See Full Document Text
Subject: Record of Discussion of 148th meeting of the PPPAC for considering the
following six railway lines proposals:
I. Balaram-Putgadia-Tentuloi (Inner Corridor) in Odisha
II. Budhapank-Tentuloi-Luburi (Outer Corridor) in Odisha
III. Jajpur-Keonjhar Road-Aradi-Dhamara Port in Odisha
IV. Tikiri Station to Waltair Bauxite Mines in Odisha
V. Manuguru–Ramagundam in Telangana
VI. Pakur/Nagarnabi to Godda in Jharkhand
1. The 148th meeting of the PPPAC was held on 01.08.2026 at 11.00 hrs to consider the
above-mentioned project proposals. List of attendees is placed in Annexure-I.
2. On behalf of the Chair, Joint Secretary (IFS) welcomed the attendees and informed that
the Ministry of Railway (MoR) has submitted six project proposals to PPPAC for final
recommendation. The PPPAC had accorded ‘in-principle’ approval to these proposals at
its 144th meeting held on 10th April 2026. Thereafter, Joint Secretary (IFS) requested MoR
to make a presentation to the PPPAC. With the permission of the Secretary (EA) and
Chairman, Railway Board, the Principal Executive Director (PED), MoR, made a detailed
presentation to the PPPAC
3. The basic details of the project are given below:
Table 1: Details of the project as per PPPAC Memo
Project I. Balaram-Putgadia-Tentuloi (Inner Corridor) in Odisha
Description Zonal Railways/State East Coast Railway /
Odisha
Route Length 49.58 km
Land Cost INR 398.5 Cr.
Civil Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 557.60 Cr.
S&T (excl 18% GST) INR 88.10 Cr.
Electrical Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 104.30 Cr.
Utility Shifting (excl 18% GST) INR 48.00 Cr.
Departmental Charges INR 64 Cr.
Project Cost excluding GST (excluding INR 798.10 Cr.
land cost and departmental charges) FY
25 levels
Project cost after escalation at FY 28 INR 897.80 Cr.
levels (excluding GST)
Financing charges (0.75% of debt INR 3.4 Cr.
amount)
IC/ pre-operative expenses (1% of the INR 9 Cr.
project cost at FY28 levels)
Interest during construction (9.83%) INR 56.70 Cr.
Estimated Project Cost (excl GST) INR 966.90 Cr.
Bid Project Cost INR 1,074.40 Cr.
Escalation of BPC during construction INR 43.10 Cr.
1(4% p.a. escalation)
O&M payments INR 358 Cr.
Interest on Annuity INR 583.70 Cr.
GST @ 18% INR 370.7 Cr.
Supervision charges INR 64 Cr.
Land Acquisition and other INR 398.50 Cr.
preconstruction Cost
Total Capital Cost INR 2,892.40 Cr.
Phasing of Investment (as Percentage of To be implemented with
project cost to be incurred) construction period of 2
years
Year 1: 65%
Year 2: 35%
Key Commodity Coal
Concession period 17 years including 2 years
of construction
Financial IRR Project IRR: 9.40%
Equity IRR: 14%
II. Budhapank-Tentuloi-Luburi (Outer Corridor) in Odisha
Zonal Railways/State East Coast Railway /
Odisha
Route Length 112.56 km
Land Cost INR 755.40 Cr.
Preliminary expenses INR 1.40 Cr.
Civil Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 1,695.60 Cr.
S&T (excl 18% GST) INR 165.60 Cr.
Electrical Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 215.10 Cr.
Utility Shifting (excl 18% GST) INR 84.30 Cr.
Departmental Charges INR 171.40 Cr.
Project Cost excluding GST (excluding INR 2,160.60 Cr.
land cost and departmental charges) FY
25 levels
Project cost after escalation at FY 28 INR 2,430.30 Cr.
levels (excluding GST)
Financing charges (0.75% of debt INR 9.70 Cr.
amount)
IC/ pre-operative expenses (1% of the INR 24.30 Cr.
project cost at FY28 levels)
Interest during construction (9.83%) INR 265.50 Cr.
