Construction of 4 Lane Greenfield section from Mokama to Munger of NH-33 in the State of Bihar on Hybrid Annuity Mode.Development of 6 lane Greenfield Nashik – Ahmednagar – Solapur – Akkalkot section of NH-60 in the state of Maharashtra under NH(O) on BOT (Toll) Mode.

Subject: Record of Discussion of the 130th meeting of the PPPAC for considering the following project proposals: - (i) Construction of 4 Lane Greenfield section from Mokama to Munger of NH-33 in the State of Bihar on Hybrid Annuity Mode. (ii) Development of Six-lane Greenfield Access controlled Corridor (Nashik – Ahmednagar – Solapur –Akkalkot) 1. The 130th meeting of the PPPAC was held on 30th June 2025 at 09:45 hours to consider the above proposals of MoRTH. 2. List of attendees is placed at Annexure-I. 3. With the permission of Finance Secretary cum Secretary (EA), Joint Secretary (ISD) welcomed all the attendees to the meeting. NHAI made a detailed presentation on the proposed road project. (i) Construction of 4 Lane of Greenfield section from Mokama to Munger of NH-33 in the State of Bihar on Hybrid Annuity Mode. 1. The details of the project are given in the table below: Table 1: Details of the project “Construction of 4 lane Access Controlled Mokama-Munger section of Project Description NH-33 as part of Buxar Bhagalpur High Speed Corridor Route in the state of Bihar under NH(O) on Hybrid Annuity Mode”. PPP Model Hybrid Annuity Mode Sponsoring Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India Authority Implementing National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Agency State: Bihar Location District: Patna, Lakhisarai, Munger Flexible Type of Pavement Access Controlled 4-lanes Lane configuration S.N Description Details Details of 1 Length (km) 82.400 Structures 2 Pavement Type Flexible 3 Major Bridge 2 Nos. (11 x40 m; 2x40 m) Page 2 of 184 Minor bridge 26 Nos. 5 ROB 4 Nos. 6 Flyover 7 Nos. (2nos: - 2x30m; 5nos: - 20+30+20m) 7 Trumpet 02 Nos. 8 VUP/LVUP/SVUP 04-VUP (20x5.5), 48-SVUP (7x4) 9 Major/ Minor 59 Nos. Junctions improvement of crossroads 10 Culverts (No.) • 92 + 10 Nos. on MCW 8 no. on Interchange (Box Culvert) • 48 +10 Cross road culverts (Pipe culvert) 11 Connecting/ Slip/ • Slip Roads: 19.00 Kms (including both Service Road (Km) sides) • Service road: 10.85 Km (including both sides) • Connecting link road: 6. 705 Kms (including both sides) 12 Rest Area 02 13 Tolling Close tolling with Exit entry toll booth at Ramps 14 Construction Period 30 months Concession Period 17.5 years (Including 2.5 years of Construction Period) S.N Description of work Details (Rs. in crore) 1 Civil Construction Cost including Utility 2120.61 Shifting labour cess & Seigniorage charges (Excl. GST) (Rs. in crore) Estimated Capital 2 Estimated Project Cost (Rs.in crore) 2243.16 Cost with Break-up (without GST) under major heads 3 Estimated land and other 1228 of expenditure preconstruction cost (Rs. in crore) 4 Estimated Total Capital Cost (including 4447.38 GST) (Rs. in crore) 5 Estimated BPC without GST (Rs.in 2744.75 crore) Particulars Land to be Published Acquired 3A Status 509 Ha Patna and Munger CALA verification completed 100% and Lakhisarai Land Acquisition CALA is in Progress. Status • 3A of 50.32 HA out of 63 HA of Patna under publication. • 3A of 105 Ha of Munger verification completed 100% Page 3 of 18• 3A of 280 HA of Lakhisarai district verification completed 100% 3D Status 3D will be initiated after appraisal from PPPAC 3G Status Yet to start Particulars Mokama to Munger Equity IRR 15% Financial Viability Project IRR 13.49 % NPV (Rs. in crore) 1212.14 NPV/Cost (Ratio) 0.540 Concession The project is proposed to be implemented as per Model Concession Agreement Agreement dated 09.12.2016 uploaded on MoRTH website. Bidding parameter Lowest Bid Project Cost. Bidding process Single Stage Two-part system of bidding 2. The primary purpose of the proposed access controlled four-lane greenfield project corridor is to improve travel efficiency between the districts of Patna, Lakhisarai, and Munger in the state of Bihar. It is designed to facilitate efficient transportation and logistics by linking major cities and towns of Bihar and expected to enhance regional mobility, reduce travel time, and promote socio-economic development. The proposed four lane NH-33 will offer a direct 82.4 km access-controlled corridor with close tolling, supporting average vehicular speeds of 80 km/h with design speed of 100 km/h. This will reduce the overall travel time by approximately one hour, while offering safer, faster, and uninterrupted connectivity for both passenger and freight vehicles. Further, the instant project is a common part of Buxar Bhagalpur Highspeed Corridor declared in Budget 2024 . Other sections of this corridor are either functional or in different stages of development. 