See Full Document Text
F. No. 1/10/2025 - PIU
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Economic Affairs
Infrastructure Finance Secretariat
ISD Division
(PIU)
4" Floor, STCs Building,
Janpath New Delhi
Dated: 13" November 2025
Record of Discussion
Subject: Record of Discussion of the 137" meeting of the PPPAC for considering two road
project proposal of the Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways (MoRTH) on PPP mode.
Reference: 137" meeting of the PPPAC held on 06'" November 2025.
Sir/Madam,
The undersigned is directed to forward the Record of Discussion of the 137" meeting of the
PPPAC held on 06"" November 2025 under the chairmanship of Secretary (EA) for information and
necessary action.
2. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
To,
1. Secretary, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi-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. PPS to JS (IFS)
Page 1 of 22Subject: Record of Discussion of the 137 meeting of the PPPAC for considering the
following project proposals: -
(i) Construction of 4 Lane access control highway from Design chainage Km
0+000 near Shuklai/Palhari Village, Barabanki to Design chainage Km 101+515
near Biswariya village, Bahraich District (Existing Chainage Km 0+000 to Km
98.475) on the section of NH-927 in Uttar Pradesh on Hybrid Annuity Mode
under NH(O) Scheme.
a. Package-1: Construction of 4 Lane highway from Barabanki Design chainage
Km 0+000 to Mustafabad Design chainage Km 43+030 (Existing Chainage Km
0.000 to Chainage Km 43.700)
b. Package-2: Construction of 4 Lane highway from Mustafabad Design chainage
Km 43+030 to Biswariya Design chainage Km 101+515 (Existing Chainage Km
43.700 to Chainage Km 98.475)
(ii) Construction of new coastal Highway from Rameshwar to Paradeep (Part of
Coastal Highway having total length of 163.180 Km in 2 Packages) on Hybrid
Annuity Mode in the State of Odisha.
a. Package-1: 4 Lane access Controlled Highway from km. 0+000 to km. 79+400
(Rameshwar- Kakatpur) Design length- 79.400 Km
b. Package-2: 2 Lane with paved shoulders from km. 79+400 to km. 160+180
(Kakatpur - Paradeep) Design length- 80.780 Km
1. The 137" meeting of the PPPAC was held on 06"" November 2025 at 16:30 hours to consider
the above-mentioned proposals of MORTH.
2. List of attendees is placed at Annexure-l.
3. With the permission of Secretary (EA), Joint Secretary (IFS) welcomed all the attendees to the
meeting. It was submitted that the PPPAC comprises CEO, NITI Aayog; Secretary, Department
of Expenditure; and Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs. Accordingly, it was confirmed by the
attendees that the comments/inputs received from the respective PPPAC members are duly
approved at their level and that the interventions made in the meeting are on their behalf.
4. NHAI made a detailed presentation on the proposed road projects.
Page 2 of 22(i) Construction of 4 Lane access control highway from Design chainage Km 0+000 near
Shuklai/Palhari Village, Barabanki to Design chainage Km 101+515 near Biswariya
village, Bahraich District (Existing Chainage Km 0+000 to Km 98.475) on the section of
NH-927 in Uttar Pradesh on Hybrid Annuity Mode under NH(O) Scheme.
The details of the project, as provided by the MoRTH, are given in the table below:
Table-1: Details of the project
__ | Construction of 4 Lane access control highway from Design chainage Km
| 0+000 near Shuklai/Palhari Village, Barabanki to Design chainage Km
| 101+515 near Biswariya village, Bahraich District (Existing Chainage Km
| 0+000 to Km 98.475) on the section of NH-927 in Uttar Pradesh on Hybrid
| Annuity Mode under NH(O) Scheme.
| Package-1: Construction of 4 Lane highway from Barabanki Design chainage
| Km 0+000 to Mustafabad Design chainage Km 43+030 (Existing Chainage Km
| 0.000 to Chainage Km 43.700)
L | Package-2: Construction of 4 Lane highway from Mustafabad Design chainage
| Km 43+030 to Biswariya Design chainage Km 101+515 (Existing Chainage Km
| 43.700 to Chainage Km 98.475)
_| Hybrid Annuity Mode
| Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India
| National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
| State: Uttar Pradesh
| District: Barabanki, Bahraich
| © Main Carriageway / Service Road / Access Road — Flexible Pavement
| * Toll Plaza — Rigid Pavement
| 4 Lane access control highway with Paved Shoulder and continuous service/Slip
| Roads.
=| S. Description of Item Unit | Quantity | Quant | Total
|| N (Pkg-l) ity
fe) (Pkg-
Il)
1 | Length | Length of Project Highway Km 43.030 | 58.485 | 101.51
5
Length of Service Road | Km 46.676 | 65.118 | 111.79
(Both Sides) ‘4
Length of Slip Road (Both | Km 31.028 | 51.212 | 82.24
Sides)
2 | Lane Lane Configuration 2/4 4Lane | 4Lane | 4Lane
Config | Carriageway width - 2x10.0 m | 2x10.0 | 2x10.0
uration m m
& Length of Road — Green| Km 20.475 | 27.805 | 48.28
RoW | Field
Length of Road — Brown| Km 22.555 30.68 | 53.235
Field
Proposed RoVV m 45 45 45
Page 3 of 22Grade No. of Interchanges (At start Nos.
