St',t(o \cD qo

MOST IMMEDIATE

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
W MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS

Transport Bhawan,
1,Parliament Street,
/- New Delhi-l10 001
No. RWI.{H -37 0 15 I 0 4 / 20 I TINHDP-M nut"fiTu ne,20l7
To
Managing Director,
MPRDC, Arera Hills, Bhopal

Subject: Balance works for Rehabilitation and upgradation of Satna - Bela section of NH-75 from
km 155+000 to km 202+040 [Design length 47.04 km] in the State of Madhya Pradesh to
four-lanes with paved shoulders on EPC mode

Sir,
Please refer to CE (BOT), MPRDC letter no. 2665lSatna-Bela/IlHDP-lV/Project/Part4ll6
dated 15.5.2017 submitting therewith estimate amounting to Rs. 397.14 crores for the subject referred
project.

2. The proposal submitted by MPRDC has been examined and following observations are made:

a) Road works:

i) Stage-wise details of the works completed on both sides of the carriageway by the earlier BOT
Concession has not been provided in the proposal submitted by MPRDC. The same needs to be
provided in the format as detailed below alongwith thickness of respective layer constructed by the
earlier BOT concessionaire:

S. Description LHS/RHS carriageway Service road

No. Total Work Balance Total Work Balance
length completed work leneth completed work
I Upto embankment level
2 Upto subgrade level
J Upto GSB level
4 Upto WMM level
5 Upto DBM level
6 Upto BC level

ii) Condition of the completed work stage-wise shall also be submitted alongwith details of the
stage-wise work proposed in the instant proposal and stage-wise work being duplicated and reasons
for the same shall be provided.

iii) Pavement design as submitted by the earlier BOT concessionaire and the pavement design
now considered by the MPRDC while working out the cost estimate shall be fumished. Reasons for
change in pavement design, if any, shallalso be furnished.

iv) It needs to be confirmed whether credit of earthwork/sub-grade/GSB/WMM material to be re-

used by the EpC Contractor for rectifying the defective work has been taken into consideration in the
estimate submitted by MPRDC.
\

(o tk
q 6\
 *)
'D Condition of the DBM layer laid by the earlier BOT Concessionaire and j ustifica/on for
requirement of additional DBM layer may be fumished.

b) Culverts:

i) Location-wise comparative statement of the reconstruction/widening/new constructionlrepair

& rehabilitation of culverts proposed in the original approved BOT proposal and balance works now
proposed may be fumished.

ii) It is noted that 39 culverts were proposed in the proposal approved earlier on BOT (Toll) mode
against while 60 culverts have been proposed in the estimate for balance works submitted by MPRDC.
Reasons/justifications for increase in requirement of culverts may be provided.

c) Maior/minor bridges:

i) Location-wise comparative statement of the reconstruction/widening/new construction/repair

& rehabilitation of all major/minor proposed in the original approved BOT proposal and balance
works now proposed may be furnished.

iD It has been reported that the design HFL of the major bridge over Tamas river as per earlier
approved design of the BOT Concessionaire has been overtopped during the recent floods in 2016 and
it has been proposed to redesign the major bridge as per manual requirements. MPRDC has proposed
for dismantling of the partially completed work with complete rejection of the girders casted by the
previous BOT Concessionaire. No documentary details in support of the same has been furnished.
MPRDC shall submit the GAD of earlier approved major bridge and GAD of the new proposed major
bridge along with design details.

iiD It has been observed that same span arrangement has been proposed for reconstruction after
dismantling the partially completed work. On perusal of details provided, it has been noted that piles
foundations have been provided by the earlier BOT Concessionaire. Dismantling of pile foundation is
not possible and the only option available in such case would re-design of the GAD of the major
bridge, details of which needs to be re-worked out.

iv) In case, the same GAD is proposed to be adopted with raising of the FRL, then, adequacy of
the existing foundation design shall be checked and estimate worked out accordingly. Credit of the
work already done by the earlier BOT Concessionaire also needs to be considered.

v) Reasons for complete rejection of the girders casted at site also needs to be furnished.