3. Based on current traffic survey of existing 2 lane section i.e. around more than 21000 PCU AADT, instant project is proposed as four lane divided carriageway with 1.5 m paved shoulder with provision of six lane structure by keeping the view of future expansion of Buxar Bhagalpur Highspeed corridor. 4. The project will be executed under the HAM model with a Total Capital Cost of Rs. 4447.38 crore. The project is included under the NH(O) for the FY 2025-26. The financial assessment indicates the project IRR is higher than 12% and the equity IRR 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. 6. Director, DoE raised the following observations: Page 4 of 18a) The cost of debt considered for the project is 11.60 which seems to be on the higher side. It is suggested that the rate should be based on market rates. 7. PD, NITI Aayog raised the following observations: a) The total traffic level of the corridor is 18,866 vehicles, out of which 72% (13,622 vehicles) are two wheelers, three wheelers and tractors. With this traffic level, the proposed highway is triggering 6-laning by 2038. The Authority may consider diverting two wheelers, three wheelers, etc., to service road potentially delaying the need for a 6-lane by 2038. b) 4-lane highway is generally designed for 90 MSA, NHAI shall provide the basis and impact on the design specification for highway proposed with 150 MSA. c) Is there any median opening on main carriageway? d) The list of utilities to be shifted by the concessionaire needs to be properly identified and listed out in the Schedule of the DCA. Further, the approved plan for relocation from the concerning utility authorities needs to be made part of the DCA. 8. JS(ISD) highlighted the following observations: a) MoRTH may clarify the status of the existing National Highway 33 upon completion of the proposed National Highway. b) The cost of debt considered in the financial model is 11.60% which is on a high side which may be revised as per current market trend. c) It is observed that road projects proposed by MoRTH are not viable on BOT (Toll) with 20/ 30 years concession period and 40% VGF support but are viable on HAM with 15 years concession period and 40% construction support. Therefore, MoRTH shall examine this issue with in-depth financial analysis in future projects. 9. The Chair made the following observations: a) Expressways and greenfield projects should normally be with straighter alignment. What is the rationale for adopting a ‘U’-shaped alignment for this greenfield project? b) What is the rationale for proposing an alternate greenfield NH south of river Ganga when there is already a four-lane NH-31 north of river Ganga providing connectivity from Mokama to Munger. Moreover, the proposed alignment and the existing NH- 31 are of almost same length? Page 5 of 1810. MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: - a) The cost of debt shall be revised as per the prevalent market rate. b) The traffic on the existing section of NH-33 comprises substantial number of two and three-wheelers which are primarily short-distance local trips and are unlikely to use the proposed access controlled greenfield corridor with a closed tolling system. c) MSA of 150 has been adopted considering commercial vehicle volume of ~6,000 PCUs/day in base year (2025) with a growth rate of 6.6%, and a Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) of 3.5, which comes to a cumulative MSA of 163.77 over the 20-year design period. The adopted value of 150 MSA is thus conservatively kept. The pavement crust has been designed accordingly, following IRC:37-2018 guidelines. d) There is no median opening on the main carriageway. e) Utility shifting including the existing utilities to be shifted are included under Schedule A of the Concession Agreement. f) Upon completion of the proposed highway, the existing section of NH-33 will be de- notified and shall be entrusted to the State Government after commencement of traffic on the greenfield corridor. g) The difference arises from the distinct revenue calculation approaches considered in BOT and HAM models. The viability of BOT(Toll) is based on toll revenue collections while under HAM the same is based on pre-defined annuities. However, MoRTH will do some