See Full Document Text
F.No.2/15/2025-PIU
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Economic Affairs
Infrastructure Finance Secretariat
ISD Division
(PIU)
REKKK
4" Floor, STC Building,
Janpath New Delhi-01
Dated: 12" September 2025
Record of Discussion
Subject: Record of Discussion of the 134! meeting of the PPPAC for considering two
road project proposals of the Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways (MoRTH) on PPP
mode.
Reference: 134" meeting of the PPPAC held on 30! August 2025.
Sir/Madam,
The undersigned is directed to forward the Record of Discussion of the 134th meeting of
the PPPAC held on 30' August 2025 under the chairmanship of Secretary (EA) for information
and necessary action.
2. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
ip
(Arya Balan Kumari)
Joint Director (PIU)
011-2370 1219
To,
‘
1. Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North block, New Dethi-01
2. CEO, NITI Aayog, Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi-01
3. Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
Copy to:
1. Sr. PPS to Secretary (EA)
2. PSO to JS (ISD)
3. PPS to Advisory (Energy)
Page 1 of 30Subject: Record of Discussion of the 434'n meeting of the PPPAC for considering the
following project proposals: -
(i) 4laning from Dhamasiya (Km132+32) to Bitada/Movi (Km 179+78)
section of NH-56 (Pkg-IV) and 4-laning from Nasarpore (Km 208+90) to
Malotha (Km 269+11) section of NH-56 (Pkg-VI) on HAM under NH(O) in
the State of Gujarat.
(ii) 4laning of Jagtial (Km 0.000) to Karimnagar (Km 58.866) section of NH-
563, Armoor (Km 29.100) to Jagtial (Km 92.700) section of NH-63, and
Jagtial (Km 92.700) to Mancherial (Km 160.995) section of NH-63 under
NH (0) on HAM in the State of Telangana.
(iii) 4-laning of NH-167 from Gudebellur at Design Km.182+930 to
Mahabubnagar at Design Km 262+940 of Hyderabad-Panaji section
(length 80.01km) under NH(O) on HAM in the state of Telangana
4. The 134 meeting of the PPPAC was held on 30" August 2025 at 11:00 hours to
consider the above proposals of MoRTH.
2. List of attendees is placed at Annexure-l.
3. With the permission of Secretary (EA), Advisor (Energy), DEA welcomed all the
attendees to the meeting. NHAI made a detailed presentation on the proposed road
projects.
(i) 4-laning from Dhamasiya (Km132+32) to Bitada/Movi (Km 179+78) section of NH-
56 (Pkg-IV) and 4-laning from Nasarpore (Km 208490) to Malotha (Km 269+11)
section of NH-56 (Pkg-VI) on HAM under NH(O) in the State of Gujarat.
4. The details of the project are given in the table below:
Table 1: Details of the project
The proposed project includes upgradation of the following two packages of the
Dhamasiya — Bitada/Movi and Nasarpore to Malotha of NH-56:
i) Upgradation/Strengthening of Existing Two/ Four Lane Carriageway to Four
Lane Divided Carriageway from Ch. 132+32 (Existing Km. 454.5) in
Project Description Dhamasiya Village in Naswade Taluka to Ch. 179+78 (Existing Km. 506.66)
in Bitada/Movi Village in Netrang Taluka (Length 47.46 Km) Section of NH-
56 in Gujarat on HAM (Pkg-IV)
ii) Upgradation of Existing Two-Lane Carriageway to Four Lane Divided
Carriageway from Ch 208+90 (Existing Km 535.93) in Nasarpore Village in
Page 2 of 30Umarpada Taluka to Ch 269+11 (Existing Km 608.51) in Malotha Village in |
Vyara Taluka (Length 60.21 Km) section of NH-56 in Gujarat on HAM (Pkg-
VI)
PPP Model Hybrid Annuity Mode
Sponsoring Authority Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India
Implementing Agency National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
State: Gujarat
Eocaron Districts of Gujarat: Vadodara, Narmada (Pkg-IV), Surat & Tapi (Pkg-V1)
Type of Pavement Flexible
Lane configuration 4-lane
Ne. Description Package-IV
Package-VI
1. | Length 47.46 km 60.21 km
2._| Major Bridges 09
03
3. | Mi' nor Bri7 dges r18i +d e4 s( Service Road 2n3i c+h e1s0 !(service road
4._| Culverts 208 265
5. | Flyover 03 09
6. | VUP 05 10
7. | LVUP 03 04
© 612.2 M (ROB + Elevated -]o 01 (Flyover cum ROB)
Main Carriageway) 0 01 (Retained on NH-53)
8 Elevated o 782 M (Interchange Loop 1
’ | Structure/ ROB | No.)
0 1007 M (Interchange Ramp
2 Nos.)
Lengthiet ° Service Road: 2.581 Kmlo Service Road: 3.215 Km
9. | Services Slip (Both Sides) (Both Sides)
Details of Structures Road ° aes 0.86 Km (Both |= Ta hie) 13.147 Km
o Tunnel 1 — 840 m (167+565 Nil
10. | Tunnel fe T6405)
, o Tunnel 2 — 650 m (170+970
to 171 +620)
Uh | Bhatia k1 mN)o . : (Total Leng3t h - 3.10 431 N.o3s9. a (To tal Leng3th -
12. | Realignment he (Total Length - 12.90 io (Total Length - 1.36
13. | Bus bays 38 Nos. 48 Nos.
14. | Truck Lay byes | 06 Nos. 02 Nos.
15. | Toll Plaza Nil 01 No. (4+4)
Rest Area / 2 Nos. 2 Nos.
16. | Wayside
amenities
7 Heer wemaus HH SS -- I l| =— 11 332 9. t3 o2 1t 5o 7 1 .73 9 HH SS -- II l — — 2 20 18. 59 . t 8o 215.8 to 242
, ae6tions. HS-Ill — 157.7 to 179.78 HS-IIl — 242 to 260.35
HS-IV ~ 260.35 to 269.11
Page 3 of 30185 MSA /132 MSA 132 MSA/ 80 MSA/ 110
18. | Design Traffic MSA
o Subgrade — 500 mm o Subgrade — 500 mm
o CTSB-— 200 mm o CTSB- 200 mm
Crust o WMM — 150 mm o WMM — 150 mm
te. Composition o DBM -120/ 115/ 110mm o DBM — 100 / 80/ 75/ 90
o BC-—50mm mm
o BC-50 mm
17 years (including 2 years for construction and 15 years of O&M)"
Concession Period S.N Description of work Pkg-lV Pkg-VI
: (Rs in
(Rs in crore)
crore)
A Cost of Civil Works
1314.02 1276.83
B Utility Shifting Cost 41.82 25.0
1 T co ot sa tl oC fi v Ui tl
i
liC to yn Ss ht ir fu tc int gi )o n Cost (including Teoe.84 ai
2 V/C & Pre-Operative Expenses 13.56 13.02
3 Financing Cost 5.04 4.81
4 Interest during construction 65.84 62.75
Estimated Capital 5 Estimated Project Cost (1+2+3+4) 1440.28 1382.41
Cost with Break-up 6 Bid Project Cost
1675.62 1620.32
under major heads of| 7 eet be ae poral Civil 244.05 234.33
expenditure onstruction Gos =
8 Contingency @ 1% on Civil Cost 13.14 42.77
(Excluding Utility Shifting) ; ;
9 Escalation during construction incl GST 191.76 185.43
10 Cer for 15 years including escalation & 325.44 314.71
11 (Su 2p .e 5r %v i os fi Uo tn il iC th y a Sr hig fe ts in o g n C oU sti tl )i ty Cost LS a
12 Land Acquisition Cost 96.64 98.65
13 Environmental Cost 20.09 22.27
14 T (o 6t+a7l+ C8a+p9i+t1a0l +C1o1s4t12+13) Ze 2251.2
Sr. |Description Package-IV Package-VI
No.
Greenfield/ Total Length — 47.46 Km Total Length — 60.21 Km
Brownfield (ROW) (Greenfield/realignment (Greenfield/realignment
Length — 16 km Length — 32.75 km
Brownfield Length — Brownfield Length — 27.46
Land Acquisition 31.41 km) km)
Status 2. Total Land 227.54 Ha. 251.44 Ha
Required (Ha)
DB. Existing ROW (Ha) 62.01 Ha. (State NH 38.5148 Ha. (State NH
Division GoG has Division GoG has handed
handed over existing over existing RoVV of NH-
RoW of NH-56 to NHAI) 56 to NHAI)
1 The PPPAC has recommended for a construction period of 2.5 years and the concession period of 17.5 years
(Recommendation Para 13. (c)).