vi) As regards minor bridges, it is noted that 13 minor bridges were proposed in the proposal
approved earlier on BOT (Toll) mode. Additional 9 nos. minor bridges have now been proposed by
MpnOC. Reasons/justification for providing additional minor bridges shall be furnished.

d) RoB/VUP/LVUP:

i) It is has not been confirmed whether the GAD and design of the proposed RoB has been
approved by the Railways Authorities. If approved, copy of the approved GAD and design may be
submiffed for better appreciation of the proposal.

ii) In the original approved BOT (Toll) proposal 10 VUPs have been proposed while in the
proposal now sub'mitted 6y MPRDC l0 VUPs and 4 LVUPs have been proposed. Location-wise
comparative statement of t-he underpasses proposed in the earlier approved BOT
(Toll) project and

($ 1
t\r?.
 d)
..
now proposed in the instant proposal shall be furnished. Reasons/justifications for increase in number
and type of underpasses shall be fumished.

e) Plan & profile:

i) With the increase in number and type of underpasses, increase in number of minor bridge,
increase in HFL of major bridge at Tamas river, increase in length of service road and additional
raising/improvement of the main carriageway as proposed in the instant proposal, the plan & profile
for the entire project stretch may be reviewed and modified accordingly be submitted to Ministry
immediately.

iD Updated GAD of all structures duly indicating the work done by the previous BOT
Concessionaire and balance work to be implemented shall be furnished.

0 Other additional details:

i) As the balance work is to be implemented on EPC mode, all design and drawings shall be
reviewed to avoid unnecessary references/queries from the bidders and contractual complications
during implementation of the work.

iD Requirement of all project facilities including major/minor junction improvements, bus bays,
truck lay byes, drains, etc. may be reviewed as per present site condition and provisions as per site
requirements may be specified and detailed accordingly with justifications.

iii) Details of the civil construction cost approved in the original BOT proposal, quantum of work
executed by the BOT Concessionaire as per report of the three-member independent committee
constituted by MPRDC and balance works now proposed with reasons for increase in cost may also be
furnished.

3. In view of the above, information/clarifications including updated plan & profile, GADs of all
structures and project report supported with traffic data & other investigations sought as above may be
submitted for further examination of the proposal for seeking approval of the Competent Authority.

Yours sincerely,

F-l
o
0 L tr
(Rohin Gupta)
\ Executive Engineer (NHDP-IVA)
t For DG (RD) & SS
>t Copy for expediting the above clarifications to:
d
(i) Principal Secretary to Govt. of M.P., Bhopal
qs
\ (iD CE-RO, MoRT&H, BhoPal

x
-a
sJ
(iii) CE (BOT), MPRDC, BhoPal
rc
(Rohin Kumar GuPta)
q
oa
C} Executive Engineer (NHDP-M)
D,- For DG (RD) & SS

(/'
\
 ) t- ru , sQrN:u4s203Mp2004scco167s8
M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd,
uj
(Govt. of M.P. Undertaking)
45-A, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011
8 : O755-2527290 I 2765206 Fax: 0755-2572643, Web: mprdc.nic.in

Letter No 5. !.tlllSatna-Bela/NHDP-IV/proj ec t/p art-Iy/20 t 6, Bhopal aated?Lrcatzott

To,
4n" Chief Engineer (NIIDP-IV),
MoRT&H, Transport Bhawan,
New Delhi.

Sub:- Balance works for Rehabilitation and up-gradation of Satna - Bela section of NH-75 from kin
155+000 to km 202+040 [Design length 47.04km] in the state of Madhya Pradesh to four-
lanes with paved shoulder on EPC mode.

Ref:- MoRT&H Letter No. RWAtrH-370l5l04l2C17AIHDP-IVA, dated 09.06.2011.