in-depth financial modelling of this issue. h) The proposed alignment was finalized based on meandering course of river and low-lying land south of Ganga and north of existing NH 33. Straighter alignment in north of existing NH 33 would result in higher embankment, long major bridge structures & other cross drainage structures which will result into higher costs of the project. i) The section of NH-31 is already a four-lane road catering to the traffic going towards Purnia. While the proposed corridor caters to the traffic heading towards Farakka/Malda making this project necessary on its own merit. Combined together, it will provide expressway connectivity in South Bihar from Purvanchal express in UP to Bangladesh border. Page 6 of 18Recommendations 11. After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for “Construction of 4-laning of Greenfield Section from Mokama to Munger of NH-33 in the State of Bihar on HAM Mode” subject to following recommendations, for consideration of the competent authority for giving administrative approval. a) The appraised Total Capital Cost of the project is Rs. 4447.38 crore. b) Since NH-33 and NH-31 are already runs parallel to the proposed alignment, the tolling on the proposed alignment will be limited. Therefore, the project shall be taken up on HAM under NH(O) scheme. c) MoRTH shall examine the feasibility of a straight-line alignment for the proposed highway and to ensure that the optimal alignment is selected for the project. d) On the northern side of Ganga River, a 4 lane NH-31 having equal length exists. Further, a two-lane section of NH-33 is also running parallel to the proposed alignment. Considering this, MoRTH shall ascertain the need for the proposed greenfield alignment before going to the approval of the competent authority. e) MoRTH shall ensure that the project is not over-designed. f) MoRTH shall make arrangement for continuous maintenance of the existing road in collaboration with State Government even after denotification. g) The decision of approving new NHs is not only about enhancing connectivity, it is also about incurring huge public expenditure for developing such highways. It has been observed that NHs are approved and the land acquisition starts before approval of such expenditure by the Competent Authority. Therefore, MoRTH should seek guidance from Cabinet Secretariat and develop a clear SOP for approving new NHs. 12. Revalidation of its recommendation by the PPPAC is not required for following post recommendation changes in the project costs/bid documents: - a) 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. Page 7 of 18d) 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. Page 8 of 18(ii) Development of 6 lane Greenfield Nashik – Ahmednagar – Solapur – Akkalkot section of NH-60 in the state of Maharashtra under NH(O) on BOT (Toll) Mode. 1. The details of the project are given in the table below: Table 2: Details of the project Development of 6 lane Greenfield Nashik – Ahmednagar – Solapur – Akkalkot section of NH-60 in the state of Maharashtra under NH(O) on BOT (Toll) Mode”. The current proposal is developed in two packages as follows: Package Location From To Length (KM) Project Description I Nashik to 138.00 290.00 152 Ahmednagar II Ahmednagar to 290.00 512.000 222 Akkalkot PPP Model Hybrid Annuity Mode Sponsoring Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India Authority Implementing National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Agency State: Maharashtra Location District: Nashik, Ahmednagar, Beed, Dharashiv (Osmanabad) & Solapur. Type of Pavement Flexible Lane configuration 6-lane with paved shoulder S. N Project Package -I Package -II Combined Features 1 Length (km) 152.00 222.00 374 (Greenfield corridor) 2 Proposed 70m 60 m 70 m – Length 152 ROW Km (Km 138.000 to Km 290.000) 60 m – Length 222 Details of Km (Km 290.00 to Structures Km. 512.00) 3 Lane 6-lane with 6-lane with PS 6-lane with PS Configuration PS (Flexible (Flexible (Flexible Pavement) Pavement) Pavement) 4 Service 14.67 km / 3.58 km / 5.40 18.25 km / 13.37 km Road/ Slip 7.97 km km (LHS+RHS) Road (LHS+RHS) Page 9 of 185 Interchanges 6 Nos. 4 Nos. 10 Nos. 6 Vehicular 29 Nos. 8 Nos. 37 Nos. Underpass (VUPs) 7 Light 96 Nos. 62 Nos. 158 Nos. Vehicular Underpass (LVUPs) 8 Small Nil 04 Nos. 04 Nos. Vehicular Underpass (SVUPs) 9 Overpasses 6 Nos. 9 Nos. 15 Nos. 10 Design Period 20 years 20 years 20 years 11 Viaduct 2.9 Km 2.7 Km 5.6 Km 12 Major Bridge 11 Nos. 16 Nos. 27 Nos. 13 Minor Bridges 62 Nos. 102 Nos. 164 