Estimated Project Cost (excl GST) INR 2,729.80 Cr.
Bid Project Cost INR 3,089.70 Cr.
Escalation of BPC during construction INR 309.10 Cr.
(4% p.a. escalation)
O&M payments INR 1,088.90 Cr.
Interest on Annuity INR 1,783.30 Cr.
GST @ 18% INR 1,128.80 Cr.
Supervision charges INR 171.40 Cr.
2Land Acquisition and other INR 756.80 Cr.
preconstruction Cost
Total Capital Cost INR 8,328.00 Cr.
Phasing of Investment (as Percentage of To be implemented with
project cost to be incurred) construction period of 4
years
Year 1: 24%
Year 2: 20%
Year 3: 25%
Year 4: 31%
Key Commodity Coal
Concession period 19 years including 4 years
of construction
Financial IRR Project IRR: 9.63%
Equity IRR: 14%
III. Jajpur-Keonjhar Road-Aradi-Dhamara Port in Odisha
Zonal Railways/State East Coast Railway /
Odisha
Route Length 101.26 km
Land Cost INR 152.60 Cr.
Preliminary Expenses INR 2.50 Cr.
Civil Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 1,873.00 Cr.
S&T (excl 18% GST) INR 142.80 Cr.
Electrical Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 213.90 Cr.
Utility Shifting (excl 18% GST) INR 25.50 Cr.
Departmental Charges INR 170.80 Cr.
Project Cost excluding GST (excluding INR 2,255.20 Cr.
land cost and departmental charges) FY
25 levels
Project cost after escalation at FY 28 INR 2,536.80 Cr.
levels (excluding GST)
Financing charges (0.75% of debt INR 9.00 Cr.
amount)
IC/ pre-operative expenses (1% of the INR 25.40 Cr.
project cost at FY28 levels)
Interest during construction (9.83%) INR 191.30 Cr.
Estimated Project Cost (excl GST) INR 2,763.40 Cr.
Bid Project Cost INR 3,091.30 Cr.
Escalation of BPC during construction INR 243.50 Cr.
(4% p.a. escalation)
O&M payments INR 1,068.40 Cr.
Interest on Annuity INR 1,744.80 Cr.
GST @ 18% INR 1,106.60 Cr.
Supervision charges INR 170.80 Cr.
Land Acquisition and other INR 155.10 Cr.
preconstruction Cost
Total Capital Cost INR 7,580.50 Cr.
3Phasing of Investment (as Percentage of To be implemented with
project cost to be incurred) construction period of 3
years
Year 1: 25%
Year 2: 35%
Year 3: 40%
Key Commodity Coal & Iron Ore
Concession period 18 years including 3 years
of construction
Financial IRR Project IRR: 9.44%
Equity IRR: 14%
IV. Tikiri Station to Waltair Bauxite Mines in Odisha
Zonal Railways/State East Coast Railway /
Odisha
Route Length 48.96 km
Land Cost INR 20.60 Cr.
Preliminary expenses INR 1.60 Cr.
Civil Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 774.00 Cr.
S&T (excl 18% GST) INR 39.40 Cr.
Electrical Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 104.30 Cr.
Utility Shifting (excl 18% GST) INR 48.00 Cr.
Departmental Charges INR 67.01 Cr.
Project Cost excluding GST (excluding INR 965.70 Cr.
land cost and departmental charges) FY
25 levels
Project cost after escalation at FY 28 INR 1,086.20 Cr.
levels (excluding GST)
Financing charges (0.75% of debt INR 4.10 Cr.
amount)
IC/ pre-operative expenses (1% of the INR 10.90 Cr.
project cost at FY28 levels)
Interest during construction (9.83%) INR 61.70 Cr.
Estimated Project Cost (excl GST) INR 1,162.90 Cr.
Bid Project Cost INR 1,292.70 Cr.