Separ point on NH-27)
ated VUPs- Pkg-1 Nos. 10 ag 27
Struct (2 VUP of 2x30m, 5 VUP of
ures 15+30+15m, 2 VUP of
1x30m and 1 VUP of
1x20m) with 5.5 m vertical
clearance
VUPs- Pkg-2
(11 VUP of 15+30+15m, 1
VUP of 1x30m and 5 VUP of
1x20m) with 5.5 m vertical
clearance
LVUPs (1X12x4) Nos. 10
MNB cum LVUP Nos. NO}
SVUPs (1X7x4) Nos.
MNB cum SVUP Nos.
ROB 6-Lane Configuration No.
(Bow string/Steel composite
Girder) 1x18+1x60+1x18m
and 1x18+3x36+1x18m)
>} @| = N| >| Oo; =
Bridge No. of Major Bridges Pkg-1 Nos
s& (1x102m, 2x31m,
Culver 2x32.40+1x13.4m,
ts 1x75+7x140+1x75m,
(140m is Extra dosed Cable
Stayed bridge)
No. of Major Bridges Pkg-2
2x30m, 2x40m, 4x25m,
4x25m)
No. of Minor Bridges Nos. 12 27
(MNB with varying spans)
No. of Box Culverts Nos. 43 75 118
(with varying Sizes)
No. of Pipe Crossings Nos. 59 64 123
(1x1.2m HPC at junction
crossings)
Faciliti Extension of Toll Plaza with No
es 1 addition lane both side
Minor Junctions Nos. 38 35 73
Junctions below’ grade Nos 21 29 50
separators
Bus Shelter (both side put Nos 36 52 88
together)
Page 4 of 227 | Protec | Toe/Retaining Wall length Km 24.140 | 20.700 | 44.84
tion (both side put together) (Toe (Toe (Toe
Works wall) wall) + | wall) +
+18.950 | 35.600 | 54.55
(Retainin | (Retai | (Retai
g wall) ning ning
Wall) Wall)
Thrie Beam Crash Barrier Km 78.794 | 113.54 | 192.33
(Median side) (both side put 2 6
together)
Boundary wall (both side Km 64.79 82.716 | 147.50
put together) 6
17.0 years (including a construction period of 2.0 years)
Sr. Particulars Pkg-l Pkg-ll Total
No. Rs. in Rs. in Rs. in
crore crore crore
1 |Base Civil Construction Cost, 1602.28 1883.21 3485.49
including Utility Shifting Cost
2 ‘|IC/Pre-operative expenses 16.02 18.83 34.85
(1% of Civil Cost)
3. |Financial Cost 6.21 7.29 13.5
4 Interest During Construction 65.67 78.12 143.79
(IDC)
5 Estimated Project Cost | 1690.18 1987.46 3677.64
(without GST) (1+2+3+4)
6 |Estimated Project Cost per km 38.68 34.38 20.23
7 |GST@18% on Civil 288.41 338.98 627.39
Construction Cost
8 |Civil Construction cost with 1890.69 2222.19 4112.88
GST @18%
9 |IGST@18% on Sr. No. 2&3 4 4.7 8.7
10 |Pre-Construction Cost
(i) | |Land Acquisition Cost 691.65 883.2 1574.85
(ii) /R&R Cost 47.82 49.75 97.57
(ili) /Environmental Cost 8.26 11.23 19.49
(iv) |Total Cost of Pre-Construction 747.73 944.18 1691.91
Activities
11. |Contingencies @1% on Civil 16.02 18.83 34.85
Construction Cost
12 |Labour cess (1% of civil cost) 16.02 18.83 34.85
13. |O&M payment for 15 Year 279.85 329.37 609.22
14 |Escalation @5% per year for 2 130.68 153.80 284.48
years
15 [Total Capital Cost | 3172.89 3796.15 6969.04
(5+7+9+10(iv)+11+12+13+14)
Page 5 of 2216 [Total Capital Cost per Km 73.74 64.91 68.65
Environmental Not Applicable.
Clearances
Forest Proposal Pkg-| (Ch. 0+000 to 43+030) -— The PSC-II
meeting is scheduled to be held on 17.10.2025.
Minutes of the meeting will be received after the
PSC-Il. Stage-I clearance is to be obtained. C.A.
land has been allotted.
Pkg-Il (Ch. 43+030 to 101+515)- Under process.
Shifting of utilities Estimates obtained from concerned Departments
of amount 50.201 Cr for both the packages.
GAD Approval of ROB_ | Proposal uploaded on Railroad Crossing GAD
from the Ministry of | Approval System.
Railways
Joint site inspection has been completed. The
draft Conceptual Plan and General Arrangement
Drawing (GAD) have been submitted to the
Railways. Approval of the Conceptual Plan and
GAD is currently awaited from the Railway
authorities.
IWAI Clearance Proposal submitted for getting NOC.
NOC for Namami_ | Proposal submitted for getting NOC.
