Grievance – Experience Criterion.

Subject: Clarification Regarding Performance Guarantee / Performance Security – P87772

Dear Sir,

Clarification Regarding Relevant Experience

If a contractor has successfully completed multiple similar projects having a combined value exceeding Rs.100 million, whether during the preceding three years or over a reasonable preceding five-year period, but does not have three individual projects of Rs.25 million each, would such substantial and relevant experience be disregarded?

We respectfully request clarification as to why the aggregate value, scale, complexity and successful completion of comparable works would not be considered while assessing the contractor’s experience and capability.

In particular, what objective technical or risk-based assessment requires such experience to be disregarded unless it consists of three separate projects of at least Rs.25 million each within the preceding three years?

Clarification related to Experience

In this regard, the SBD of the subject mention work has the following evaluation criteria:

“The bidder should have completed at least three similar projects of Banks/ Financial Institutes or National/Multinational Companies, costing not less than Rs. 25.0 Million during last three (03) years.”

The bids will be evaluated against the above mentioned criteria only.

Subject: Clarification Regarding Performance Guarantee / Performance Security – P87772

Thank you for the clarification.

We appreciate the explanation regarding the project’s scope, technical complexities and execution requirements. However, our specific concern remains unaddressed.

The response explains the general purpose of the criterion, but does not clarify why three similar projects of a minimum Rs.25 million each, completed specifically within the preceding three years, were considered necessary and proportionate for this procurement.

It is also pertinent that NBP has previously awarded major renovation works exceeding Rs.30 million without imposing this particular three-project/three-year condition, whereas contractors with long-standing experience of executing NBP works are now effectively restricted from participating unless they have completed three projects of Rs.25 million each during the specified period.

We therefore respectfully request clarification of the specific objective/assessment or procurement basis used to arrive at the threshold of three projects × Rs.25 million within three years, rather than the general objective of ensuring capability.

We remain fully committed to complying with reasonable and legitimate qualification requirements and seek only a transparent and specific clarification of the basis of this particular criterion.

Regards,

Clarification related to Experience

Please find below the PPRA Rule # 29 Evaluation Criteria which allows procuring agency to develop the proper evaluation criteria for its works. The query refers to the some past works but the evaluation criteria may be different for every work/tender and hence the evaluation criteria as mentioned in the query may not be applicable to the subject mentioned branch.

Subject: Clarification Regarding Performance Guarantee / Performance Security – P87772

Kindly clarify the specific justification for requiring the bidder to have completed at least three similar projects, each having a value of not less than Rs.25 million during the preceding three years.

The tender permits participation of firms registered with PEC in C-5 or above, while comparable NBP renovation tenders have prescribed a significantly lower relevant-experience threshold of Rs.4 million per project.

In this context, requiring three projects of Rs.25 million each within only the preceding three years may unnecessarily restrict participation of otherwise capable and experienced contractors, particularly those having substantial historical experience with NBP but who may not have been awarded projects of this magnitude during the specified period.

Kindly clarify the specific technical, financial and project-risk justification for imposing this threshold and the three-year limitation, and whether the requirement may be reconsidered to ensure fair, proportionate and meaningful competition among otherwise qualified PEC-registered contractors.

Clarification related to Experience

Dear Sir,

With reference to the query received regarding the technical and financial experience criteria for the subject procurement:

Please be advised that the criterion requiring completion of three similar projects valued at minimum Rs. 25 million each within the preceding three years has been determined based on the specific Scope of Work, technical complexities, structural considerations, and project completion timelines associated with the NBP Ghalla Mandi Branch, Kamoke.

This threshold is intended to ensure that only contractors with proven financial capability, adequate resource mobilization capacity, and demonstrated execution performance are shortlisted, thereby minimizing operational and execution risks.

Accordingly, the evaluation criteria advertised in the bidding documents shall remain unchanged to maintain the quality and standards required for this project.

Subject: Clarification Regarding Performance Guarantee / Performance Security – P87772

Thank you for the response. However, the clarification provided does not address the specific issue raised.

The query is not regarding the formats/options available on EPADS 2.0. The specific issue is why Insurance Guarantee has been excluded as a form of Performance Security in this tender, particularly when NBP Engineering Wing Central has previously prescribed and accepted Insurance Guarantees for Performance Security in its own procurements.

Kindly clarify the specific legal/policy basis, NBP policy/circular, competent-authority approval or project-specific justification under which Insurance Guarantee has been excluded from this tender and Bank Guarantee has been prescribed as the sole form of Performance Security.

If no such specific provision or approval exists, kindly confirm the basis on which Insurance Guarantee has been excluded.

Performance Guarantee

SBD is generated through EPADS 2.0 and PPRA has prescribed option in EPADS 2.0 to select from only available options as already responded to you. For any further query regarding subject matter, Please consult with EPADS 2.0 PPRA team.

Subject: Clarification Regarding Performance Guarantee / Performance Security – P87772

Kindly clarify the legal and policy basis for prescribing Bank Guarantee as the sole form of Performance Security in this tender while excluding Insurance Guarantee. PPRA Rule 39 does not appear to prescribe Bank Guarantee as the exclusive form of Performance Guarantee, and PPRA has also clarified that there is no bar to obtaining an Insurance Guarantee from a supplier. It is also pertinent that Insurance Guarantees issued by insurance companies are presently being accepted in ongoing NBP Engineering works. Therefore, kindly clarify whether any specific PPRA provision, NBP policy, circular, notification or competent authority approval requires the exclusion of Insurance Guarantee from this tender.

Performance Guarantee

EPADS 2.0 has following provisions of Performance Security/Guarantee;

1. Pay Order

2. Banker's Cheque

3. Call at Deposit

4. Bank Guarantee

5. Demand Draft