This lras a reference vide above referred MoRT&H letter no. RW/ NH-3701)l 041 2tJ17l
NHDP-M, dated 09.06.2017 regarding the observation raised or. the EPC proposal of Satna-Bela
secticn of NH-75 for Balance Work.
In this regard, the point wise compliarrce is as undei -..

a) Road Works
i) t he stage rvise and ch;rinage wise sfatus cf executerl vrork on both side by earlier BOT
ccncessionaire & balan,:e work to be completed has already been submitted in the EPC )-
proposal Schedule-'A' in the prescribed format to l,/roRT&FI. The summary of the lame is as
under:-

Carriageway LHS Carriageway RHS

(As per Sch. A) (As per Sch. A)
Equivale Service road (BI{S)
S.
Descri nt 4 Lane
N
ption work work work Balan
Total Balance Total Balance works Total
o. comple comple complet ce
length work length work done length
ted ted ed work
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 r0 11 t2
Up to
embank
I
ment
41040 18761 28279 47040 19613 27427 19187 NIL
level
t Up to
2 subgrad 47040 18161 28279 47040 19613 21427 19187 NIL
\, e level
t 3
Up to
GSB 47040 17029 3001 I 47040 8306 28734 11668 NIL
"A\ lsvel
1

Up to
47040 17029 3001 I 41040 l 8306 28734 NIL
.(i \WMM
17568
level
.F) Up to
,Y DBM 41040 16027 31013 47040 1701 i 30029 16519 NIL
level
Up to
BC 4i040 0 4704A 47040 0 47040 0 NIL
Yro level

$4\ Page 1 of 6

w\ "l'
;.r4fi,rf4,u"fu^,*
 tiU

ii) The condition & status of completed work and proposed work with reason for duplication of
work are as under-
The layer wise works executed by BOT concessionaire is shown as enclosed Annex-IA
(LHS) & Annex-IB (RHS).

Embankment- The length of incomplete earth work is 19922 m on LHS and 18535 m on RHS.
^. The embankment layers are exposed to traffic and weather conditions. This has damaged the
existing surfaces of embankment works and not fit to receive further layers. Hence the existing
surface requires rectification to bring it to specification requirement of camber/slope as per plan
and profile of road.
Duplicationof embankmentworkisproposedasperSch.B cl.2.ll andcl.4.2where theroad
profile is proposed to be raised or reconstructed.

b. Sub grade layer- The sub grade layer is covered by GSB in 17029m (LHS) and 18306m (RHS)
and balance exposed layer is as under-
On LHS : 18761 (Sub grade) - 17029 (GSB) : 1732 m,
On RHS = 19626 (Sub grade) - 18306 (GSB) : 1320 m
The sub grade layers are exposed to traffic and weather conditions. This has damaged the existing
surfaces of sub grade and not fit to receive further pavement layers. Hence the existing surface
requires rectification to bring it to specification requirement of camber/slope as per plan and
profile of road. '>
Duplication of sub grade work is proposed as per Sch. B cl. 2.11 and cl. 4.2 where the road
profile is proposed to be raised or reconstructed.

c. GSB layer- The GSB layers are constructed and covered by WMM layers. The exposed GSB
layer is as under-
On LHS : 17029 (GSB) - 17029 (WMM) : 00 m,
On RHS: 18306 (GSB) - 18306 (WMM):00 m
The condition of GSB is deemed good and no rectification is required.
Duplication of covered GSB is proposed as per Sch. B cl.2.l I and cl. 4.2 where the road profile
is proposed to be raised or reconstructed on account of damages during submergence & extra
ordinary high flood in August - 2016.

d. WMM layer- The WMM layers are constructed and covered by DBM layers. The exposed
WMM layer is as under-
On LHS : 17029 (wMM) - 16027(DBM) = 1002 m,
On RHS: 18306 (WMM)- l70l I (DBM) :1295 m
The WMM layers are exposed to traffic and weather conditions. This has damaged the existing
surfaces of WMM and not fit to receive fuither pavement layers. Hence the existing WMM
surface requires rectification to bring it to specification requirement of camber/slope as per plan
and profile of road.
Duplication of WMM work is proposed as per Sch. B cl.2.ll and cI.4.2 where the road profile is
proposed to be raised or reconstructed on account ofdamages during submergence.