Gange program
Wildlife clearance Not Applicable
Particulars Package-l Package-ll
PIRR 10.24% 10.25%
EIRR 12.00% 12.00%
The DCA has been prepared as per Model Concession Agreement dated
09.12.2016 and subsequent Amendment and other circular issued by
MoRTH/NHAI.
Lowest Bid Project Cost
Single Stage Two-part system of bidding
2 The primary purpose of proposed project is to provide a vital cross-border connectivity link
between India and Nepal through the Nepalganj border, making it a key Indo—Nepal trade and
transit corridor. It facilitates faster and more efficient access to the Rupaidina Land Port and
enhances connectivity to remote and backward districts such as Bahraich and Shravasti,
thereby improving delivery of public services, promoting regional development, and attracting
greater investment opportunities. With the development of this direct access-controlled corridor,
the overall travel time along this stretch is expected to reduce to around one hour, thereby
enabling safer, faster and uninterrupted movement of both passenger and freight traffic.
3 The instant project is upgrading of exiting 2 Lane + PS to access control 4 Lane + PS section
of NH-927 from Barabanki to Bahraich in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The project is executed in
two packages (i) Barabanki to Mustafabad: 43.030 km, and (ii) Mustafabad to Bahraich: 58.485
km
Page 6 of 224 The existing 2-lane + PS section is carrying approximately 24,669 PCU per day on the
Barabanki—Mustafabad stretch and more than 18,460 PCU per day on the Mustafabad—
Bahraich section which is expected to cross 44,302 PCU per day by 2037.
5 The project will be executed under the NH(O) scheme. The total Capital Cost of the project is
Rs. 6969.04 crore (Package-1: Rs. 3172.89 crore & Package-2: Rs. 3796.15 crore) with a total
estimated project cost (excluding GST) of Rs. 3677.64 crore (Package-1: Rs. 1690.18 crore &
Package-2: Rs. 1987.46 crore).
6 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.
7 JS, Department of Expenditure raised the following observations:
a) The PPPAC memo indicates that Environmental Clearance (EC) is not required under the
EIA Notification, 2006 on the grounds that the project length is less than 100 km. However,
the current proposal exceeds 100 km in length, in which case EC would ordinarily be
required as per the applicable provisions.
8 PD, NITI Aayog raised the following observations:
a) The proposal envisages construction of major bridges and structures in a 6-lane
configuration, whereas the available Right of Way (RoW) is limited to 45 metres and no
major upgradation to a full 6-lane carriageway along the corridor is presently envisaged.
Accordingly, the necessity and justification for providing 6-lane capacity for such major
bridges & structures may be clarified.
b) The traffic volume along the proposed project corridor is substantial, with around 24,669
PCU/day on the Barabanki—Mustafabad stretch and over 18,460 PCU/day on the
Mustafabad—Bahraich section. Given high traffic figures, the financial viability of
implementing the project under the BOT (Toll) model may be revisited.
9 JS(IFS) highlighted the following observations:
a) In earlier HAM proposals, the cost of equity and corresponding equity IRR were considered
at 15%. In the current proposal, these parameters have been revised to 12%. Based on
these revised assumptions, the instant proposals appear viable under BOT (Toll) mode with
VGF support.
10 The Chair made the following observations:
a) As per the proposed scope of work, a total of 111.794 km of service roads and 82.24 km of
slip roads are envisaged along the entire stretch. However, provision of service roads along
the full length of the corridor is not standard practice and appears to be at variance with
MoRTH guidelines. The inclusion of such extensive service and slip road components has
resulted in a substantial increase in the overall project cost, which in turn impacts the
financial viability of the project.
Page 7 of 22Whether a RoW of 45 metres is adequate to accommodate a 4-lane highway with service
roads, considering requirements for drainage, utilities, and future expansion?
The per kilometre cost of the proposed project is notably higher than comparable 4-lane
greenfield corridors. The rationale for the same may be provided?
What is the standard practice prescribed under MORTH guidelines with respect to the
location and inter-spacing of toll plazas along national highways?
What is the basis for estimating a one-hour travel time for a 101 km corridor?
What is the rationale for proposing 88 bus stops along the highway?
Considering the higher traffic volumes in Package-1, can Package-1 be taken up under BOT
(Toll) mode and Package-2 under HAM?
11 MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: -
a) Environmental Clearances (EC): As per the EIA Notification, 2006, EC is not required for
highway projects where the project length is less than 100 km and the RoW does not exceed
45 metres. In the current proposal, although the project length exceeds 100 km, the RoW is
restricted to 45 metres. Accordingly, EC is not applicable for the current proposal.
Service/Slip Roads and Major Bridges/Structures: In the highway project across Uttar
Pradesh, service and slip roads have been planned along the entire stretch to divert non-
tollable local traffic arising from continuous habitation. This arrangement is intended to
facilitate safer and uninterrupted traffic flow on the access-controlled 4-lane highway. Service
roads of 7.5 metres width have been provided on both sides and with this configuration, the
overall cross-section effectively functions as a 6-lane facility, comprising 4 lanes for tollable
traffic and 2 lanes for non-tollable traffic through the service roads. Accordingly, all major
bridges and structures have been designed to accommodate both the main carriageway and
the service roads.