Page 4 of 304. Private Land 74.46 Ha. 146.64 Ha.
Required (Ha)
Bs 3(A) Status 74.46 Ha 146.64 Ha
6. 3(D) Status 74.46 Ha 123 Ha
iF 3(G) Status 74.46 Ha 58.6 Ha
8. 3(H) Status Nil Nil
9. Balance 3(A) Nil Nil
10. | Balance 3(D) Nil 23.64 Ha. (Likely by
October 2025)
11. | Balance 3(G) Nil Likely by December 2025
12. | LACost Rs 96.64 crore Rs 98.65 crore
Particulars Package-IV
Package-Vl
Financial Viability PIRR 11.31% 11.29%
EIRR 15% 15%
AC go rnc ee es ms ei no tn uT ph le
o
apr do ej de c ot
n
i s
M
p or Ro Tpo Hs e wd
e
bto sb ite
e
i im
n
p Nl oe vm ee mnt be ed
r
a 2s
0
2p 0er
w
iM to hd e sl
u
bC so en qc ue es ns ti o an
m
eA ng dr me ee nm te snt
issued thereafter.
Bidding parameter Lowest Bid Project Cost
| Bidding process
Single Stage Two Envelop Process
2. The project involves upgrading the existing 2-lane carriageway to a 4-lane carriageway
for the two packages viz., Package-IV and Package-VI, of the Dahod-Bodeli-Vapi
corridor. The Dahod-Bodeli- Vapi Corridor starts at the junction with Delhi — Vadodara
Expressway near Dahod and ends at NH — 48 in Vapi, spanning entirely within the State
of Gujarat. The Dahod-Bodeli -Vapi corridor is divided into ten packages, out of which
package IV and VI are proposed in the instant proposal for upgradation into a 4-lane
corridor. The Package-Ill and Package-V are awarded and is under construction. Rest
of the packages were dropped due to land acquisition, upcoming Delhi-Mumbai
Expressway etc.
. The primary purpose of the Dahod-Bodeli-Vapi corridor is to provide connectivity to
Bodeli, Devaliya, Rajpipla, Netrang, Vyara, and further Southwards towards Mumbai
via Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway (which is under implementation). The proposed
project packages traverse the Narmada district, an aspirational district, thereby
providing vital connectivity to tribal areas and the Statue of Unity, a prominent tourist
destination located in Kevadia Village, approximately 11 kilometers from the project
site. Thus, the proposed project plays a crucial role in providing connectivity to the
backward and tribal regions of Southern Gujarat and thereby helping in economic
growth and development of the region.
. Traffic surveys on the existing project packages were carried out in 2019- 2020 which
was 15,093 PCUs for package-IV and 16323 PCUs for package-VI. Considering
average 6.76% CAGR for traffic growth, the projected traffic for 2024-25 is 20,936
Page 5 of 30PCUs for package-IV and 22608 PCUs for package-VI. With the proposed corridor, the
travel time shall be reduced by around 2.5 hours between Bodeli and Vyara thus
reducing Vehicle Operating Cost.
_ The project will be executed under the HAM model with a Total Capital Cost of Rs.
2,332.44 crore for package-IV and Rs. 2,251.2 crore for package-VI under the NH(O)
scheme. The financial assessment indicates that the project IRR for Package-IV and
Package-VI is 11.31% and 11.29%, respectively, while the equity IRR is estimated at
15% for both the packages.
_ After the detailed presentation, the Chair asked the PPPAC members for their
observations.
_ Director, DoE raised the following observations:
a) It may be clarified under which scheme the project is proposed to be taken up?
b) The per kilometre civil construction cost appears to be on the higher side. MoRTH
may provide a cost comparison of the proposed project with nearby projects and
recently awarded similar projects. Additionally, since there are no normative costs
for tunnels, a cost comparison with similar tunnel projects may also be provided.
c) What is the rationale for including maintenance charge in both the packages?
_ PD, NITI Aayog raised the following observations:
a) The PPPAC memo indicates a projected traffic level for 2024-25 of 20,936 PCUs
for Package-IV and 22,608 PCUs for Package-VI. According to the BOT (Toll)
analysis, the tollable traffic level for Package-IV is 10,771 PCUs and for Package-
VI is 7,344 PCUs. The reason for substantial variation between the total PCUs and
the tollable PCUs may be provided. Further, MoRTH may review the calculation of
BOT (Toll) analysis and undertake the project in BOT (Toll) Mode, if the project is
viable.
b) As per the proposed project documents, there are two highways (i.e. Delhi-Mumbai
Expressway and NH-48) running parallel to the proposed project highway. MoRTH
may provide the details of any contractual issues that may arise with respect to
competing road projects in existing highway contracts.
c) In Package-Vl, there are 05 major intersections with median openings even after
having 10 VUPs and 4 LVUPs. MoRTH may review the provision of median
openings as it will impact the safety of operations.
Page 6 of 30qd) The proposed RoW indicated for Package-IV is varying between 30m to 60m and
for Package-VI is 26.5m to 60m. What is the justification for such variation in the
proposed RoW ?.
In Package-lV, the design speed is restricted to 50/65/80 kmph at six specific
chainages (141+641, 157+699, 157+924, 158+292, 166+840, and 167+117). What
is the rationale behind these speed restrictions?
The escalation charges during the construction phase appear to be on the higher
side. The Authority may clarify the basis for the escalation considered in the
proposed project.
9) The proposed construction period of two years appears to be on the higher side.
The PSA may review and revise the same.
Deputy Leader Advisor, DoLA raised the following observations:
a) In the presentation, it was mentioned that land values are lower in tribal areas.
Whether any market assessment of land cost have been done to ascertain land
acquisition cost?
10.Advisor (Energy), DEA highlighted the following observations:
a) Whether the proposed project packages are access-controlled or not. It was
mentioned in the documents that the packages are partially access-controlled.
b) Traffic surveys on the project highway were conducted during 2019-2020, whether
a traffic revalidation exercise has been taken up to ensure accuracy and relevance
of the projected traffic data?
c) The project has high number of structures. The option of optimising the structures
may be explored.
dq) The Debt-to-equity ratio considered is 75:25 which is a deviation from the standard
70:30 ratio.
11.The Chair made the following observations:
a) The rationale for upgrading the existing Dahod-Bodeli-Vapi corridor which runs
parallel to the Delhi Mumbai Expressway may be clearly justified.
12. MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: -
a) The instant project is proposed under NH(O) scheme of MoRTH.
Page 7 of 30The cost of the instant project has been compared with nearby projects and found
b) to be on a lower side. While MoRTH’s circular dated 19.01.2022 does not specify
normative costs for tunnels, a comparative analysis has been done with similar
NHAI tunnel projects. For instant, the twin-tube tunnel (3.5 km) in the Pathankot-
Mandi section costs Rs. 735 crore (Rs. 210 crore/km), whereas the proposed tunnel
(1.49 km) costs Rs. 304.5 crore (Rs. 204.36 crore/km), which is within the
reasonable range.
The per km cost of the instant proposals are high due the inclusion of various
structures including tunnels and bridges. In the recently awarded projects of the
same corridor viz., Packages III and V, the per km costs were Rs. 21.52 and Rs.
48.23 crore/km respectively. In the proposed corridor, the per km civil cost is Rs.
27.69 crore for Package-IV and Rs. 21.21crore for Package-VI.
As per clause 23.7 of the DCA, in HAM project all O&M Expenses shall be borne
d)
by the Concessionaire and for the performance of its Maintenance obligations, a
lump sum financial support in the form of biannual payments shall be due and
payable by the Authority. For flexible pavement including structures, no
maintenance charges shall be paid for the first year; 0.40% of the Bid Project Cost
each for the second, third and fourth year, 0.80% of the Bid Project Cost each for
the subsequent years till laying of the renewal layer or end of concession period,
whichever is earlier. Therefore, MoRTH has mandated the inclusion of maintenance
charges in the Total Capital Cost. Accordingly, the same is included in the Total
Capital Cost.