Nos. 14 ROB 02 nos. 03 nos. 05 nos. 15 Boundary 10 km (both 10 km (both 20 km Wall sides) sides) 16 Entry/Exit 8 Nos. 9 Nos. 17 Nos. locations 17 Rest Areas 2 nos. (Land 12 nos. (Land 14 nos. (Land & & boundary & boundary boundary wall wall provision wall provision provision only) only) only) 18 Construction 24 months 24 months 24 months (730 period (730 days) (730 days) days) 19 Concession 20 Years 20 years 20 Years Period 20 Proposed 01 April 2026 01 April 2026 - start date of project 21 Estimated 42,629 PCU 34,736 PCU Average Traffic on Page 10 of 18Greenfield stretch on COD date (2028-29) Concession Period 20 years (including 2 years for construction) S. Particulars For Concession Period of 20 Years N Package-I Package- Total (Rs. in II (Rs in (Rs. In Crore) Crore) Crore) 1 Base Civil 5,119.54 6187.83 11,307 Construction cost without GST 2 Utility Shifting Cost 107.40 60.46 168 3 Civil Construction 5,226.54 6,248.29 11,475 Cost Incl. Utility Shifting (without GST) 4 Escalation during 240.42 287.42 528 construction @ 4% 5 IC & pre-operative 52.27 62.48 115 expenses @ 1% of 3 Estimated Capital 6 Financing charges 33.58 41.77 75 Cost with Break-up 0.75% of debt under major heads 7 Interest during 338.24 419.29 758 of expenditure construction (IDC) @ 11.04% p.a. 8 GST on civil cost- 984.05 1176.43 2,160 plus escalation @ 18% of (3+4) 9 GST on services @ 15.45 18.76 35 18% of (5+6) 10 Estimated Project 6891 8255 15,146 Cost 11 Pre-Construction 2603 1393 3,996 activities (a) Land acquisition 2497 1356 3,853 Cost including interest from date of 3(A) till April, 2025 (b) EIA Cost 106 37 143 Page 11 of 1812 Total Estimated 9,494 9,648 19,142 Capital Cost (10+11) Nashik - Ahmednagar - Solapur S. N Description - Akkalkot greenfield highway 1 Name of Package Package-I Package-II Total 2 Total Land Required (Ha) 1457 1665 3122 Land Acquisition 3 Land already available (Ha) 0 0 0 Status 4 Balance land (Ha) ((2)-(3)) 1457 1665 3122 5 3A done (% of (4)) 100 100 100% 6 3D done (% of (4)) 85 82 84% 7 3G done (% of (4)) 60 47 53% 8 3H done (% of (4)) 0 8 4% Particulars Package-I Package-II Financial Viability PIRR 13.55% 13.48% EIRR 15% 15% - Package-I is proposed to be implemented as per New BOT MCA (under Concession approval by IMC). Agreement - Package-II is proposed based on BOT (Toll) MCA for capacity augmentation. Bidding parameter Lowest grant sought or highest premium offered Bidding process Single Stage Two-part system of bidding 2. The proposed project was earlier submitted to the PPPAC, as a greenfield alignment with a total length of 468 km (MH/Gujarat Border to Akkalkot) divided in 13 packages on HAM Mode in September, 2024. The reply of MoRTH to the observation of PPPAC (issued vide OM dated 28.9.24) is attached at Annexure II. Based on the observation of the PPPAC, the proposed project has been revised to a greenfield alignment starting from Nashik in place of Maharashtra-Gujarat Border and end at Akkalkot with a reduced length of 374 Km and divided in 2 packages on BOT (Toll) Mode. A 20-year concession period is proposed, along with the grant of rights of tolling of existing competing roads as an incentive to the new BOT (Toll) concessionaire, to make the tolling easier, no conflict in competing roads and attractive project for bidders. The primary purpose of the proposed access controlled six-lane greenfield project corridor is to improve travel efficiency between Surat and Chennai. The proposed corridor shall also provide connectivity to Agra - Mumbai Corridor at Nashik at Junction with NH-60 (Adegaon), Vadodara Mumbai Expressway through Samruddhi Mahamargh at Pangri (near Nashik). The proposed corridor will provide connectivity to Chennai Port & Hazira Port. Accordingly, the instant proposal is to develop Six-lane access-controlled, greenfield corridor from Nashik to Ahmednagar (package-I) and Ahmednagar to Akkalkot Page 12 of 18(package-II). Package-I with 20-year concession requires an estimated grant of Rs. 495 crore and Package-II is viable without grant. 3. The proposed greenfield alignment, designed for 100 km/h, is expected to reduce travel time by ~6 hours and reduce the travel distance by 306 km. In addition, it would also provide other benefit such as enhance the existing tourism and pilgrimage circuit, reduction in accidents and pollution, reduction in traffic congestion, support the development of Industrial sector, etc. 4. The project will be executed under the BOT (Toll) model with an estimated project cost of Rs.15,146 crore and an estimated Total Capital Cost of Rs. 19,142 crore. The project is included under the NH(O) for the FY 2025-26. The financial assessment indicates the project IRR is higher than 12% and the equity IRR 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. 