Financial Analysis: MoRTH informed that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
vide circular dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure-ll), has standardised financial parameters for
PPP projects. As per the circular, the cost of equity is to be considered at 12% for HAM
projects and 14% for BOT (Toll) projects, whereas earlier, a cost of equity of 15% was
adopted for both models. Additionally, the debt-to-equity ratio has been revised to 75:25 for
HAM projects, while for BOT (Toll) projects it continues to remain at 70:30, as against the
earlier practice of 70:30 for both HAM and BOT (Toll). Further, MoRTH informed that based
on the above parameters, a BOT (Toll) analysis of the project was undertaken, and the
results indicated that the project would require more than 50% capital grant for a 25-year
concession period. MoRTH stated that projects requiring capital grant up to 48% may be
considered under the BOT (Toll) mode with some additional supporting mechanism. Since
the capital grant requirement for the present project exceeds this threshold, the proposal
has accordingly been considered under the HAM mode.
Page 8 of 22d) Right of way (RoW): The proposed RoW of 45 metres is adequate to accommodate the
proposed cross-section. The highway passes through urban areas where land acquisition
costs are significantly high; therefore, a RoW of 45 metres has been considered to optimise
costs. This width is sufficient to provide 7.5-metre-wide service/slip roads on both sides,
along with drainage and utility corridors. Although the highway is not designed for future
upgradation to a 6-lane main carriageway, the current configuration of a 4-lane access-
controlled main carriageway and 2 lanes via service roads functionally operates as a 6-lane
facility, effectively segregating tollable and non-tollable traffic.
e) Per Km Cost: The higher Per Km cost in this project is primarily due to the provision of
continuous 7.5-metre-wide service/slip roads, the requirement of 6-lane major bridges and
structures, and the construction of a 1.3 km major bridge over the Ghaghra River, which are
necessary to ensure uninterrupted traffic movement along the corridor.
f) Toll Plaza: As per standard guidelines, toll plazas should be provided at intervals of
approximately 60 km. In the present proposal, the existing toll plazas are spaced at 58 km,
which is within acceptable limits and have therefore been retained. An additional lane on
each side of the existing toll plazas will be constructed to ensure operational efficiency for 4
lane access-controlled highway.
g) Time saving: The proposed highway has been designed for a speed of 100 kmph. However,
for the purpose of calculating average time savings, a speed of 80 kmph has been
considered for the 101 km stretch.
h) Bus Stops: The proposed highway passes through highly urbanised stretches where
frequent local movement is anticipated. Therefore, bus stops at intervals of 1-2 km has been
provided along the service roads to cater to local commuters. These bus stops will consist
of small shelters, do not require high built-up area, and will not impact the main carriageway
operations.
i) BOT for Package-1: While Package-1 may be financially viable under the BOT (Toll) mode,
Package-2 is not viable under the same model and appropriately considered under HAM.
However, since both packages form part of a single contiguous corridor, adopting two
different implementation models may lead to operational challenges, interface issues, and
potential disputes during operation. Accordingly, a combined BOT (Toll) analysis was
undertaken for the entire corridor. The results indicated that the project would require more
than 50% capital grant for a 25-year concession period. MoRTH stated that projects
requiring capital grant up to 48% may be considered under BOT (Toll). Since the overall
grant requirement exceeds this threshold, the project has been considered under HAM.
Recommendations
12 After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for
“Construction of 4 Lane access control highway from Design chainage Km 0+000 near
Shuklai/Palhari Village, Barabanki to Design chainage Km 101+515 near Biswariya village,
Bahraich District (Existing Chainage Km 0+000 to Km 98.475) on the section of NH-927 in Uttar
Pradesh on HAM under NH(O) Scheme.” subject to following recommendations, for
consideration of the Competent Authority for giving Administrative Approval.
Page 9 of 22The appraised Total Capital Cost of the Barabanki to Bahraich section is Rs. 6969.04 crore
(Package-1: Rs. 3172.89 crore & Package-2: Rs. 3796.15 crore) with a total estimated
project cost (excluding GST) of Rs. 3677.64 crore (Package-1: Rs. 1690.18 crore &
Package-2: Rs. 1987.46 crore).
The project should be taken up on HAM under the NH(O) scheme.
The concession period of the project is 17 years including 2 years construction period.
d) Land acquisition and necessary clearances to be obtained in a time bound manner before
the bid due date so as to avoid any delays in the project.
13 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. After appraisal by MoRTH in such a case of amendment, it
may be placed clearly, before the Competent authority, along with the justification and
rationale, while seeking approval.
Non-substantial change in risk-allocation.
Any other changes/modification in the project proposal with the overall objective of making
project successful. After appraisal by MoRTH in such a case of amendment, it may be
placed clearly, before the Competent authority, along with the justification and rationale,
while seeking approval.
dq) 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 10 of 22(ii) Construction of new coastal Highway from Rameshwar to Paradeep (Part of Coastal
Highway having total length of 163.180 Km in 2 Packages) on Hybrid Annuity Mode in the
State of Odisha.