As per fresh traffic surveys held in July’2025, Total traffic in PCU per day comes out
e)
to be 13949 for Pkg-IV & 11906 for Pkg-VI. The corresponding vehicles per day
comes out to be 11,865 for Pkg-IV & 10,066 for Pkg-VI. Out of the total number of
vehicles, the non-tollable traffic comes out to be 5328 (45% of total traffic) for
Package-IV and 4681(47% of total traffic) for Package-VI . This variation in non-
tollable traffic is due to the high number of two-wheelers, three wheelers, tractors
etc. Additionally, even with revised traffic figures.
The project is not financially viable under BOT (Toll) mode due to high VGF
requirement.
There are no contractual issues identified with respect to the presence of parallel
9)
highways (Delhi-Mumbai Expressway and NH-48) in relation to the proposed
project highway.
Page 8 of 30h) The proposed locations do not warrant for provision of grade separated structures.
Median openings have been proposed based upon site specific requirements with
all safety provisions.
The variation in the proposed RoW for Package IV (30m to 60m) and Package VI
(26.5m to 60m) is based on technical and practical considerations. A RoW of up to
60m has been proposed at locations where major structures are planned, ensuring
sufficient space for construction and future development. In other stretches, the
minimum proposed RoW has been adopted keeping in view the feasibility of land
acquisition.
) The design speed restrictions at the mentioned locations are due to site-specific
constraints and geometric limitations. These includes factors such as terrain,
existing structures, and safety considerations, which necessitate reduced speeds
to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement.
k) The escalation has been considered strictly as per the applicable model provisions.
However, the figures will be reviewed in detail, and necessary clarifications or
adjustments will be provided, if required.
Initially, a construction period of two years for both packages have been considered
and the same was included in the documents submitted to PPPAC. However, given
the complexity of the project—which includes the construction of two tunnels in
Package-IV and a bridge over the river Narmada in Package-Vl—a construction
period of 2.5 years is deemed necessary. These structures require specialized
engineering, extended execution timelines, and careful sequencing to ensure safety
and quality. However, in order to ensure that the concessionaire is not benefiting
from extended concession period, the bonus on early completion provision (Clause
23.5) shall be deleted from the Draft Concession Agreement.
m) The land valuation is carried out in accordance with applicable norms and guidelines
and the same estimates have been arrived for land acquisition cost.
n) The proposed project packages are not access-controlled and the terminology of
“Partially Access-controlled” has been inadvertently mentioned.
0) A three-days traffic survey has been done from 28.07.2025 to 31.07.2025 for the
proposed project packages. The total traffic obtained for package-lV is 13,949 PCU/
day and for package-VI is 11,906 PCU/ day, both have exceeded the triggering
PCUs of 10,000. Therefore, the 4-laning of the project packages needs to be carried
out.
Page 9 of 30The proposed major and minor bridges in the project packages are based on the
P)
hydrological requirements at stream/river crossing locations. Additionally, out of the
total 473 culverts, 184 culverts of dia. 1.2 m are for crossroad locations and 289
culverts have been provided based on the hydrological requirements to maintain
cross drainage and effective storm water management in the project vicinity.
The debt-to-equity ratio shall be standardised with the approval for Secretary,
q)
MoRTH for all the future road proposals.
Considering the development of Delhi - Mumbai Expressway, it has been decided
to terminate package-VIl onwards near junction with NH — 53. However, the
upgradation of the proposed Packages IV and VI are necessary because it provides
connectivity to tribal area and also to Statue of Unity in Kevadia. Additionally, the
traffic on subject corridor is more than 40,000 PCUs and as per IRC SP :73 — 2018,
four-laning must be carried out after level of service exceeds 10,000 PCUs in plain
terrain. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for four-laning.
Recommendations
43. After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for
“4-laning from Dhamasiya (Km132+32) to Bitada/Movi (Km 179+78) section of NH-56
(Pkg-IV) and 4-laning from Nasarpore (Km 208+90) to Malotha (Km 269+11) section
of NH-56 (Pkg-VI) on HAM under NH(O) in the State of Gujarat,” subject to following
recommendations, for consideration of the competent authority for giving administrative
approval.
The combined appraised Total Capital Cost for package-IV & VI is Rs. 4,583.64
a)
crore (i.e. Rs. 2332.44 crore for Package IV and Rs. 2251.2 crore for package V)).
The project should be taken up on HAM mode under the NH(O) scheme.
b)
Both the Packages shall be executed in 2.5 years. Accordingly, the concession
period of both the packages will be 17.5 years, i.e., the O&M period of 15 years and
2.5 years construction period.
The Bonus clause (Clause 23.5-Bonus on early completion) shall be deleted from
the Draft Concession Agreement.
For all future project, the debt-to-equity ratio may be standardised in-line with the
e)
awarded projects of MoRTH/NHAI from the last three years.
Revalidation of its recommendation by the PPPAC is not required for following post
14.
recommendation changes in the project costs/bid documents: -
Page 10 of 30a) Any change in the date/time period for any time-bound actions like appointed date,
financial close, construction period etc.
b) Non-substantial change in risk-allocation.
c) Any other changes/modification in the project proposal with the overall objective of
making project successful.
d) Further, MoRTH/NHAI may decide whether the changes proposed post
recommendations of the project proposal by the PPPAC fall within the threshold
criteria as stated above. All such changes falling within the threshold criteria shall
be appraised at the level of Secretary (RTH)/BoD of NHAI as the case may be,
without any further need of revalidation by the PPPAC and shall proceed with the
approval process accordingly.
(ii) 4-Laning of Jagtial (Km 0.000) to Karimnagar (Km 58.866) section of NH-563,
Armoor (Km 29.100) to Jagtial (Km 92.700) section of NH-63, and Jagtial (Km
92.700) to Mancherial (Km 160.995) section of NH-63 under NH (O) on HAM in the
State of Telangana.
1. The details of the project are given in the table below:
Table2: Details of the project
The proposed project includes development of the following three sections:
* Four laning of Armoor -Jagtial Section of NH-63 from Km.29.100 to Km. 92.700
km (Design Length 63.600 km)
Project Description * Four laning of Jagtial Mancherial Section of NH-63 from Km.92.700 to Km.
160.995 km (Design Length 68.295 km) in the State of Telangana
* Four laning of Jagtial Karimnagar Section of NH-563 from Km.0.000 to Km.
58.866 km (Design Length 58.866 km)
PPP Model Hybrid Annuity Mode
Sponsoring Authority Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India
implementing Agency National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
State: Telangana
Loeauon District: Nizamabad, Jagtial, Mancherial, Karimnagar,
Type of Pavement Flexible
Lane configuration | 4 Lane with PS
Sr. Particulars Armoor - Jagtial- Jagtial-
Details of Structures | No.
Jagtial Mancherial | Karimnagar
1, Length 63.600 Km. | 68.295 Km. | 58.866 Km.
Page 11 of 302. Major Bridges 10 Nos. 08 Nos. 6 Nos.
3. Minor bridge 39 Nos. 62Nos. 27 Nos.
4. Bypass 04 Nos. 02 Nos. 04 Nos.
Total length | Total length | Total length
43.100 Km. | 65.305 Km. | 31.166 Km.
5. Realignment 3 Nos. & 1 No. & 5 Nos. &
2.555 Km. 0.800 Km. 3.800 Km.
1 No.
6. Flyover
- - (1.005km)
hs ROB & RUB 1No. / 1No. 3Nos. / Nil
(Both -
retained)
8. Other Major Structures 32 Nos. 25 Nos. 33 Nos. (15/
(VUP/ (13/ 09/ O6/ | (11/.04/ 09/ | 12/ 06/ O/ 0)
LVUP/SVUP/AUP/AOP) _ | 04/0) 0/ 01)
9. Length of Service 34.24 km 22.34 km 38.33 km
Road/Slip Road including including including both
both sides both sides sides
10. | Toll Plaza / Ramp Toll 01 No. at 01 No. at 01 No. at Km.
Booths Km. 41.100 | Km. 22.100 having
having 4+4 | 111.500 4+4 lanes.
lanes. having 4+4
lanes.
17 years (Incl. construction period of 2 years and O&M period of 15 years)?
Concession Period
S.N |] Description of work Armoor- Jagtial - fe Jagtial
Jagti- a l MancheriaF l ar (i Rm sn ia ngar
(Rs in crore) | (Rs in crore)
crore)
HL Length 63.600 Km. 68.295 Km. 58.866 Km.