Escalation of BPC during construction INR 59.30 Cr.
(4% p.a. escalation)
O&M payments INR 433.10 Cr.
Interest on Annuity INR 706.00 Cr.
GST @ 18% INR 448.40 Cr.
Supervision charges INR 67.01 Cr.
Land Acquisition and other INR 22.20 Cr.
preconstruction Cost
Total Capital Cost INR 3,028.71 Cr.
4Phasing of Investment (as Percentage of To be implemented with
project cost to be incurred) construction period of 2
years
Year 1: 50%
Year 2: 50%
Key Commodity Bauxite
Concession period 17 years including 2 years
of construction
Financial IRR Project IRR: 9.35%
Equity IRR: 14%
V. Manuguru–Ramagundam in Telangana
Zonal Railways/State South Central Railway/
Telangana
Route Length 207.80 km
Land Cost INR 446.70 Cr.
Preliminary expenses INR 5.20 Cr.
Civil Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 2,234.60 Cr.
S&T (excl 18% GST) INR 238.20 Cr.
Electrical Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 365.20 Cr.
Departmental Charges INR 213.70 Cr.
Project Cost excluding GST (excluding INR 2,838.00 Cr.
land cost and departmental charges) FY
25 levels
Project cost after escalation at FY 28 INR 3,192.30 Cr.
levels (excluding GST)
Financing charges (0.75% of debt INR 13.30 Cr.
amount)
IC/ pre-operative expenses (1% of the INR 31.90 Cr.
project cost at FY28 levels)
Interest during construction (9.83%) INR 377.50 Cr.
Estimated Project Cost (excl GST) INR 3,615.00 Cr.
Bid Project Cost INR 3,900.60 Cr.
Escalation of BPC during construction INR 380.10 Cr.
(4% p.a. escalation)
O&M payments INR 1371.40 Cr.
Interest on Annuity INR 2,246.10 Cr.
GST @ 18% INR 1,421.70 Cr.
Supervision charges INR 213.70 Cr.
Land Acquisition and other INR 451.90 Cr.
preconstruction Cost
Total Capital Cost INR 9,985.50 Cr.
Phasing of Investment (as Percentage of To be implemented with
project cost to be incurred) construction period of 4
years
Year 1: 22.69%
Year 2: 24.42%
Year 3: 25.65%
Year 4: 27.24%
5Key Commodity Coal & Coke, Chemical
Manure,
Foodgrains/Flours/Pulses,
Cement, Minerals & Ores
Concession period 19 years including 4 years
of construction
Financial IRR Project IRR: 9.70%
Equity IRR: 14%
VI. Pakur/Nagarnabi to Godda in Jharkhand
Zonal Railways/State Eastern Railway/
Jharkhand
Route Length 126.52 km
Land Cost INR 919.00 Cr.
Preliminary expenses INR 3.20 Cr.
Civil Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 2,165.70 Cr.
S&T (excl 18% GST) INR 208.00 Cr.
Electrical Eng (excl 18% GST) INR 219.90 Cr.
Utility Shifting (excl 18% GST) INR 25.90 Cr.
Departmental Charges INR 151.60 Cr.
Project Cost excluding GST (excluding INR 2,619.60 Cr.
land cost and departmental charges) FY
25 levels
Project cost after escalation at FY 28 INR 2,946.70 Cr.
levels (excluding GST)
Financing charges (0.75% of debt INR 11.10 Cr.
amount)
IC/ pre-operative expenses (1% of the INR 29.50 Cr.
project cost at FY28 levels)
Interest during construction (9.83%) INR 185.90 Cr.
Estimated Project Cost (excl GST) INR 3,173.10 Cr.
Bid Project Cost INR 3,527.10 Cr.
Escalation of BPC during construction INR 141.50 Cr.
(4% p.a. escalation)
O&M payments INR 1175.30 Cr.
Interest on Annuity INR 1,916.30 Cr.
GST @ 18% INR 1,216.80 Cr.