Page 2 of 6
 ,1\

e. DBM layer- The exposed DBM layer is as under-

On LHS : 16027 m,
On RHS: 17011 m
The DBM layers are exposed to traffic and weather conditions. This has damaged the existing
surfaces of DBM and having settlement, undulation, cracks and uneven surface and not fit to
receive further pavement layers. The existing DBM surface is also damaged and washed out due
to extra ordinary flood in August-2O16 at many places. The existing surface requires rectification
to bring it to specification requirement of camber/slope as per plan and profile of road.
Hence a SAM treatment is proposed for existing DBM layer with overlay of 50 mm thick DBM
as profile correction measure to bring the layer to specification requirements.
Duplication of DMB work is proposed as per Sch. B cl.2.l1 and cl. 4.2where the road profile is
proposed to be raised or reconstructed on account ofdamages during submergence.

f. Bituminous Concrete layer- BC is not done on the project road. A BC layer of 40 mm thick is
proposed for the road.
No duplication is proposed for BC layer on road.

iii) The pavement design as submitted by earlier BOT concessionaire and proposed in EPC proposal
along with reasons is as under-

Design proposed by earlier Minimum Crust Composition of

sI. ,L
Description BOT concessionaire Flexible Pavement as per Sch. B
No.
of submitted EPC Proposal
I BC 40 mm 40 mm
2 DBM 80 mm 130 mm
J WMM 250 mm 250 mm
4 GSB 200 mm 200 mm
500 mm with minimum CBR 500 mm with minimum CBR
5 Sub grade
10% 10%

The BOT concessionaire's pavement design is enclosed as Annex- II.

Reasons:

The newly proposed pavement crust has the only difference in thickness of DBM layer with 130
mm instead of 80 mm earlier proposed.

The pavement thickness proposed by BOT concessionaire was found to be insufficient as per
review by IE. The project is detayed by more than three years and traffic conditions are changed
accordingly.

The traffic was allowed over executed DBM since last more than 2 years resulting in the
disturbance in its profile. A corrective layer of 50 mm DBM is proposed in Sch. B on already laid
DBM layer of 80 mm by BOT concessionaire making it total 130 mm thick. The same thickness
of 130 mm is proposed in current estimate in EPC proposal to maintain the uniformity of design
and construction and to cater to the increased traffic on project road.

Page 3 of 5
 q(

iv) Credit of executed works- It is proposed not to use any of the reclaimed material during
rectification of different layers as the same is unsuitable as per specifications. Hence no credit is
given in the cost estimate.

The finishing of incomplete layers and construction of new layers as per Sch. B are duly
accounted in estimates.

v) Reasons and Justification for additional DBM layer is as per Para ii) e and Para iii) above.

b) Culverts

D The comparative statement of culverts proposed in original BOT contract and now proposed in
Sch. B is enclosed as Annex-III A.

ii) Additional culverts proposed due to extra ordinary flood of August- 2016. Justification in increase
in number of culverts is enclosed as Annex-III A.

c) Maior & Minor Bridses

)-
D The comparative statement of MNBs proposed in original BOT contract and now proposed in
Sch. B is enclosed as Annex-III B.

ii) The GAD of earlier approved Major Bridge and GAD of New Proposed Major Bridge along with
Design Calculation and Drawings are enclosed. Annex-III C.
The GAD and Design, Drawings of incomplete Major Bridge at Ch. 174+046 with New HFL RL
297 .975 m has been sent to The Director, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal
for verification & vetting and report on suitability of abandoned Bridge & girders vide MPRDC
letter dated 15.06.2017 . The report is awaited and shall be submitted in due course of time.

iii) The Length of the bridge has been revised to 9 span of 31.25m :281.25m as against the earlier
length of 250.0 m and the location of the piers and abutments has been staggered to avoid
abounded pile foundation. The revised Major Bridge GAD is enclosed as Annex-III D.

iv) The revised design on the same foundations has been to The Director, Maulana Azad
sent
National Institute of Technology, Bhopal for verification & vetting and report on suitability of
Bridge & abandoned girders vide MPRDC letter dated I 5.06 .2017 . The report is awaited and shall
be submitted in due course of time. The compliances on the credit of the work already done by the
earlier BOT Concessionaire shall be submitted later on subject to above report.

v) Reason for complete rejection of PSC girders casted by BOT concessionaire is enclosed as
Annex-III E. The modification in the proposal if required in light of the MANIT, Bhopal report
shall be submitted in due course of time.

