Box Culvert of 1 × 2.0 × 2.0 m.
Bidder Requests:
i. Kindly review the discrepancy between the GAD
Clause 2.9.5 of and Schedule–B.
schedule-B ii. Confirm whether the PUP or Box Culvert is
applicable at Ch. 23+392.
iii. Amend Schedule–B and/or the GAD
accordingly to ensure consistency for execution.

85 Clause 2.9.4 of 2.9.4. Small Vehicle Underpasses (SVUP) As per Clause 2.9.4 of Schedule–B, all 15 nos. of Refer Clause 2.9.4 of
schedule-B SVUPs are mentioned with a roadway width of 11 Schedule – B.
m (LHS) and 11 m (RHS).
However, upon detailed review:
The corresponding GAD cross section (A–A) shows
the following:
-LHS: 0.5 m (Crash Barrier) + 0.5 m (Shyness) + 2.0
m (Paved Shoulder) + 7.0 m (Carriageway) + 0.5 m
(Shyness) = 10.50 m, RHS: same as LHS = 10.50 m
Further, as per the Plan, the total width is
indicated as:
-0.5 m (Crash Barrier) + 11.0 m (Carriageway) +
0.5 m (Crash Barrier) = 12.0 m
This indicates inconsistency among the Schedule–
B, GAD, and Plan documents.
Bidder’s Request for Clarification:
i. Kindly confirm the correct roadway width for all
the 15 SVUPs.
ii. Request to amend the Schedule–B, Plan, or
GAD accordingly to ensure uniformity and
consistency across all documents.
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
GAD Width

Plan of SVUP

86 Clause 2.9.7 of 2.9.7. Interchanges (IC) (Clause No. 3.4 IRC SP: 84-2019) As per Clause 2.9.7, the following structures are For the width of the
schedule-B mentioned:Underpass, Flyover, VOP (Vehicular Interchange (IC) structures;
Overpass), VUP (Vehicular Underpass) and please refer to the TCS
Trumpet InterchangeHowever, the width of these drawings in line with the
structures is not provided in Schedule–[Link] Schedule-B Cl. no. 2.9.7.
Requests:i. Kindly provide the design width for all
the above-mentioned [Link]. Request the
Authority to amend Schedule–B to incorporate
the width for proper understanding and
execution of the project.
87 General KMZ Files The bidder requests the provide the KMZ file Refer KMZ file provided in
showing the compiled Left ROW, Right ROW, the corrigendum no 6.
Centreline, and Chainage details for the project.
88 General Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Report The bidder notes that the Horizontal and Vertical Refer Horizontal & Vertical
Alignment Report is missing from the plan and alignment report is being
profile and requests it’s provide to review design. provided in the
corrigendum no 7.
89 PPPAC Approval Public Private Partnership Appraisal Committee (PPPAC) Approval The bidder requests clarification on whether this --
project has been approved by the Public Private
Partnership Appraisal Committee (PPPAC). If
Sr.
Clause No. Particulars Query Compliance
No.
approved, kindly provide the approval copy, date
of approval and the approved project
cost/amount.
90 CCEA approval Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) approval The bidder requests clarification on whether this --
project has been approved by the Cabinet
Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA). If
approved, kindly provide the approval copy, date
of approval and the approved project
cost/amount.
91 SFC approval Standing Finance Committee (SFC) approval The bidder requests clarification on whether this --
project has been approved by the Standing
Finance Committee (SFC). If approved, kindly
provide the approval copy, date of approval and
the approved project cost/amount.
92 BID SUBMISSION As per NIT the Bid Submission date is 07-Nov-2025 11:30 AM. As per the NIT, the Bid Submission Date is 07- --
DATE Nov-2025 11:30 AM. The bidder kindly requests
that the submission deadline be extended by at
least 15 days from the date of receipt of all
clarifications.
93 General NHAI Policy Circualr No. 11.51dated 03-August-2023 Please refer the NHAI Policy Circular No. 11.51 No change
dated 03-August-2023, Where it is clearly
mentioned that the DPR shall be provided to the
bidder along with bidding documents to reduce
the time and effort spent in responding pre-bid
queries.
In view of above, Authority is requested to
provide the detail project report along with cost
estimate considered in during preparation of
DPR.