2. | Civil Construction 1266.58 1477.17 1455.01
Cost including utility
(without GST)
3: /C and Pre-operative 12.67 14.77 14.55
Estimated Capital Expenses (1% Civil
Cost with Break-up Construction Cost) ‘
under major heads of 4. Financing Charges 4.69 5.475 5.45
expenditure 5. Interest during 61.08 71015 71.02
construction (IDC)
6. Estimated Project 1345.02 1568.43 1546.03
Cost excl. GST
(2+3+4+5)
7. | Total Land Acquisition 490.98 422.88 387.15
Cost
8. EMP Cost 11.69 12.56 4.73
9. Contingencies @1% of 12.67 4407 14.55
2 The PPPAC has recommended the construction period of 2.5 years and the concession period of 17.5 years for
Armoor-Jagtial and Jagtial-Mancherial Sections. For Jagtial-Karimnagar, the construction period is 2.5 years and the
O&M period is 17.5 years and will be implemented on BOT (Recommendation Para 11).
Page 12 of 30Civil Cost
10. | Supervision charges 1.59 1.49 2.65
@2.5% on the Utility
Cost
11. | Total Pre- 516.93 451.70 409.08
Construction Cost
(7+8+9+10)
12. | GST 18% on (2) 227.98 265.89 261.90
13. | Estimated Project 1573.00 1834.32 1807.93
Cost incl. GST (6412)
14. | Bid Project Cost on 1580.30 1837.7 1803.95
Bid Due Date (excl.
GST)
15. | Escalation @5% per 122.84 143.15 141.11
year for Bid Due Date
to Construction on civil
cost incl. utilities
16. | O&M Cost for 15 years 258.99 301.55 294.01
as per Ministry OM
dated 23.05.2022: Incl.
Escalation
17. | Total Capital Cost 2471.76 2730.72 2652.13
{114+13+15+16}
18. | Per Km Civil Cost 19.91 21.63 24.72
19. | Per Km Capital Cost 38.86 39.98 45.05
Sr. | Description Armoor- Jagtial Jagtial - Jagtial
No
Mancherial Karimnagar
1. Greenfield/Bro | Total Length — Total Length— | Total Length —
wnfield 63.6 Km 68.295 Km 58.866 Km
(Greenfield Length | (Greenfield (Greenfield
— 45.655 km Length — Length —
Brownfield Length | 66.105 km 34.966 km
— 17.945 km) Brownfield Brownfield
(Open tolling with | Length — 2.19 Length — 23.90
provisions of Toe | km) km)
Wall) (Open tolling (Open tolling
Land Acquisition
with provisions | with provisions
Status
of Toe Wall) of Toe Wall)
2, Total Land 288.32 315.66 307.45
Required (Ha)
3. Existing ROW | 41.05 8.80 56.64
(Ha)
4. Addl. Land 247.27 306.86 250.81
Required (Ha)
(i) Forest Land | 5.7200 Ha. 11.6800 Ha. 0.00 Ha
(ii) Govt. Land | 8.5142 Ha. 19.9820 Ha. 71.77 Ha.
Page 13 of 30(iii) Pvt. Land 233.03 Ha. 275.198 Ha. 179.04 Ha.
5. 3(A) Status 100% completed 100% 100%
completed completed
6. 3(D) Status 92.31% completed | 100% 100%
completed completed
a. 3(G) Status 49.08% completed | 37.77% 60.47%
completed Completed
Particulars Jagtial Armoor- Jagtial | Jagtial -Mancherial
oe ete
Karimnagar
Financial Viability Equity IRR 15% 15% 15%
Project IRR 11.29% 11.29% 11.30% |
The project is proposed to be implemented as per Model Concession Agreement
Concession uploaded on MoRTH web site in November 2020 with subsequent amendments
Agreement
issued thereafter.
Bidding parameter _| Lowest Bid Project Cost
Bidding process Single Stage Two- envelop bidding
2. The primary purpose of the 4-lanning of the Armoor—Jagtial—Mancherial corridor is to
provide enhanced connectivity to NH-44 (Nagpur-Hyderabad section), NH-363
(Chandrapur—Mancherial), and NH-163G (Nagpur—Vijayawada corridor). The 4-lanning
of the Jagtial-Karimnagar corridor shall provide enhanced connectivity between
Jagtial, Karimnagar, and further extends to Warangal and Khammam in Telangana, as
well as Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh. The extended section from Karimnagar to
Warangal is under construction and nearing completion. Once completed, this project
will establish a seamless link between NH-63 and NH-163.
3. The traffic for the year 2024 on the Armoor—Jagtial section is 14,949 PCUs per day;
JagtialI-Mancherial section is 12,083 PCUs per day and Jagtial-Karimnagar section is
20,446 PCUs per day. All these sections record traffic of more than 10,000 PCUs per
day, thereby meeting the Ministry's prescribed norms of upgradation to 4-lane. The
development of these sections is part of a broader initiative to enhance the Nagpur—
Vijayawada corridor, improving inter-state connectivity between Maharashtra,
Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh. The 4-lane configuration and modern design
standards will reduce accidents and improve road safety for all users. The corridor shall
be a prime link between three important District Headquarters of Telangana.
4. The project will be executed under the HAM model with a combined Total Capital Cost
of Rs. 7,854.61 crore under the NH(O) scheme. The financial assessment indicates the
project IRR of 11.29% for both Armoor Jagtial & Jagtial- Mancherial and 11.30% for
Jagtial — Karimnagar. The equity IRR of all the three sections is 15%.
5. After the detailed presentation, the Chair asked the PPPAC members for their
observations. DoLA supported the proposal and stated that no further comments to offer.
Page 14 of 306. Director, DoE raised the following observations:
a) The civil cost per km for the project sections of Armoor -Jagtial, Jagtial-Mancherial
and Jagtial - Karimnagar are Rs. 19.19 crore, Rs. 21.63 crore, and Rs. 24.72 crore,
respectively. What is the reason for variation in per km civil cost in adjacent project
sections?
7. PD, NITI Aayog raised the following observations:
a) As the project sections have high traffic, it is recommended that the project may be
development under BOT (Toll) mode with a 30-year concession period for each
package, with permissible VGF to ensure viability.
b) The NOC from the Irrigation Department is critical for project execution and is
currently pending in the project sections. What is the expected timeline by which
NOC from Irrigation Department shall be obtained?
8. Advisor (Energy), DEA highlighted the following observations:
a) The proposed alignments run parallel to NH-63 and NH-563 along its entire stretch
with 59%, 72% and 97% of greenfield alignment for Jagtial-Karimnagar, Armoor to
Jagtial and Jagtial to Mancherial sections respectively. It may be clarified why the
option of upgrading or augmenting the existing NHs was not considered?
b) Whether the need for the augmentation has been triggered for all the three sections?
Also, the tollable traffic provided is significantly lesser than the total traffic. What is
the reason for the variation in total traffic and tollable traffic?
As per the tolling plan provided, the distance between the toll plaza at Jagtial-
Karimnagar section and Jagtial-Mancherial section is only 34 km. However, as per
the Fee Rule, the distance between the toll plaza should not be less than 60 km. The
justification for placing toll plaza within a span of 34 km may be provided.
d) Details of the project costs appraised in the PIB, as compared to those submitted to
the PPPAC, may be provided along with the rationale for any differences observed.
The construction period of 2.5 year is mentioned in the presentation. However, the
proposal was circulated with a construction period of 2 years for all the three
sections. MoRTH may confirm the construction period of all the three sections.
. The Chair made the following observations:
a) As per the proposal, boundary wall is provided in all the three sections. The rationale
for the same to be provided.
Page 15 of 30The traffic for Jagtial-Karimnagar is more than 20,000 PCUs. MoRTH may explore if
b)
the section can be taken up on BOT (Toll)?
40.MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: -
The variation in per km civil construction cost across the three sections are primarily
a) due to the complexity and number of structures involved. The Jagtial—Karimnagar
section has 03 ROBs, 01 flyover, 06 major bridges, and 146 box culverts. Structural
components account for 32.94% of the cost (Rs. 8.30 crore/km). The Armoor—Jagtial
section have 01 ROB, 01 RUB, 10 major bridges, and 159 box culverts with the
structural share of 24.41% of the cost (Rs. 5.07 crore/km). The Jagtial-Mancherial,
section includes 08 major bridges, 62 minor bridges and 170 box culverts with a
structural share of 30.73% (Rs. 6.96 crore/km). Therefore, irrespective of similar
package lengths, the cost per km varies.
The financial analysis of the project sections has been carried out under the
b) BOT(Toll) model. Considering a 30-year concession period and an equity IRR of
15%, the VGF required for Armoor to Jagtial section is 33.85%, for Jagtial to
Mancherial section is 69.30% and for Jagtial to Karimnagar section is 29.80%.