Supervision charges INR 151.60 Cr.
Land Acquisition and other INR 922.20 Cr.
preconstruction Cost
Total Capital Cost INR 9,050.80 Cr.
Phasing of Investment (as Percentage of To be implemented with
project cost to be incurred) construction period of 2
years
Year 1: 65%
Year 2: 35%
Key Commodity Coal
Concession period 17 years including 2 years
6of construction
Financial IRR Project IRR: 9.45%
Equity IRR: 14%
Bidding Lowest Bid Project Cost
parameter
Bidding Single stage Two packet System (1st Part for Qualification i.e.
process Technical Bid and 2nd Part for Financial Bid)
4. The six proposed railway projects comprised four projects in Odisha, one in Telangana
and one in Jharkhand. PPPAC had earlier accorded ‘in-principle’ approval to these
projects under the DBFOT model. Subsequently, based on market feedback, MoR
revisited the project structure and proposed their implementation under the HAM. Under
the proposed HAM structure, MoR would bear the traffic and tariff risks and provide 40%
of the Bid Project Cost as grant during the construction period. The projects would be
awarded through a single-stage, two-envelope electronic bidding process, with the lowest
Bid Project Cost as the bid parameter.
5. The Authority would be responsible for land acquisition, statutory approvals and payment
of 40% of the Bid Project Cost during construction, while the Concessionaire would
undertake the design, financing and construction of the project. During the operations
period, the Authority would operate the trains, provide rolling stock and crew, and make
annuity and O&M payments. The Concessionaire would be responsible for maintaining the
project assets, undertaking station O&M and replacing assets upon completion of their
codal life, except rails. Passenger and freight earnings would accrue to the Authority, while
the Concessionaire would receive annuity payments, price-indexed O&M payments and
limited non-fare revenue, given that the projects are primarily freight-oriented. Bidder
eligibility would be assessed based on both financial and technical capacity.
6. After the detailed presentation, the Chair asked the PPPAC members for their
observations. Department of Legal Affairs (DoLA) supported the project proposals and
stated that land acquisition should be completed in a timely manner and should be free
from litigation to avoid delays in project implementation.
7. The observations raised by the Director, Department of Expenditure and the responses
thereto are given below:
i. While welcoming the proposal to implement the six railway line projects under PPP
mode, it was observed that the Jajpur–Keonjhar Road–Aradi–Dhamara Port project
would need to be included in the annually approved Universe of PPP projects.
Response: MoR acknowledged the observation and stated that the requisite proposal for
inclusion of the project would be submitted.
ii. It was observed that the project documents for the Talcher Coalfield project
envisage VGF support of INR 1,348.7 crore, which appears to exceed the
permissible limit under the applicable norms. MoR was requested to clarify and
justify the proposed VGF amount.
Response: MoR clarified that no VGF is envisaged for the project. The amount
represents grant support equivalent to 40% of the Bid Project Cost, payable by the
7Authority during construction against specified milestones and subject to indexation, in
accordance with the HAM framework.
iii. It was observed that the requisite environmental clearances must be obtained prior
to project implementation and cannot be granted post facto. MoR was requested to
confirm whether such clearances would be in place before commencement of the
projects.
Response: MoR clarified that environmental clearances constitute a Condition Precedent
under the Concession Agreement and would be fulfilled prior to commencement of
construction.
8. The observations raised by the PD, NITI Aayog and the responses thereto are given
below:
i. It was observed that the bidding documents require a consortium member whose
technical experience is relied upon to retain at least 26% equity until five years after
COD, whereas no equivalent requirement appears to apply where AIF or a non-
company entity is the bidder and where technical eligibility is met through an EPC
contractor. MoR was therefore advised to ensure consistency in the relevant
provisions of the bidding framework.