Page 4 of 6
 'tr

vi) Additional bridge proposed due to extra ordinary flood of August- 20l6.Justification for newly
proposed MNBs is enclosed as Annex-III B as above.

d) ROB/VUP/LVUP
i) The GADs of ROBs as approved by Railways Authority are enclosed as Annex-fV.
The design of ROB atkm162.32l was done by concessionaire andvetted by MANIT,
Bhopal. The same is enclosed as Annex-V. The design was due to be submited for
approval by Railways Authority.

ii) In original BOT proposal, 10 nos. VUPs were proposed. Out of 10, the concessionaire has
constructed 04 nos. as indicated in Sch. A. The balance works on these VUPs and new
construction of balance 06 nos. VUPs are proposed as per Sch. B Cl. 2.6 A. The 03 nos.
VUP locations are changed (at km 171.950, km 187.350 & km 190.290) from originally
proposed BOT proposal.

In EPC proposal, 04 nos. LVUPs are proposed as per Sch. B Cl.2.6 B. These are proposed
on the existing BT cross roads (MDR) which are originating from Satna city & crossing
bypass road and having substantial local traffic including movement of tractor
(agricultural traffic). These are proposed as per local demand and considering the safety of
life and property ofpeople on both the roads (i/c project road and cross road).
The comparative statement of VUP / LVUP is enclosed as Annex-VI.

e) Plan & Profile

i) The modified Plan and Profile is enclosed as Annex-WI.

ii) The updated GADs of structures indicating the works done by BOT concessionaire are
enclosed as Annex-VIII.

0 Other Additional Details

i) All Design and Drawings are reviewed.

ii) The requirement of all project facilities including junctions/truck lay byes/bus bays etc
proposed in Sch. B are as per site requirement.
iiD Details of civil construction cost as per BOT concessionaire are not available.

The details of cost estimates as per three member committee are based on the works done
by BOT concessionaire and as per site. The quantum of works executed by BOT
concessionaire and its cost is enclosed as Annex-IX.

The EPC proposal is made with provisions made in Sch. B including all rectification
works, raising of profile of road, reconstruction works, newly proposed LVUPs and many
new cross drainage structures of MNB/culverts as per site requirements and drainage
conditions. Many structures are already proposed and few are constructed by BOT

Page 5 of 6
 \t

concessionaire under COS proposal submitted for principle approval by competent

authority. The cost of balance works proposed in EPC proposal as per Sch. B is enclosed
as Annex-X.

The reasons for increase in cost of balance works may be attributed to -

l.- The estimates of balance works are based on present applicable Schedule of Rates issued
by E-in-C, MPPWD w.e.f. 06.06.2016.

2.- New 4 nos. LVUPs are proposed in EPC proposal with associated slip roads and
RE/Retaining walls.

3.- New structures are proposed in EPC proposal as per site conditions and as proposed by
BOT concessionaire under Change of Scope.

4.- In few stretches of already constructed DBM, reconstruction is proposed due to severe
damages to DBM layer or due to proposed raising in vertical profile of road.

5.- The partly constructed MJB is proposed to be discarded and new construction of MJB is
proposed.

6. - Proposed new construction of ROB on Satna-Panna rail line and increased span of ROB
on Itarsi-Allahabad rail track

3. The required support documents are submitted as above for necessary action and early approval by

Competent Authority.
Kindly accord the approval for the above subjected work.

Encl.: As above.
( h Mishra)
Chief Engineer (BOT)
MPRDC, Bhopal

Endt.No. ./Satna-BelaA{HDP-IV/ProjectlPart-lY12016, Bhopal dated . ...10612017

Copy is forwarded to:-

1. The Principal Secretary, PWD, Govt. of MP, Bhopal.
2. The Chief Engineer, Regional Officer, MORTH, Bhopal.

/--
Chief Engineer @OT)
MPRDC, Bhopal

Page 6 of 6