However, MoRTH is not of the opinion to provide a concession period beyond 20
years as it involves lots of uncertainties with such a longer concession period. Also,
the traffic for Armoor-Jagtial and Jagtial-Mancherial is relatively lower. Therefore, the
project sections of Armoor-Jagtial and Jagtial-Mancherial needs to be upgraded on
HAM only. The Jagtial — Karimnagar section has relatively higher traffic and therefore
could be taken up on BOT (Toll) mode.
The NOC from the Irrigation Department has been obtained for all 52 crossings in
the Armoor—Jagtial and Jagtial -Mancherial sections. However, for the Jagtial-
Karimnagar section, the process is currently in progress, and necessary follow-ups
are being undertaken to expedite approval.
A combination of brownfield and greenfield (bypasses and realignment) has been
considered because the existing routes traverses through towns/villages which are
typically congested due to local traffic, pedestrians, markets, and built-up areas.
Also, existing roads have poor geometry such as sharp curves, steep grades,
bottlenecks, etc. Wherever existing highway stretch is available without above
hindrances, it is utilized. Additionally, a cost comparison has been made between
the upgradation of the existing route and the proposed alignment and it was
observed that the upgradation of the existing route is more costly and complicated
due to the non-availability of Right of Way (ROW), as it involves displacement of
people, demolition of structures, relocation of utilities, traffic management during
construction, loss of livelihoods etc.
Page 16 of 30€) For all the three sections, the traffic exceeds 10,000 PCUs, warranting upgradation
to a four-lane corridor as per IRC SP:73-2018 (LoS-B for plain terrain). The variation
in total traffic and tollable traffic is due to the presence of large number of two-
wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors etc. The non-tollable traffic in Armoor-Jagtial
section is 53.72%; in Jagtial -Mancherial section is 62.39% and in Jagtial-
Karimnagar section is 48.99%.
f) The proposed toll plazas are not on the same NH but are on different NHs. The toll
plazas proposed in the NH-63 are 70km apart and the toll plaza proposed in the NH-
563 are 68 Km apart from the proposed location of Toll Plaza on Karimnagar-
Warangal Section which is presently under construction. Additionally, the toll plaza
location has been finalised as per Rule 8 of the NH Fee Rules, which says “No two
user fee plazas shall be within 60 km of one another on the same section of a
highway unless there is a separate expressway or bypass.” The road users will pay
toll whenever they cross a toll plaza, and open tolling system will be adopted for toll
collection.
g) The Armoor — Jagtial — Mancherial section project was not mentioned in the PIB
approval list. For the Jagtial — Karimnagar section, there is an increase of 72.21% in
the total capital cost as compared to the PIB cost. The breakup for the increase in
the capital cost is due to (i) 2.88% (Rs. 37 Cr) increase due to the provision of
additional Structures & service Roads (ii) 4.43% (Rs. 57 Cr) increased due to Toe
Wall, Traffic Signage, Utility, etc (ili) 27.57% (Rs.335 Cr) increased due to change in
SOR from 2019-20 to 2024-25 (iv) 7.6% (Rs. 93 Cr) increased due to change in GST
rates from 12% to 18% (v) 61% (Rs. 155 Cr) increased due to underestimated cost
of Land Acquisition since 3D was not completed for the project at the time of PIB.
h) The proposal was circulated with 2 years construction period. However, due to the
presence of high number of structures such as bridges, ROBs etc., it is assessed
that a period of 2.5 years is required to complete the project. To make sure that the
concessionaire would not get undue benefit from the extended concession period,
the bonus provision of early completion of the project shall be deleted from the draft
concession agreement.
i) Boundary wall is provided along the project sections to protect the Right of Way
(ROW) of the road sections.
]) Considering the traffic, the Jagtial-Karimnagar section can be taken up on BOT (Toll)
mode for a period of 20 years including construction period. (MORTH has given the
revised cost estimate for the Jagtial-Karimnagar Section on BOT (Toll) which is
placed at Annexure-ll).
Recommendations
Page 17 of 3011. After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for “4-
Laning of Jagtial (Km 0.000) to Karimnagar (Km 58.866) section of NH-563, Armoor (Km
29.100) to Jagtial (Km 92.700) section of NH-63, and Jagtial (Km 92.700) to Mancherial
(Km 160.995) section of NH-63 in the State of Telangana” subject to following
recommendations, for consideration of the competent authority for giving administrative
approval.
The appraised combined total capital cost of the Armoor-Jagtial & Jagtial-
a) Mancherial sections is Rs. 5,202.48 crore (i.e. Rs. 2471.76 crore for Armoor-Jagtial
section & Rs. 2730.72 crore Jagtial-Mancherial section} The appraised Total Project
cost of Jagtial — Karimnagar section is Rs. 1985.60 crore and Total Capital Cost
including land acquisition cost is Rs.2394.68 crore.
The Jagtial — Karimnagar section shall be taken up on BOT (Toll) for a concession
b)
period of 20 years including the construction period of 2.5 years.
As per the BOT analysis, the Jagtial-Karimnagar section is viable on BOT (Toll) with
a VGF grant of 47.83%. Given that recent projects awarded under BOT (Toll) have
secured grants of less than 40%, PPPAC assess that Jagtial-Karimnagar section
may also secure a VGF of less than 40%. Accordingly, in case the project bids on
VGF grant, MoRTH shall give up to 40% of VGF under the NH(O) Scheme.
The project section of Armoor-Jagtial & Jagtial-Mancherial shall be taken up on
qd) HAM model for a concession period of 17.5 years including the construction period
of 2.5 years under NH (O) scheme.
The Bonus clause (bonus on early completion) shall be deleted from the Draft
e)
Concession Agreement of all the three sections.
42. Revalidation of its recommendation by the PPPAC is not required for following post
recommendation changes in the project costs/bid documents: -
Any change in the date/time period for any time-bound actions like appointed date,
a)
financial close, construction period etc.
Non-substantial change in risk-allocation.
b)
Any other changes/modification in the project proposal with the overall objective of
making project successful.
Further, MoRTH/NHAI may decide whether the changes proposed post
d) recommendations of the project proposal by the PPPAC fall within the threshold
criteria as stated above. All such changes falling within the threshold criteria shall
Page 18 of 30be appraised at the level of Secretary (RTH)/BoD of NHAI as the case may be,
without any further need of revalidation by the PPPAC and shall proceed with the
approval process accordingly.
(iti) Mode and cost validation in the project “4-laning of NH-167 from Gudebellur at
Design Km.182+930 to Mahabubnagar at Design Km 262+940 of Hyderabad-Panaji
section (length 80.01km) in the State of Telangana”.
1. The proposal for four-laning of NH-167 from Gudebellur to Mahabubnagar (80.01 km)
in Telangana under NH(O) on HAM was initially considered in the 132" PPPAC
meeting held on 8th August 2025. As per Para 11(a) of the RoD of the 1324 PPPAC
meeting, “The mode and accordingly appraised capital cost of the project shall be
recommended in the next PPPAC meeting subject to the submission of the revised
BOT analysis by MoRTH.” Accordingly, MoRTH has shared the revised BOT analysis
and the reply to the PPPAC comments on 19.08.2025 and the same is placed at
Annexure-lll.
2. In the present 134 PPPAC meeting, NHAI presented a detailed reassessment of the
Gudebellur-Mahabubnagar project, focusing on its viability under the BOT (Toll) model,
integration of access-controlled design feature, revision of the overall project cost and
the justification for increase in cost as compared to the PIB appraised cost (Annexure-
Ill).
3. NHAI has reassessed the proposal under BOT(Toll) considering the:
a) additional traffic from the Surat-Chennai corridor, which increase the total traffic
from 17,991 to 18,058 PCUs;
b) revised cost of debt by reducing it to 10.87%; and
c) revised civil cost from Rs. 1,708.90 crore to Rs. 1,868.90 crore due to the
addition of the access-controlled design estimated at Rs. 160 crore.
4. As per the BOT (Toll) reassessment, for achieving an equity IRR of 15% across all
scenarios, the significant grant is required. A VGF grant of 38.70% is required for 30
years, 45.50% for 25 year and 53.75% for 20 years—making the model financially
unviable. Also, MoRTH do not favour a concession period which is beyond 20 years as
it involves lots of uncertainties with such a longer concession period. Based on the
above reassessment, it was found that the project is still not viable under BOT (Toll)
mode.