Response: MoR clarified that the 26% equity-retention requirement applies only to
consortium members, as it relates to shareholding and its dilution. However, in the case of
AIFs and other non-company-based bidders, MoR agreed to review the relevant
provisions to ensure consistency between all bidders regardless of the type of legal entity
it is and to suitably revise the bidding documents.
ii. It was observed that the road sector has well-established Manuals of Specifications
and Standards, which provide clarity and certainty to bidders. While MoR has
separate discipline-specific manuals, a consolidated manual covering the
specifications and standards applicable to railway line projects would promote
standardisation and provide greater clarity to prospective bidders.
Response: MoR, informed that separate manuals are currently available for different
various disciplines, including civil engineering, track, signalling and telecommunication,
and overhead equipment. MoR acknowledged the merit of consolidating the relevant
provisions into a comprehensive manual for new railway line projects and agreed to
undertake the exercise.
iii. It was observed that the provisions relating to augmentation could expose the
existing Concessionaire to additional operational and contractual risks. Under the
proposed arrangement, augmentation works, such as doubling of a railway line,
would be undertaken separately by the Authority through EPC or PPP mode, while
the O&M of the augmented assets would be assigned to the existing
Concessionaire. MoR was requested to consider appropriate safeguards in the
Concession Agreement.
Response: MoR clarified that the Bidding Documents would provide the existing
Concessionaire a Right of First Refusal for undertaking the augmentation works. Given
8the integrated nature of railway infrastructure, including common signalling systems,
overhead equipment and crossovers, entrusting O&M of the augmented assets to the
existing Concessionaire was considered operationally efficient. The Concessionaire would
receive O&M payments for the augmented line at the prescribed rate, while operational
synergies were expected to lower the incremental maintenance cost. The augmentation of
the Paradip–Haridaspur railway line was cited as a precedent. MoR agreed to suitably
incorporate detailed provisions governing augmentation in the bidding documents after
further deliberation.
iv. As all six projects involve the construction of new railway lines under a common
contractual framework, it was suggested that the DCA may, after the requisite inter-
ministerial consultation and approval process, be developed into an MCA for future
railway PPP projects.
Response: It was submitted that, as MoR is implementing projects under HAM for the first
time, it would be appropriate to gain experience from these projects before adopting an
MCA. This would enable the contractual provisions to be suitably refined based on the
lessons learnt and the requirements of future railway PPP projects.
v. It was suggested that the composition of the Accident Enquiry Committee be
reviewed to ensure more balanced representation, as the existing provision
envisages greater representation from Indian Railways and only one representative
from the Concessionaire.
Response: MoR clarified that the Concession Agreement substantially limits the
Concessionaire’s liability and risk exposure. The penal provisions applicable to the
Concessionaire have also been suitably restricted, thereby providing adequate safeguards
notwithstanding the composition of the Accident Enquiry Committee.
vi. It was observed that the existing arrangements for testing and inspection of
equipment could delay project implementation. Under the conventional railway
procurement process, Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO)
undertakes inspection after being notified by the supplier that the equipment is
ready. In a PPP project, any delay in such inspection could adversely affect the
project schedule. It was therefore suggested that, upon notification by the
Concessionaire, the Authority should ensure timely testing and inspection through
a designated agency.
Response: MoR agreed to streamline the testing and inspection mechanism. It was
informed that the bidding documents would provide for empanelled agencies, including
RDSO and approved third-party inspection agencies, to ensure timely inspection and
avoid delays in project implementation.
vii. It was observed that the DCA envisages multiple certification stages, including the
Provisional Completion Certificate, Completion Certificate, Commissioner of
Railway Safety (CRS) Certificate and Commercial Operation, which could create
uncertainty regarding the COD. It was suggested that the process be rationalised
into two principal milestones, with COD linked to the Provisional Completion
Certificate and other requisite checks and approvals incorporated as underlying
conditions.
9Response: MoR clarified that commercial operations can commence only after the
observations arising from the CRS inspection have been duly addressed. Any deficiencies
identified during the inspection are required to be rectified and compliance certified before
final acceptance and commissioning of the line. MoR agreed to review and rationalise the
certification mechanism and suitably incorporate the revised provisions in the bidding
documents.