6. Director, DoE raised the following observations: a) The cost of debt is on a higher side and the same to be as per the prevailing market rates. b) The traffic on the existing corridor is around 17,000 PCU only. What is the rationale for proposing 6-lane greenfield corridor ? 7. PD, NITI Aayog raised the following observations: a) The toll collection on existing route between Nashik and Akkalkot is proposed as a sweetener to the new BOT (Toll) Concessionaire. Presently, the existing corridor has been developed or being developed on various modes i.e., BOT, HAM and EPC. It would be difficult for MoRTH to ensure timely CoD of under construction sections and ending of ongoing concessions of functional sections. It will bring the revenue risk for the concessionaire and MoRTH may ensure that such risks are mitigated. b) The existing brownfield section between Nashik and Solapur has traffic between 9,000 and 40,000 PCU and the traffic projection for the proposed corridor is 38,000 PCU. It may be clarified from which corridor the traffic of 38000 PCU will be diverted? Additionally, it was observed that the basis of the estimation of target traffic mentioned in BOT(Toll) document is not clear and MoRTH should bring out the basis of target traffic as it’s a major factor in toll revenue. c) The corridor may be taken up for development as Expressway instead of Access- controlled Expressway. Page 13 of 18d) The cost considered in the estimate towards protection works is very high. The same may be reviewed. 8. JS(ISD) highlighted the following observations: a) The project cost is 11.8% higher than the normative cost for Package-I. What is the justification for the same? b) For Package-I, the estimated grant is Rs. 495 crore with 20-year concession period whereas for 25 year concession period, the project is yielding premium. Therefore, 25 year concession period can be considered. c) Who will give the Grant for Package-I, if discovered through bidding? d) For Package-I and Package-II, a ROW of 70m and 60m have been adopted respectively. MoRTH may ensure having same RoW for different packages of a project to ensure uniformity and future expansion? 9. The Chair made the following observations: a) The corridor is proposed to connect port cities of Surat and Chennai. Whereas, port cities preferred connectivity shall through sea route (which is cheaper mode of transportation vis a vis road). For future projects, MoRTH should consider intermodal/ multimodal connectivity before developing highways. b) Which alignment of the existing roads shall be handed over to the new BOT (Toll) concessionaire as a sweetener? c) After developing the proposed corridor as a shorter connectivity between Surat to Chennai, who will do the required and timely maintenance and upgradation the existing corridors? 10. MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: - a) The cost of debt shall be revised as per prevalent market rate. b) Based on the O-D Survey and considering the diversion of traffic from NH-48 (Mumbai – Pune -Bengaluru) and NH-52 (Dhule-Aurangabad-Solapur)on other alternate routes, the estimated traffic on the greenfield corridor is around 38,000 PCU in 2028-29 qualifying for a 6-lane corridor. c) The instant project is proposed for completion by 2029 and all under construction projects proposed as sweetener are planned to be completed before 2029. Considering the Kumbh mela to be held at Nashik, the projects are being monitored on quarterly basis for timely completion. Additionally, the stretches under BOT(Toll) Concession period is ending in 2031 and 2033 with no provision for extension of Concession period. As stipulated in the Concession Agreement of the existing BOT (Toll) sections, the concessionaire Page 14 of 18shall be compensated for any toll revenue loss rather than extending the concession period. d) The ROW acquired in the corridor is 60m/70 m which is not sufficient to develop the corridor with Expressway standards. Further, due to various technical constraints such as width of carriageway, curves, etc., it has been proposed to develop the corridor as access-controlled highway with 100 kmph design speed. e) The cost of protection work includes major items like drainage, embankment slope protection and safety items and is reasonably assessed. f) The normative cost for