Page 19 of 305. Therefore, it is proposed that the project may be executed under the HAM model with
a total civil construction cost of Rs. 1868.90 crore anda total capital cost of Rs. 3175.08
crore (The cost breakup is given at Annexure-lll) under the NH(O) scheme.
6. After the detailed presentation, the Chair asked the PPPAC members for their
observations. NITI Aayog, DoLA and DoE supported the proposal and stated that no
further comments to offer.
7. JD (PIU) raised the following questions:
a) DEAhas evaluated the project's viability under BOT (Toll) mode with a 40% Viability
Gap Funding (VGF), resulting in a Project IRR of 12.75% and an Equity IRR of
43.41% over a 25-year concession period. The PSA may clarify whether the project
can be taken up under BOT (Toll) mode for a 25-year duration.
b) Given that the corridor is access-controlled, toll leakages of 10% for cars and 5%
for other vehicles considered can potentially be optimized. Post leakage
adjustment, the IRR improves to 13.37% and Equity IRR to 14.65% for 25 years on
BOT (Toll) mode.
c) Additionally, there is a scope for reducing the cost of debt, which is currently
assumed at 10.87% throughout the concession period in the BOT (Toll) analysis. In
comparison, the HAM model assumes 10.33% during construction and 9.83%
during O&M. A lower debt rate may be considered during operation period for BOT
analysis.
d) The per km cost of the project is Rs. 23.36 crore. In a recently appraised greenfield
project (Sirhind-Sehna) with similar configurations is Rs. 22.3 crore only. PSA may
explore the possibility to optimize the per km civil cost to improve the viability of the
project on BOT.
8. MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: -
a) MoRTH do not favour the concession period beyond 20 years as it involves
uncertainties related to traffic forecasting, policy shifts, and long-term financial risks.
Therefore, a 25-year concession period is not considered appropriate by the
Ministry.
b) As per NHAI Circular No. NHAI/11033/CGM(Fin/2011) dated 25.11.2011, traffic
leakage assumptions are based on vehicles that may avoid the highway once tolling
begins. Currently, there is no toll plaza on the project highway, and once toll
Page 20 of 30operations commence, a certain percentage of vehicles is expected to divert,
making leakage assumptions essential for accurate financial assessment.
c) For HAM projects, the cost of debt is calculated as the average of one-year MCLR
of top five banks plus 1.25% during construction and plus 0.75% during O&M. For
BOT (Toll) projects, the rate is fixed at the average of one-year MCLR plus 2.00%
for the entire concession period, as per NHAI’s standard assumptions. For Q2 of
FY 2025-26, the applicable MCLR average is 8.87%, resulting in a BOT (Toll)
interest rate of 10.87% p.a.
d) The project-specific components such as the length of structures, the type & design
of super-structure/sub-structure/foundation,
height of embankment, access control
requirements including length of service roads, Change in SOR (Applicable SOR
for Telangana is 2024 and that of Punjab state is 2020), has led to increase in the
cost of the project. The Civil cost of the project has been estimated based on the
bare-minimum site-specific requirements of the project with access-controlled
provisions which has already been optimized.
Recommendations
9. After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended that the project “4-
laning of NH-167 from Gudebellur at Design Km.182+930 to Mahabubnagar at Design
Km 262+940 of Hyderabad-Panaji section (length 80.01km) in the State of Telangana”
shall be taken on HAM with a Total Capital Cost of Rs.3175.08 crore for the
consideration of the competent authority for giving administrative approval. All the other
recommendation as mentioned in the Para 11 & 12 of the RoD of 132N4 PPPAC dated
3" September, 2025 shall be applicable.
eK
Page 21 of 30Annexure-l
List of the participants of the 129 meeting of the PPPAC
a) Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance
4. Ms. Anuradha Thakur, Secretary, EA- In Chair
2. Shri Chunilal Ghosh, Advisor (Energy)
3. Ms. Arya Balan Kumari, Joint Director
4. Shri Rajender Singh, SO (PIU)
b) Department of Expenditure
4. Shri Ranganath Audam, Deputy Director
c) NITI Aayog
4. Shri. Partha Reddy, Programme Director
d) Department of Legal Affairs
4. Shri Jagat Prakash, Assistant Legal Adviser
e) Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Shri V Umashankar, Secretary (RTH)
=
Shri Vinay Kumar, AS(H)
Shri Puneet Agarwal AS&FA
Shri Manoj Kumar, CE
QI
f) National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)
4. Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Chairman
2. ShriAnil Chaudhary, Member
3. Shri K Venkatramana, Member (PPP)
Page 22 of 30Annexure-ll
Details of cost estimate for four laning of Jagtial Karimnagar Section of NH-563 from
Km.0.000 to Km. 58.866 km (Design Length 58.866 km) on BOT(Toll) mode.
Cost abstract for Jagtial - Karimnagar Section of NH-563
S.No. |Descripation
1 Length
58.866 Km
2 Concession period
20 Years
Civil Construction Cost including utility (without
3 GST)
1455.01
4 GST 18% on (2)
261.90
5 Ciivil Construction cost incl. GST(3+4)
1716.91
Civil Construction cost with Escalation upto
6 01.04.2026 (Construction Date)
1785.59
7 \/C and Pre-operative Expenses {1% of (5) ) 17.86
8 Financing Charges
6.42
3 Interest during construction (IDC)
82.88
10 Escalation in EPC during Construction
92.85
a4 Total Project Cost (6+7+8+9+10)
1985.60
12 Total Land Acquisition Cost
387.15
13 EMP Cost
4.73
14 Contingencies @1% of Civil Cost
14.55
15 Supervision charges @2.5% on the Utility Cost 2.65
16 Total Pre-Construction Cost ( 12+13+14+15) 409.08
17 Total Capital Cost {11+16}
2394.68
PIRR
13.93%
VGF
47.83%
Page 23 of 30Annexure-lll
Details of the Revised cost and BOT analysis for “4 laning of NH-167 from
Gudebellur to Mahabubnagar of Hyderabad-Panaji section under NH(O) in the State
of Telangana”
$
8 9 6 Oe E LGLL vp 2 6 9 5 6 18 S S h p 896 s e ee 9 O L ?O r o c et e S 6 2 2B E 8 L 2 e6 1 9 9 )S 6 9 2B 0 ' S L E E ee 66 8 9979
a
e
G
e
u
g
q
n q
e
y e
y {
)
—($
i10
n89
i
j
e9
I
nU
O
H
q e p no u y mO N y
g) S
U
AO
w y 1 0 :$ 8 9y a n B u id 1 1 A I 9 09p9 81n j o u !g h1 ) S3 8 0
e9
ys
su{
oaAp}
|g
v o
Hd
x y a( ON o u
j(o
u d y
+
S 1 +
U 2
"O N S U O D | I A I O r
a n
eA e l a d o - s i g p u r
| s a b i e
yQ ) u o j o n y s u o 9
S u n g s e c u
)1 8 9
j o x e S 0 9 y e l o i g p a y e u y s y1 8 0 9 u o H i s i n b o y p u e ? |
e
}} 8 0
9 A I D J O % L @ s e i o u a b u y u o g
u o % G ' Z O s a b i
e y o u o i s i a d n
sO 1 4 6 + 9 + 2 ) 1 8 0 9
U O N O N S U O D - O 1 ¢ [ L O
L{ £ 8
9 ‘ o u l s e g y a l o i g p o y e u i l y s
yl e d
a n g p i g u o 1 s 0 9 j a l o l g p i
gU o O N y s U O D B u l
n p u o y e j e 0 8 3 8 0 1 iS 1 R 9 A S | , 1 0 ] 8
02 1 + 1 1 + 9 } 1 8 0 0 f
e u d e d t e } , a e )W y J a d } $ 0 4 U O O M S U O D J A
Iu
y J a d j s o o j e y d e 9 j e l o ,
o 0 D
B u| W
rR
oO
u
e1
u8
y0
9
d
I
N
S
|
s
e
v e
| a Z o n a s
y
S 0
9 p o o l o l
d |
” Page 24 of 30Compliance to Observations raised during PPPAC meeting held on 08.08.2025
Gudebeliur at Design Km,182+930 to/ahabubnagar at Desien Km 262+940
Si. | Comments/ Observations on
Reply
_No. | PPPAC proposal
i) The Coal Cost breakup for Access | [-~-, COMFO! provisions may The componentwse break-up of te Owl Wom cost Is attached as iL, | CT oh re r ii dm op ra c it s o ff 0 v a bff ei c t f ao krb e Se nu p r ir a no tv - fi C id nhe aed nn c n i| aa li?o P‘Tn Che e U x t r cu a af lr f cie c u lu, am t p ic oao ncn .ts i d Td ue hr e ei n t Bg o Oa Su Tc rc ae (ts To-s lC lc h )o en Pnt nno aa nl l c c ipr aoo lmv s mei oro dn es h l af so c r aa lt l ch r ue e l a ap d tr y io oj be nc e t be. en e t na k de on n i en
accordingly,
{L) The tate of interest gpplcabie Tor ‘The rale applicable for BOT (Toll Prejecis ~ Average | BOT(Tol) prolects may be reviewed
f | Os per extant guidelines
of one-year MCLR of Top § banks plus 2.00% (as per New broposed Standard Assumptions for
Fiantial analysis in PPP projects vide NYA! Letter to MORTEH dated
2401, 2022)
interest rate applicaie for 2* Ow of FY 2025-28 {01.07.2025 to
90.09.2025) has been computed as 8 87 % 0.4. and issued by NMA! vide
NHAl Policy citoular dated 03 07 2025, Copy enclosed as Annexure, t
Thus. the raie of interest has been computed as 10.87% pa, and te |
same has been used in the BOT (Toll) Financial Mode! with inputs of |
WW. The BOT (Toll Einanaal Model may
be modified for the change in rate of
i interest | S.No, Particulars | Results
i} _ 30 Years 28 Years 20 Years
i Eaaiy RE 100% 18.00% | 18.00%
i
|
=
impact dué to Surat-Cheanai comidor and PCU cavculation The Financia’ Model for BOT (Tol) has been accordingly modified.