9. The observations raised by JS, IFS and the responses thereto are given below:
i. Clarification was sought regarding the mechanism for undertaking track
replacement during the O&M period.
Response: MoR clarified that track replacement would be undertaken in phases through
planned traffic blocks, without requiring complete closure of the railway line. The affected
track section would be isolated for replacement, allowing train operations to continue with
minimal disruption.
ii. It was suggested that the draft RFP and DCA undergo comprehensive legal and
technical vetting to address the inconsistencies and contradictions observed in the
documents.
Response: MoR informed that the draft RFP and DCA had already been referred to a
legal firm for detailed vetting. The identified inconsistencies and drafting issues would be
addressed as part of the review before finalisation of the bidding documents.
10. The observations raised by the Chair and the responses thereto are given below:
i. It was suggested that the implementation timelines be optimised, particularly for
the shorter corridors, given that construction of all six projects was proposed to
commence only from 1st April 2028.
Response: MoR acknowledged the suggestion to optimise the implementation timelines
and informed that land acquisition for the Balaram project, one of the shorter corridors,
was at an advanced stage, enabling its implementation to commence well ahead of the
proposed schedule.
ii. Clarification was sought on whether the proposed eligibility criteria would enable
financially strong entities, including infrastructure investment funds and other
investors without the requisite technical experience, to participate through legally
binding arrangements with technically qualified EPC contractors.
Response: MoR informed that the proposed framework permits financially strong
investors to participate through such arrangements. The RFP would specify the applicable
conditions, including the minimum tenure of the agreement, the roles and responsibilities
of the EPC contractor, and the circumstances in which such arrangements would be
permitted.
10iii. Clarification was sought on whether the RFP would adequately regulate the
substitution of the EPC contractor after award of the project and incorporate
safeguards against arbitrary replacement.
Response: MoR clarified that as the technical qualifications of the EPC contractor form
the basis for evaluation and award, any subsequent replacement would require prior
approval of the Authority. The replacement contractor would be required to possess
technical qualifications equivalent to or higher than those of the original contractor. The
RFP would also provide appropriate safeguards and penal provisions, with replacement
permitted only in specified exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency, etc.
iv. It was enquired what would incentivise financial investors, such as AIFs, to
participate in the proposed HAM projects.
Response: MoR informed that the proposed framework seeks to attract long-term private
capital into railway infrastructure. AIFs and other financial investors would assess these
projects based on the stable and predictable returns offered under HAM relative to
alternative investment opportunities. Their participation would also help broaden the
investment ecosystem and deepen private-sector participation in railway infrastructure
over time.
Recommendations
11. After the detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously, recommended the following six
railway line proposals:
I. Balaram-Putgadia-Tentuloi (Inner Corridor) in Odisha
II. Budhapank-Tentuloi-Luburi (Outer Corridor) in Odisha
III. Jajpur-Keonjhar Road-Aradi-Dhamara Port in Odisha
IV. Tikiri Station to Waltair Bauxite Mines in Odisha
V. Manuguru–Ramagundam in Telangana
VI. Pakur/Nagarnabi to Godda in Jharkhand
for consideration of the Competent Authority for giving Administrative Approval subject to
following recommendations:
i. The appraised project cost details are as below:
Amount (in INR Crore)
SN Details Balaram- Budhapa Jajpur- Tikiri Manuguru– Pakur/Naga
Putgadia- nk- Keonjh Station Ramagund rnabi to
Tentuloi Tentuloi- ar to am in Godda in
(Inner Luburi Road- Waltair Telangana Jharkhand
Corridor) (Outer Aradi- Bauxite
in Odisha Corridor Dhama Mines in
) in ra Port Odisha
Odisha in
Odisha
1 Estimated 966.9 2,729.8 2,763.4 1,162.9 3,615.0 3,173.1
Project Cost
(excluding
GST)
112 Bid Project 1,074.4 3,089.7 3,091.3 1,292.7 3,900.6 3,527.1
Cost
3 Total Capital 2,892.4 8,328.0 7,580.5 3,028.7 9,985.5 9,050.8
Cost
ii. The project should be taken up on HAM.