1 The details of the project, as provided by the MoRTH, are given in the table below:
Table-2: Details of the project
Construction of new coastal Highway from Rameshwar to Paradeep (Part
of Coastal Highway having total length of 163.180 Km in 2 Packages) on
Hybrid Annuity Mode in the State of Odisha.
Package-1: 4 Lane access Controlled Highway from km. 0+000 to km. 79+400
(Rameshwar- Kakatpur) Design length- 79.400 Km
Package-2: 2 Lane with paved shoulders from km. 79+400 to km. 160+180
(Kakatpur - Paradeep) Design length- 80.780 Km
Hybrid Annuity Mode
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
State: Odisha
District: Khurda, Puri, Kendrapada & Jagatsinghpur
* Main Carriageway / Service Road / Access Road — Flexible Pavement
* Toll Plaza — Rigid Pavement
Package-1: 4 Lane access control highway with Paved Shoulder
Package-2: 2 Lane with paved shoulders
S.N Description Package-l Package-ll Total
1 Length (Km) 79.4 80.780 160.18
3 Carriageway 4 Lane access-| 2 lanes +PS
controlled +
PS
4 Base Civil 3067.70 1535.31 4603.02
Construction Cost
(Cr.)
5 Major Bridge (Nos) 22 14 36
6 Minor Bridge (Nos) 43 46 89
7 Culverts (Nos) 138 238 376
8 Flyover (Nos) 2 1 3
9 Interchange (Nos) 3 1 4
10 | Viaduct (Nos) 4 2 6
11. | ROB (Nos) 2 1 3
12 | RUB (Nos) 0 0 0
13. | VUP/LVUP/SVUP 39 6 45
14 | Length of Service 17.037 2.228 19.265
Road/Slip Road
(Km) (Total length)
17.5 years (including a construction period of 2.5 years)
Page 11 of 22|| Sr. {Particulars Pkg-l Pkg-ll Total
No. Rs. in Rs. in Rs. in
| crore crore crore
1 ‘Base Civil Cost 3067.70 1536.31 4603.02
2 ~=(|Utility Cost 61.35 30.71 92.06
2 {Total Civil Construction Cost 3129.06 1566.02 4695.08
4 |IC/Pre-operative expenses ( 31.29 15.66 46.95
1% of EPC)
5 [Financing expenses (0.75% 12.21 5.01 17.22
of Debt)
6 {Interest during construction 148.32 54.02 202.34
(IDC)
7 |Estimated Project Cost 3320.89 1640.71 4961.60
(Including Centages)
8 |GST @ 18% on Total Civil 563.23 281.88 845.11
Cost
9 |Contingencies @1% 31.29 15.66 46.95
10 |O&M Cost for 15 years as 379.08 270.26 649.34
per Ministry OM dated
23.05.2022
11. |Escalation during 290.87 135.01 425.88
construction
12 |Supervision Charges @ 2.5% 1.53 0.77 2.30
on Utility Cost
13. (Cost of Land Acquisition 691.46 624.79 1316.25
14 Environment and forest 26.45 26.91 29.06
Mitigation Plan
15 |Total Capital Cost 5304.80 2995.99 8300.79
16 (Estimated Bid Project Cost 3645.00 1855.65 5500.65
17 {Total Civil Cost per Km 39.40 19.38 29.31
Ss. Activity Status Target
No. Completion
1 Land Acquisition | Total Land Required: 794.69 Ha 90 days post
3A: 84 % | 3D: 74.57% sanction
3G: Awards announced by CALA
for 14.34% land.
2 Wildlife NA -
Clearance
3 Environmental Environment clearance obtained -
Clearance from MoEFCC on 20.06.2025.
4 CRZ Clearance Obtained with Environment -
Clearance
Page 12 of 225 Forest Online application for Stage-l 31.12.2025
Clearance clearance has been Uploaded on
Parivesh Portal. NFL land to be
provided by State Govt.
6 ROB GADs of all 3 ROBs have been -
approved.
7 Utility Shifting All estimates of Khordha, Puriand | 31.12.2025
Kendrapada districts received,
and Estimates of Jagatsinghpur
district under process.
Particulars Package-l Package-ll
PIRR 10% 9.98%
EIRR 12% 12%
The DCA has been prepared as per Model Concession Agreement dated
November 2020 and subsequent Amendment and other circular issued by
MoRTH/NHAI.
Lowest Bid Project Cost
| Single Stage Two-part system of bidding
2 The current proposal pertains to the Rameshwar—Paradeep section, which constitutes Phase-
| of the Coastal Highway from Rameshwar (Odisha) to Digha (West Bengal). This initiative is
an integral part of development of 4-Lane roads along entire coastline of India as part of the
Hon'ble Prime Minister announcement (74" Independence Day speech).
3 The Coastal Highway is an alternate route for NH-16 and NH-316 which will improve
connectivity to Puri, Konark, Paradeep Port, Odisha and facilitate smooth transportation to
developing ports like Astarang, Subarnarekha etc. The proposed connectivity will reduce the
travel time between Rameshwar and Paradeep from existing 5.5 hrs to 3 hrs (45% reduction in
travel time) and travel distance from 210 km to 160.18 km (24% reduction in travel distance)
4 The proposed Greenfield alignment shall be developed as 4-lane from Rameshwar to Konark
(Package-1) and 2 lanes with Paved Shoulder from Konark to Paradeep (Package -2). The
Projected Traffic on the Corridor is 8234 PCU in the year 2027-28, 14377 PCU by 2037-38
and 20833 PCU by 2047-48.