|
LR Grant (in) TS 708 ISK |
Since 20/25 yrs concession period under BOT (Toll) Made! is not viable,
HAM Model is proposed forthe project work }
The Summary of BOT (Toll) Financial Analysis has been attached as |
Annexure & 1V.
The BOT (Toll) Financial Model for 30 yrs, 26 y's and 20 ys we also
enclosed. The Glink of caleulabon of Financial Mode! is enclosed as
below.
bts ide j
WiXtPusp=drive link
"| | T vih se ( li en e Pr Ie Ba cs oe s i tn t mh ae y P br eoj je uc st ti c fio es dt ve | PT ah ne a jP iI EG o oc ro us nt i h ca : s C ob nee dn o rat 10i .v e Hd o wa at ve er r ,c o tn hes i prd oe jer ci t-n sg pecificr e r eH qy ud ie rr ea nb ea nd t. y
of the Additional structures, aocess control requirements including service
Toads, road fumiture, loll booths ete, Change in SOR, increase in the cost
of Land Acquisition since 30 was not completed for the project & intrease
in guidarcé value, charge in GST rates from 12% to 18% has led to
increase in the cost of the project. The comparison of Cost vis-é-vis PIS
Oomnponent-wise Dregs up is allachec as Annexure-V
the ent!
iia
B
ee
Page 25 of 301
g
S
S p
L g _.J
O U
9J
0O
'Y
9A S
U
a
]
B
Y U L
ea
s
e a es
o
U ! ‘ a P0 6 " Y I B eU l9d a8 h] P te
e O s e .S O d j _rA _J O _ _eS a_ _9 4 ) _ _U l e A S hB e O iI S aU t ej (i g A O F a a i ia yi SN p d o O p Ppa u re nPs e ex d mAJ ) s o By a n BO U l S i eu ie u S p n jy Y i Mvcdbiniss n ta u y L S OS O 9 f I A I O D
|N AO U
IL
O bW aa Lq
eOu
a
Lu
d i
n
b
a
g
y
y
o
o
[ j o
]
“ W f
e m \
9
o }
‘
u
r
e
s
p
p
o
u
y
‘
s
y
o
A
j
n
D
j e u n 9 9 / g ) s o B u n y u s
A
n
| _
_
S&
Ut
O
H e
o O
]
W
X
)
|
_
G e
e r
(
B
u e S
u
o
u d
i
n b y B Z B i g ( 1 0 ) ,
A
U
R
y
O s
y
j
o o
d g
o
]
8
G
o
n
e
d
A
e
m
u
f a
y
p
u
e
|
i
g e z y
b
v
e l
e e ‘ o k g A e
] S yU oR r u ] (O 6 uL nS u 6“ rS , AH eO nM uP bR iO y N “T So Hu O N) ) , v yO eH o uS pR oA oS r sI )O D S nB oe a ul e ) g iW aO dL ) * t bh b 1 “ S a a g S n g ‘ s u o H o U N E " S P A S P O Y F S u p p e r s p e o y “ s u B
l s |
o y
j e s
|
i
2 0 6
b
_
i
k W e A
A
i
8 0 1
‘ u I e I G J e 1 e N
Y O l e D ( p e o y s o m e s ‘ o s e j B y u y ‘ y e n i s e a r
r i
8
{
.
o r
L s
_ _ _ a i
d
o
i g
‘
s u r e s C o r p a re B eu Kn os oo ua
rr y “ S U Ie y J O By I C ) e A A “ E A PUA Al Le yS A UY u , Jl "o U I E AU I el y C Pg Y“ V asa te il t y_ e uY lS ee eI g oQ ) i ) S H | *I O ‘Y B U IA LU I TC EH I UI O} NO Ds s B } O l | a l ]) S Y 2 O / V ,
|
t
e
e
.
a
H O N — /
W h
|
_ Q o n p e i , ‘ a n
u * g O u ‘ s a s s e d i o p u n ‘ s o b p u g ) s a m m o n a g c e e t i e a |
_
S
O O
|
a
— e e e ( w e a 9 V W s ) S O N A s r o u l w n n | j e . |
S
E
6
2
s a s i n o D a s e g p u e a s e g - a n g s p u n p a y_ e e V We O
L| D
|
i
!
s
e4 B6
e% u g n g
e y
e
w
B u m u e w s i g p u e o r e a u s | t i
i
&
|
s p u p
j u n
o~
w
ys
n iy
me
oq
,e
p
n o
|T
y
_ —
_ v o n d u o s e a i
o
k
$
8
0
9
1
0
M
[
A
I
D
Page 26 of 30aria usa user oitescer
—
(ees ots oft ert dere, arr Beez}
National Highways Authority of India
Weele agg 5 Oh 6, ( Bd ei en ti -s 1i 0r ,y ao vf e R r,o ad T Re ea dns p sen 0t 0 a 7n 6g H 0i 5gh aw a 8y , s Se, s tG oo r-v 1e 0,r n Om we arn kt a o , f N i en wd i Da e) l hi-110075 A
GIN Phone 91-11-26074100 / 25074200
NHAI/ Policy Guidelines/ HAM Project/ 2025
Policy Circular No. 8.4.51/2025 dated 03 July, 2025
{Decision taken on €-Office Fite No. NHAL/GAUF)/HANMY-Interest/2020
{Comp. No.46658)}
Sub: Interest Rate Applicable for HAM Projects - Interest under clause 23.6.4-reg.