iii. The concession period of the projects is:
Balaram- Budhapank- Manuguru– Tikiri Jajpur- Pakur/Nagarnabi
Putgadia- Tentuloi- Ramagundam Station to Keonjhar to Godda in
Tentuloi Luburi in Telangana Waltair Road- Jharkhand
(Inner (Outer Bauxite Aradi-
Corridor) in Corridor) in Mines in Dhamara
Odisha Odisha Odisha Port in
Odisha
17 years, 19 years 19 years, with 17 years 18 years 17 years
with including 4 construction including 2 including 3 including 2 years
construction years of period of 4 years of years of of construction
period of 2 construction years construction construction
years
iv. Land acquisition and necessary clearances to be obtained in a timebound manner to
avoid delay in the project
v. Provisions relating to the following shall be suitably incorporated in the Bidding
Documents:
a. Future augmentation of railway lines, including detailed contractual provisions and
appropriate safeguards for the Concessionaire.
b. Revision of the exit provisions to ensure consistency in the treatment of consortium
members and technically qualified EPC contractors.
c. Modification of the eligibility criteria to enable financially strong bidders lacking the
requisite technical expertise to associate with technically qualified EPC contractors
through legally binding agreements, including provisions governing substitution of
the EPC contractor, safeguards against arbitrary replacement and appropriate
penalties.
d. Rationalisation of the certification process to reduce the number of stages and
provide greater clarity regarding the Commercial Operation Date (COD).
e. Identification of all utility-shifting requirements, along with a clear allocation of
responsibilities.
f. Inclusion of schedules in the Concession Agreement, particularly those clearly
specifying the scope of work and the obligations of the Concessionaire.
12g. Empanelment of RDSO and other approved third-party inspection agencies to
facilitate timely inspection and testing of equipment and materials.
vi. The Bidding Documents be legally vetted to address inconsistencies.
12. Revalidation of its recommendation by the PPPAC is not required for following post-
recommendation changes in the project costs/bid documents:
i. Any change in the date/time period for any time-bound actions like appointed date,
financial close, construction period etc.
ii. Non-substantial change in risk-allocation.
iii. Any other changes/modification in the project proposal with the overall objective of
making project successful.
iv. Further, Ministry of Railways 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 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Railway Board, without any
further need of revalidation by the PPPAC and shall proceed with the approval process
accordingly.
13. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
***
13Annexure-I
List of the attendees of the 148th meeting of the PPPAC for considering the proposal
a. Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance
1. Ms. Anuradha Thakur, Secretary (EA)
2. Ms. Laya Madduri JS (IFS)
3. Shri. Rahul Singh, Director (PIU)
4. Shri. Rajender Singh, SO (PIU)
5. Shri. Abhinay Gaikwad, YP
b. Department of Expenditure
1. Ms. Bhumika Verma, Director
c. NITI Aayog
1. Shri. Partha Sarathi Reddy, Programme Director, NITI Aayog
d. Department of Legal Affairs
1. Ms. Prerna, Assistant Legal Adviser
e. Ministry of Railways
1. Shri. Satish Kumar, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Railway Board
2. Shri. Shyam Sunder Gupta, PED INFRA, Railways
3. Shri. Priya Ranjan Parhi (ED INFRA-1)
4. Shri. N.B.Vikaramadiya (ED INFRA-3)
5. Shri. Rahul Kapoor (EDF RM & PPP)
6. Shri. Malleta Srikant, Joint Director (Infra & PPP)
7. Shri. Rajeev Ranjan, OSD
8. Shri. Nitin (Consultant PwC)
9. Shri. Gaurav Singla (Consultant Pwc).
10. Shri. Vinay Kumar Inspector /Infra
14