5 The project will be executed under the NH(O) scheme. The total Capital Cost of the project is
Rs. 8300.79 crore (Package-1: Rs. 5304.80 crore & Package-2: Rs. 2995.99 crore) with a total
estimated project cost (excluding GST) of Rs. 4961.60 crore (Package-1: Rs. 3320.89 crore &
Package-2: Rs. 1640.71 crore).
6 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.
7 JS, Department of Expenditure raised the following observations
Page 13 of 22a) As per the Detailed Project Report, the project was proposed to be executed in three
packages. However, the current proposal comprises only two packages.
b) The Estimated Project Cost for Package | and Il is Rs. 3,320.89 crore and Rs. 1,640.71
crores respectively, while the Estimated Bid Project Cost is Rs. 3,645 crore and Rs.
1855.65 crores respectively. What accounts for the difference between these two cost
figures?
8 PD, NITI Aayog raised the following observations:
a) As per the current proposal, no ports fall within the present project stretch, and it is
understood that port development is envisaged only in the Paradeep—Digha section. In
this context, it may be clarified whether the traffic projections undertaken for the current
proposal have factored in potential traffic from the upcoming ports in the subsequent
section.
Details regarding lane capacity and traffic levels of parallel highways in the vicinity of the
proposed Paradeep—Rameshwar corridor, including the sanctioned 8-lane Paradeep—
Cuttack highway, the 6-lane Capital Region Ring Road, and existing routes such as SH-
60, may be provided. Further it may be informed whether the traffic survey undertaken for
the proposed project has accounted for traffic generated from existing and upcoming
industrial zones as well as tourism activities.
9 JS(IFS) highlighted the following observations:
a) Package-1 was initially approved as a 2-lane configuration and is now proposed as a 4-
lane facility. Whether this change in scope would require fresh approval from the PATSC
Committee.
b) The current proposal includes a higher number of major bridges and culverts compared to
similar projects of comparable scope, resulting in an increase in construction cost. What
is the rationale for this higher provision?
Cc) The justification provided for the current proposal lacks specific details regarding its
exclusive benefits, such as time savings, traffic diversion, and potential traffic leakage from
the Capital Region Ring Road. The same to be provided.
10 The Chair made the following observations:
a) Package-1 has been proposed with access control, although the traffic volume in this
section is not significantly high. What is the rationale for adopting access control in this
stretch?
b) What is the tolling mechanism proposed for the project, and what is the rationale for
adopting different tolling approaches for Package—1 and Package—2?
Cc) Considering the anticipated traffic growth from upcoming ports along the proposed
corridor, can the project be considered for development under the BOT (Toll) mode?
Page 14 of 2211 MoRTH submitted the following to the queries raised by the PPPAC Members: -
a) No of Packages: During the DPR stage, the project was initially planned to be executed
in multiple packages. However, based on the traffic analysis, the project has now been
restructured into two packages. Package-1 primarily caters to tourism-related traffic, while
Package-2 is aligned to serve the upcoming ports and logistics hubs.
Cost Difference in BPC and EPC: The Estimated Project Cost (EPC) includes
components such as financing charges, pre-operative/incidental expenses, and Interest
During Construction. In comparison, the Bid Project Cost (BPC) reflects the cost quoted
by the bidder based on the assumed equity IRR of 12%. Accordingly, a difference between
the Estimated Project Cost and the Bid Project Cost is expected, and a variance of up to
around 25% is generally considered acceptable.
Traffic from Ports: The traffic survey conducted for the current proposal does not include
projections from upcoming ports. The traffic estimation is primarily based on tourism-
related movement and existing traffic from operational ports. However, once the new ports
become operational, traffic volumes are expected to increase significantly. To
accommodate this future demand, the two-lane stretch in Package-2 has been planned
with an upgrade strategy. Initially, a two-lane road will be constructed on one side. Upon
port development, the opposite side will be developed to complete a four-lane access-
controlled corridor to cater to the long-term traffic demand.
Traffic leakage from Parallel Roads: NH—53, CRRR—Bhubaneswar and SH-60 do not
function as parallel corridors to the proposed alignment, as their origin—destination differ
from the Paradeep—Rameshwar stretches. The traffic survey undertaken for the present
proposal has adequately captured diversion from existing and planned national highways,
except from the upcoming ports. As per the traffic assessment, the estimated traffic volume
for Package-1 (Rameshwar—Puri—Konark tourism belt) is 10,437 PCUs, whereas for
Package—2, the estimated traffic volume is 7,249 PCUs. After Construction of Coastal
Highway, traffic on NH-16 part of GQ (Kolkata — Chennai) section would be decongested
and part traffic from this corridor shall be diverted to the Coastal Highway. On NH-16 the
traffic in 2028 would be 1,10,000 PCU near Bhubaneswar, out of this about 10,500 PCU
would be diverted to Coastal Highway. In addition to above the Coastal Highway would
also act as feeder route to all the existing Ports (Paradeep & Dhamara Port) and upcoming
Ports (Astaranga, Chudamani Port, Chandipur Port, Subernareka Port & Talsari Port), after
operationalization of all Ports the traffic on Coastal Highway will increase substantially. As
per the O-D study, after the construction the traffic on Capital Region Ring Road
(Bhubaneswar Bypass) would be around 32,000 PCU and traffic on NH-16 would be
around 67,500 PCU. The new alignment is expected to reduce travel time between
Rameshwar and Paradeep from 5.5 hours to 3 hours (a 45% reduction) and travel distance
from 210 km to 160.18 km (a 24% reduction).