Package-I is higher due to the long lead distance for earth and aggregates. g) The design life of the asset is 20 years and accordingly, 20 years concession period has been considered. MoRTH will give the grant for Package-I, if discovered through bidding process. h) The RoW as per MORTH guidelines are 70m. Package-II has a reduced 60m ROW to minimize land acquisition and preserve fertile agricultural land, as per local requests, however, in future projects, efforts will be made to maintain uniformity of RoW. i) Future highway projects will prioritize intermodal/ multimodal connectivity to enhance overall transportation efficiency. j) The competing roads of sections of NH-60, NH-160D and NH-160 will be given as a sweetener to the concessionaire of Package I. While section of NH-160 & 161, NH-561A, NH-65 and NH-150E will be given as a sweetener to the concessionaire of Package-II. Recommendations 11. After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for “Development of 6 lane Greenfield Nashik – Ahmednagar – Solapur – Akkalkot section of NH-60 in the state of Maharashtra under NH(O) on BOT (Toll) Mode” subject to following recommendations, for consideration of the competent authority for giving administrative approval. a) The appraised Total Capital Cost of the project is Rs. 19,142 crore. b) The project should be taken up on BOT (Toll) under NH(O) Scheme with 20 years concession period including construction period. Page 15 of 18c) For Package-I, based on market discovery through bidding, a grant up to Rs.495 crore may be provided by MoRTH under NH(O) scheme. The Package- II is expected to attract a premium. d) While seeking approval of the competent authority, MoRTH should clearly bring out details of the existing roads and the tolling rights on them being included in the project concession to make the project viable. e) For future projects, MoRTH should ensure intermodal/ multimodal connectivity while developing NHs. f) The existing corridors between Surat to Chennai, such as those via Pune and Bengaluru and via Hyderabad are also connecting large and important habitations and economic nodes. Lot of economic development has happened along these corridors. After developing the proposed corridor as a shorter connectivity between Surat to Chennai, MoRTH shall ensure that required and timely maintenance and upgradation of existing corridors are not to be neglected. g) The decision of approving new NHs is not only about enhancing connectivity, it is also about incurring huge public expenditure for developing such highways. It has been observed that NHs are approved and the land acquisition starts before approval of such expenditure by the Competent Authority. Therefore, MoRTH should seek guidance from Cabinet Secretariat and develop a clear SOP for approving new NHs. h) MoRTH should ensure that projects which are to be given as a sweetener to the concessionaire are completed well within time and there should not be any extension in the concession period. 12. Revalidation of its recommendation by the PPPAC is not required for following post recommendation changes in the project costs/bid documents: - a) 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 Page 16 of 18be, without any further need of revalidation by the PPPAC and shall proceed with the approval process accordingly. *** Page 17 of 18Annexure-I List of the participants of the 129th meeting of the PPPAC a) Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance 1. Shri Ajay Seth, Secretary, EA- In Chair 2. Shri Baldeo Purushartha, JS (ISD) 3. Ms. Arya Balan Kumari, Joint Director 4. Shri Rajender Singh, SO (PIU) 5. Shri Manjeet Yadav, ASO(PIU) 6. Shri Deepak Meena, ASO(PIU) b) Department of Expenditure 1. Shri L. K. Trivedi, Director c) NITI Aayog 1. Shri. Partha Reddy, Programme Director d) Department of Legal Affairs 1. Shri Arpit Mishra, Deputy Legal Adviser e) Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 1. Shri V Umashankar, Secretary (RTH) 2. ⁠Shri Vinay Kumar, AS(H) 3. Shri Shashi Bhushan, SE f) National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) 1. Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Chairman 2. Shri Anil Chaudhary, Member 3. Shri L P Padhy, CGM 4. Shri Alok Deepankar, Member (Technical) 5. ⁠Shri Rajat Trivedi, Manager (Tech.) *** Page 18 of 18p ( r b h 1 3 1 1 N p o m S i S m a p p r o n 이 o p o s d a l 7 w 4 i P t L h a n e t a r l ı P r R s Ο u O n i A x 1A w h y l p e R d e i r i f t i a d o r e M e s p s e r e ' c s e a ff ff E E . M . e d : s n e t t a a / r e s b N