25th July 2016

The Chief Engineer LDA

Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow.

Supply, Customization & Implementation of Online Automated Building Plan

Scrutiny and Approval System at various Development Authorities and UP
Housing Board.

Dear Sir,

We are pleased to learn about the egovernance initiatives being taken by

Government of UP through your good office. Such initiatives bring in
transparency in governance and eradicate corruption.

Having gone through the RFP, we have some queries which we are looking
for an immediate response, to help us bid.

1) The Publishing Date of RFP is 17/7/2016, while it was uploaded only

on 23rd. With Submission date as 1st August2016, it is too less a time
for the bidders to respond.

It is hence requested to extend the bid response date by atleast 4

weeks.

2) EMD:-You have asked for Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs ) in the form of

Demand Draft / Pay order / FDR From Nationalized / Scheduled Bank. With
the value of EMD the budget looks like 25 Crores++. For such a huge
expense and the project involving complexities like software customization,
DC Hosting, DR Hosting, MPLS bandwidth, it is important that a PreBid
meeting is called to discuss the queries of the bidders.

3) You have asked for the bidder turnover of 50 Crore, while the OEM
turnover of Rs 100 Crore. If you are looking at the COTS vendor(OEM)
and bidder as separate entities, then the Turnover of the COTS vendor
should be evaluated from the revenues of the COTS product only, but
you have asked for the turnover of software consultation and services.
Rs 100 Crore turnover from software and services, does not establish
the fact that the OEM has a good standing in the Online Building
Approval Process Automation system. It is hence requested to change
the clause accordingly.

4) You have asked for criteria as The Bidder should not have been
blacklisted/banned/ suspended by any Government organization in India in
last 5 years. If the OEM has been blacklisted and is not the bidder, would the
same clause apply? If due to OEMs misdeeds the government officials have
been suspended but the decision on the OEM is stil pending, would this
clause apply? Please help us understand.

5) As the evauation/qualification criteria of OEM, you have out following terms:

 COTS Product should have been deployed in more than 15 Municipal Corporations in a
single state order in India.

The COTS OEMs total turnover for the last 3 financial year i.e. 2013-14,2014-15& 2015-
2016 should be minimum INR 100 crores from the software sales and Consulting.

The COTS OEM should have a minimum team of 300 + employees for development and
support of the COTS solution.

The above criteria lead to qualification of only one OEM-Auto DCR. Is it that department
wanting to buy AutoDCR.If yes then plese help us connect with them, we would be happy
to sell their product.

6) Evaluation criteria:
Implementation of proposed COTS solution in more than 30 ULBs in a single
state wide order in India

Operational Track record of firm in executing IT projects in the Govt. sector. (

Of a Minimum Contract Value of INR 0.5 Crore, excluding hardware costs)

The statewide deployement in 30 ULB across one state abd the single order
of only Rs 50 Lacs contradict with each other.

7) The final evaluation is based on QCBS.

In determination of the best value bid, the following weightage shall be given
for the technical and commercial scores of the consultants in a Quality and
Cost Based Selection methodology (QCBS):
Technical Score: 80%
Commercial Score: 20%

The 20% weightage to Commercial score and 80% to Technical score means
that someone who has scored 100% marks would be able to win the tender
even if he quotes for double the price of the bidder who score less. This will
lead to huge loss to the states exchequer. This is despite the fact that the
qualification criteria is so strict that only one OEM can qualify. The clause will
be mis used and hence should be removed.

8) In the project like this the live demonstration is the key. Unotunately you have kept
only 5 marks for the demonstration. It means that if the OEM fails to demonsterate
but is the organization of bigger size would still score high. Hence we are strongly
feel that the Technical marking is inappropriate and has to be changed.

9) The Force Majeure clause seems to be fully in support of the bidder, which is
really good as we donot see such clauses in favour of the bidders. Are the clauses
like Force Majeure, Limitation of liability and arbitration the standard clauses as
per standard terms and conditions of LDA or these have been drafted specifically
for this RFP. This information would help us to ascertain, whether it is really worth
bidding in this RFP or not.

7.25Force Majeure 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of conditions of

contract, the Service Provider shall not be liable for forfeiture of its performance
security, liquidated damages or termination for default, if and to the extent that, its
delay in performance or other failure to perform its obligations under the Contract is
the result of an event of Force Majeure. 2. For purpose of this Clause, Force
Majeure means an event beyond the control of the Service Provider and not
involving the Service Providers fault or negligence and not foreseeable. Such events
may include, but are not limited to, acts of the Lucknow Development Authority either
in its sovereign or contractual capacity, wars or revolutions, fires, floods, epidemics,
quarantine restrictions and freight embargoes. If a Force Majeure situation arises the
Service Provider shall promptly notify the Lucknow Development Authority in writing
of such conditions and the cause thereof. Unless otherwise directed by the Lucknow
Development Authority in writing, the Service Provider shall continue to perform its
obligations under the Contract as far as is reasonably practical, and shall seek all
reasonable alternative means for performance not prevented by the Force Majeure
event.

7.26Settlement of Disputes 1. If any dispute or difference of any

kind whatsoever arises between the Lucknow Development Authority and the
Service Provider in connection with or arising out of the Contract both the parties
shall make every effort to resolve amicably such dispute or difference by mutual
consultation. 2. If, the parties have failed to resolve their dispute or difference by
such mutual consultation within30 (thirty) days, then aggrieved party may give notice
to other party of its intention to commence arbitration, as herein after provided, as to
the matter in dispute, and no arbitration in respect of this matter may be commenced
unless such notice is given. 3. Any dispute or difference in respect of which a notice
of intention to commence arbitration has been given in accordance with this Clause
shall be finally settled by arbitration. Arbitration may
be commenced prior to or after delivery of the Goods and services under the
Contract.
7.27 Arbitration
1. In case of dispute or difference arising between the Lucknow Development
Authority and a Service Provider relating to any matter arising out of or connected
with the award of contract, such dispute or difference shall be referred to Sole
Arbitrator, the Principal Secretary/Secretary, UP Housing Board, Govt of U.P., to
decide the dispute both in case of foreign supply as well as Indian supply. The
provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply.
2. Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Lucknow and the language of the
arbitration proceedings and that of all documents and communications between the
parties shall be in English.
3. The decision of the Sole Arbitrator or its nominee shall be final and binding upon
both parties. The cost and expenses of arbitration proceedings will be paid as
determined by the Arbitrator. However the expenses incurred by each party in
connection with the preparation, presentation etc. of its proceedings shall be borne
by each party itself.
a. The parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under the
Contract unless they otherwise agree ; and
b. The Lucknow Development Authority shall pay the Service Provider any money
due to the Service Provider.

All disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Lucknow only.

Limitation of liability:
2. The aggregate liability of the Service Provider to the Lucknow Development
Authority/end-customer, whether under the Contract, into or otherwise, shall not
exceed the total value of items ordered under this Contract provided that this
limitation shall not apply to the cost of repairing or replacing defective equipment.

10) There is no Risk Purchase clause, in the event of the failure of the bidder. This
clause is a standard clause to safeguard the interests of the purchaser. Any specific
reason why the clause is not there.

11) Lastly, the tender is uploaded in the important notices section and not in tender
section. We request you to move it to Tenders Section in your website as lot of
prospective bidders will not be able to locate the same and respond.

Looking for your early response.

For Antariksha Technologies,

CEO.

RFP Bid Submission End Date

RFP Bid Submission End Date
RFP Bid Submission End Date