PATSC Approval: The PATSC Committee had initially approved the corridor as a 4-lane
highway with multiple packages. Following internal deliberations, Package-1 was revised
to a 2-lane configuration. However, due to anticipated growth in tourism, it has now been
proposed as a 4-lane. Since there are no significant changes in the design parameters,
Page 15 of 22the previous approvals remain valid, and no fresh approval from the PATSAC Committee
is required for the current proposal.
Construction cost: The number of bridges and culverts in the current proposal is
relatively high due to the coastal terrain and site conditions. Further, the inclusion of a 3.3
km major bridge over the Mahanadi River has also contributed to the increase in overall
project cost.
9)
Access controlled Highway: Package-1 has been proposed as an access-controlled
highway to ensure seamless connectivity to key destinations such as Puri, Konark, and
Paradeep Port. Although current traffic volumes are moderate, access control has been
considered keeping in view the anticipated traffic growth arising from tourism and future
port-linked development. Once the remaining corridor is completed and port development
progresses, Package-2 will also be upgraded to a 4-lane access-controlled facility to
maintain uniform corridor standards.
h) Tolling Mechanism: Package—1 has been proposed with a closed tolling system, as it is
an access-controlled facility with defined entry and exit points. Package—2, being a non-
access-controlled stretch at present, will follow an open tolling mechanism.
BOT Analysis: Based on the estimated traffic and high construction costs due to the
number of major bridges required in the coastal region, the VGF requirement under BOT
(Toll) mode is assessed to be more than 60%. In view of this, the project is not suitable for
BOT (Toll) mode and is therefore proposed to be taken up under HAM.
Recommendations
12 After detailed deliberations, the PPPAC unanimously recommended the proposal for
“Construction of new coastal Highway from Rameshwar to Paradeep (Part of Coastal Highway
having total length of 163.180 Km in 2 Packages) on Hybrid Annuity Mode in the State of
Odisha.” 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. 8300.79 crore (Package-1: Rs.
5304.80 crore & Package-2: Rs. 2995.99 crore) with a total estimated project cost
(excluding GST) of Rs. 4961.60 crore (Package-1: Rs. 3320.89 crore & Package-2: Rs.
1640.71 crore)
b) The project should be taken up on HAM under the NH(O) scheme.
The concession period of the project is 17.5 years with including 2.5 years construction
period.
Land acquisition and necessary clearances to be obtained in a time bound manner before
the bid due date so as to avoid any delays in the project.
Page 16 of 2213 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. After appraisal by MoRTH in such a case of amendment, it
may be placed clearly, before the Competent authority, along with the justification and
rationale, while seeking approval.
Non-substantial change in risk-allocation.
Any other changes/modification in the project proposal with the overall objective of making
project successful. After appraisal by MoRTH in such a case of amendment, it may be
placed clearly, before the Competent authority, along with the justification and rationale,
while seeking approval.
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.
kkk
Page 17 of 22List of the participants of the 137" meeting of the PPPAC
a) Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance
1. Ms. Anuradha Thakur, Secretary (EA)
2. Dr. Alok Tiwari, JS (IFS)
3. Shri Rahul Singh, Director (ISD)
4. Shri Rajender Singh, SO (PIU)
b) Department of Expenditure
1. ShriAtya Nand, JS
c) NITI Aayog
1. Shri. Partha Reddy, Programme Director
d) Department of Legal Affairs
1. Shri Jagat Prakash, Assistant Legal Adviser
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
af Shri V Umashankar, Secretary (RTH)
Shri Vinay Kumar, Additional Secretary (H&LA)
Shri Manoj Kumar, CE
Shri Alok Deepankar, Member (Technical)
Shri Vishal Chauhan- Member (Admin)
f)
ON
Annexure-l
=
National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)
1. Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Chairman
2. Shri Vipnesh Sharma, Member (P), NHAI
Page 18 of 22Annexure-ll
National Highways Authority of India circular dated 22.09.2025
: (aes afte sire com Aaa, HRA AHI<)
National Highways Authority of India
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Government of India)
nets ace MH-5 cd 6, @ee7-10, arwaa, AG Pe - 110 075 e G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Deihi-110075
ATHY /Phone © 91-11-25074 100 / 25074200
No. FINDIV-21016/30/2025-O0/o0.DGM (Fin-!)/e-288631 Dt 22.09.2025
CIRCULAR
As per directions of the Competent Authority, Standard Parameters for adoption by Financial
Consultants to bring uniformity in Financial Analysis of PPP Projects have been issued vide Circular No.