Model PT rh oi js e cis t sw .i t Ah s r pe ef re r te hn ec re e t qo u it rhe e ma em ne tn od fe Ad r tM io cd le e l 2 3C .o 6n .c 4e .ssion Agreement for Hybrid Annuity
oi B“ fn aI t n n Tet kr oe ser p s pe t 5s l t ur S sas c h t h1a e e.l 2 dl e 5 uqb % lue " ea . l dd u T Cte h oo e me t mfn h eoed ro p a ctva iney aora lrab Begl o ee s n poo kefn c oi ot f nnh i ee e 1 s %r y te e Shd a eau r ptc tM i “ eCn T mg L h b Rb e ea ro Al f ua et n vt hc eo oe rp r y o i5 f t C S ayC l co s ehm h ne ap dd ll alue r l dt e ei Yd co e tn C aa ro rC m e bo m s atet shr ea ec dt i l oie a s nn l t
t th oe p 5B a Sl ca hn ec de u tS eh dee Ct o msi mz ee r a cs i ad le c Bt aa nr ke sd si hn a lt th bei er tA an kn eu na al t R e tp ho er st ts a. r tT oh fe ef v- ey re ya r q uM aC rtL eR r ”o .f the
aaZ (. l n0 o 1 dn . tg 0 h7 e.wA 2ic r6tc a2ho t5r e d o sti n o sn e hg 3- al 0y ly . te, 0 a b9rt e. h 2 M pe 0 uC 2 bA 5L lu )R it . s h T ho (r eR hi da et t fy e l oi rsh o t e 1f or fe i db n B aty ae y nrd ke oe ss fc t l e) sa h vr a ea le rp ls yp bl t Qi eh uc e aa n rb eT tl x eo e t r p .rf eo§ r v iS 2 ec wh ee dd Q u u ol a ne r d t 1 e 7C r o S m o efm p e tFr eYc m bi ea rl 2 , 0 2B 2a 5 0n - 2k 7 5s 6
Be The rates for the top 5 Commercial Banks are as belove:
Sr. Ne, Bank's Name 1 Year MCLR in % Rate Applicable for the
{As on 01.07.2025) | 2” Quarter of FY 2025-26
(01.07.2025 to 30.09.2025)
i__State Bank of india 9.00 8.87% pa
; a fank 28 {i.e. Average of Top 5
54. ___ _B _a jPn uk
nj
ao bf NB aa tr io od naa
l Bank
88 ... 99 00
"
ScheduledP lCuosm 1m. .e2r5c%iat Bank)
4, This issue with the approval of Competent Authority,
BAH
(CS. Sanjay Kumar Patel)
Ve Chief General Manager (Coord.}
Te:
All Officers of NHAI HO/ ROs/ Pluss CMUS/ Site Offices
Copy to:
1. Hindi Division for transtation in Hindi.
2. Library for hosting the circuiar on library site.
3. Web Admin for circulation.
Page 27 of 30BOT (Toll) Ana is - Summary
Four laning of NH-167 from Gudebellur at Design Km.182+930 to Mahabubnagar at Design
Kin 2624940 of Hyderabad-Panaji section (Length 80.01km) under NH(O) on BOT (Toll) in
the state of Telangana
Civil Cost: Rs. 1868.90 Crore (With Access Contral) (Proposed)
Rate of Interest on Loan: 10.87%
is. | Particulars . Results - ei
No. 30 Years q 25 Years 20 Years
“i. | Equity IRR 15.00% | 15.00% | 15.0096 |
"2. | Project IRR 13.78%, «18.67% | “13.51%
_3.___| Grant (in %) _38. 70% | - __ AS. S0% i 53.75%
4. ___| Grant (in Rs. Cr.) 982.07 | _1148.34 | _____21347.62 |
5. Total Project Civil 2537.65. ~ 2523.83 | 2507.20 |
L___ Cast (Rs. in Cr.) |
Civil Cost: Rs. 1708.90 Crore (With Partial Access Control)
Rate of Interest on Loan: 10.87%
Ts. [Particulars | 7 Results chee)
No. | “i | a0Years 25 Years 20 Years
(2. Project RR 13.78% 13.67% 13.51%
|3._ Grant (in 4) 23.15% 40.55% 49.50% |
(4. | Grant {in Rs. Cr. } - 77286 | 939.53 1138.68
'§. | Total Project Civil 2330.78 | 2316.98 2300.37
__| Cost (Rs. in Cr.)
[2
Page 28 of 30) 9 ¢ z S
% (
‘eu,
) S
' 5
0
(
~
)
¢
9
° 2 0
% (
E
S U
O H
y
S
O
J L E v O E P
Y S “
D 4 6 9 2 ° 0 £ u S ‘
4
9
2 [ 9 1 t a M a b n u A ; 0 4
L
4 9 4
r O g e
H a
L G
n o
A
L E ° 8 9 %
u w
O
S E B
g i o f a
—
Y b V L E
| F O
a | l a w
n
j
g
b
n
y
A
K
O O
e
S
)
a
! O L P ' O C y
S
e
o
L O L P ' O O Y S
) N O M A
|
A D A
O
J
E S E G ' O O
y S “
—
0 1 0
0 ¢ S E S a S
9
4
E S E S ' O O Y S "
.
s e i a e a d o
|
}
|
—
O
L
o s
S F
2 2 6 e y
s
a
D 5 G 1 E 6 8
Y S
;
S P O E L C E Y S "
|
) N U 9 0 8 D O I U s Y D I A
a
o
j
A H S
% 0
.
E S
A
o
p
E O A
.
4
d e u O P D O u a e a s j a u
_
|
E A
M
A S “ g
.
_
A N R
|
g
e u o P D O U s s N O O U i
i
D
N
I D G A
|
Y b C O O L A T
d
D N I D
e
A
S 9 6 8 9 d Z ‘ , I
d d n i p e A 4 2 2 2 2 b d e
d
D
N I P C A
1
E S P B P , d L
d
D N I P
B
A
Y S E O L d e b L
G D N I P B A S L O L 9
y o f y e
q r a
L N
!
o y e
g
i a
}
e
q 1 a
N I O C
, L O
d e D S O O
E
G .
L d
N I P O K d D 2
9 9 Z 2
k a Z
d n N i p e A 6 L L 6 L d
2 Lh.
A P C
A
;
S P S
S
O L
d a b
d D N I P B A G
B L L S
° d e b
D N I D C A E K e b L S
d b
e d o P g 0 U d e s S [ O U o j
i
. s
u
p
E
e —
l
o i
. i
n u o e y d d n i p e A
y U
O L
O
B
y
a
e
j y o
8 0
a
8 0
0 1 H
U
=
w W 8 0 °
0 1
| ) y a (
_
y e
u
B
n
n e
A H % 0
e e
e
E G A
S
a
A I S " 8 0
y u e i k s i s
.
g 0 1
—
.
y e y e
g n g u e B e s
- g n p
e q e j n u
. _
g P
y
u
e
j
A
s
i
s
)
1
0
1
(
D O U o l (
g
o
L
y 9 D e s s
M
I
Y
D 1
“ L
8
9
g
'
6
0
x
S
9
0
8
3
)
D
I
A
I
J
Page 29 of 30|i|
|
r
s4
e r
e n e 4 9
9
O 8
6
1 2 @S
e oE “—2 z
S
eS uS
u
i
—
r
e
4
9
r1P
9 O eB C L L “ S U S | i
tY !—|
_ |
~
~
W
1O9
8
a 9 €
6 8 1
SO
L S e
F
e ]
g0 9
g i d
a) le — 2 R8 e)
n
e e
e a s £
0L
0 0 8
{
1 9
@
y
a
i4 P Om
e Ls 9e
a
y|S Yn
u l
¢
G o O eL
o
D
IE
S
"
s uD ) p
rZa
eE m
bGa
— 1e w y p o ' P i d W i a6 S S S e i a s m a z d us e a s o u r _8
0 9
p
a s u
do
g "
8 !
y y B
up
o u
o n
u o W w
t
%
1 2
9 )
dey
y 7 H
Gyu iod d o lj L oG S 1 e 1}o l gW yo g0 9 O | | | id Li d T
y
|
yf
J
U
R
Y
S
U
E
T
O
Y
v o
n(
w8
j0
p o9
dg
i a yi d
y l F I
AN
g
P
O
A
T
Y
S
O
D
>
j
e
s
o
d
o
i
d
O
V
d
d
d
i
:
H
a
s “ U eO
“ y o ua uI O L Z L
t } 8s eL L
6
L
‘ S
|Y 0S
9u
| |
~
—
|
( 4 9 s y } “ 1 9 2—I 9 2 2 °
39 3
84
0S , 0
u
G——
i—
d
— 1 U 0
U M
U u
(
4 9
I D G
e s
O L
S o l jS e u )S k |;x |
o
e s
d“
e(|6
b e us u g )
|
a y— if :3 |
g
n
qa
e yu e y_ t v y )
ea
l
; y
j j
e
— n i|
ad ne s | j 1_ p8- a9 0 q1
e p| _ 1.
n ( gRy
) jo p p n u n Be y u e { G
oRiwe
Up Ren s - |b ea
O S I T E d U I O
S
jU a a a e s V 1 u o y d u s s a g |e a eo o g ) 1 s 0 0 p o s i
e i d
dG n y e q e p n g ) | (
" 2
‘
e p o y o p e r
f e
qu q n q e y e ) |A “ O N i g ) ”
se O Nu
e
o gg i d } i s ) |w ) s
o
so
ap
bo es
yt
ue
ai
sd
d
+ e
Aa
Il
Dd
i
y
y
b u e
7 y
‘i
Page 30 of 30