NHAI/11033/CGM(Fin)/2011 dated 29.04.2011. Certain parameters referred in the said circular have
been updated and attached herewith in Annexure-!. All Financial Consultants are henceforth required
to adopt these Standard Parameters without any exception for finalizing Project Analysis. Remaining
contents will be as per Circular No. NHAI/11033/CGM(Fin)/2011, dt. 29.04.2011.
MicrdtaAt >
(Mridul Du ey)
Chief General Manager (Fin)
Encl : as above.
To:
All Empaneled Financial Consultants
Copy to:
1) Chief General Manager (Fin) - AKS
2) Sr. PPS to Chairman
3) Sr. PPS / PPS to ALL Members/CVO
Page lof 4
Page 19 of 22Annexure - |
[Circular No. No. FINDIV-21016/30/2025-0/0.DGM (Fin-I)/e-288631, dt.22.09.2025
Sl ae N ie as]
No ting provisions
(i) 2% of the Debt Amount, if
01 | Financing Charges Civil cost up to ¥ 500 Crore; | 0.75 % of Debt amount | 0.75 % of Debt amount
(ii) 1.5% of the Debt Amount,
if Civil cost is between 2
500-1000 Crore; |
(iii) 1% of the Debt Amount, if |
Civil cost is more than = |
1000 Crore. |
02 | Loading of (i) Upfront - 50% ; (ii) Upfront - 50% ; ‘|
Financing Charges (ii) Balance 50% Upon | (ii) Balance 50% Upon |
for consideration First Disbursement First Disbursement |
of TPC of Debt. of Debt.
(i) For BOT (Annuity) Projects |
03 | Rate of Interest and HAM projects : SBI’s 3- |
during year MCLR + 2% ; Average of one-year} Average of one-year |
Construction (ii) For BOT (Toll) Projects :|MCLR of Top 5) MCLR of Top 5 |
period SBI’s 3-years MCLR + | Commercial Banks plus | Commercial Banks plus |
2.50%. 1.25% 1.50%
04 | Cost of Debt during Average of one-year} Average of one-year |
Operation Period - MCLR of Top 5/MCLR of Top 5°}
Commercial Banks plus | Commercial Banks plus |
0.75% 1.00 % |
05 | Cost of Equity 15% 12% 14%
06 | Debt-Equity Ratio | 70: 30 75: 25 70 : 30
07 . | Equity Drawdown 25% upfront equity | 50% upfront and | In case of Project under
contribution and balance in} balance in proportion | VGF/Grant, 100% |
proportion to debt. | of Debt upfront; in other cases -
50% upfront and balance |
in proportion of Debt |
08 | Repayment of Loan | 13 Years 13 years As per MCA Schedule-X in |
during Operation | which the % of.
Period repayment of loan along
with repayment period |
| has been provided for
different Concession |
| Period of 20, 25 and 30
| years)
Vor
Page 2 of 4
Page 20 of 22Insurance 0.15% of the TPC/year 0.15% of Estimated | 0.15% of the TPC (includi
Project Cost / year ng grant/ construction su |
pport) /year during Conc |
ession period
Discount rate for ; 12.00% Average of one-year) Average of one-year MC |
calculation of NPV MCLR of Top 5) LR of Top 5 Commercia |
of Project Cash Commercial Banks + | | Banks + 2.00% by round |
Flows | 2.00% by rounding of | ing of next multiple of 5
| next multiple of 50/9 bases. Also Weighted A
basis & WACC also verage Cost of Capital ta
king the cost of Debt and _
Equity in the ratio of Deb
t & Equity. |
Escalation Cost / | 5% per FY 4% per p.a. 4% per p.a. |
Inflation |
Treatment of GST 40% of the GST on the | In BOT projects, the -
on EPC / TPC --- . BPC is reimbursed by | financial model is.
(Including or the Authority, while the | recommended to be |
excluding) remaining GST is| prepared inclusive of |
funded through debt- | GST |
equity.
The Concessionaire is
eligible to claim input
GST credit, which can
be set off against GST
liabilities arising from
future annuity
payments, interest on
annuities, and O&M
payments. Accordingly,
the financial model
should incorporate this
input credit mechanism
to accurately reflect
cash flows and tax
adjustments.
Income Tax | As per New tax regime | As per New tax regime
[New regime or old
Regime]
Computation of Interest on Opening | Interest on Opening |
Interest on Debt --- Balance + Average on | Balance + Average on
Debt drawn during | Debt drawn during
respective months. respective months.
Page 3 of 4 We
Page 21 of 22as No} Parameter | :
i! eee er
15 | Receipts of At the end of 6 months | Loan repayment = on.
Annuities & Loan after COD. Quarterly basis as per
Repayments MCA Schedule-X. |
Amortisation over the | Amortisation over the
16 | Amortisation operation period | operation period equally |
equally based on EPC | based on TPC less Grant |
(excluding GST) less | / Construction support |
Grant. including GST.
17 | Start of First day of the next | First day of the next.
Construction month of the month of | month of the month of |
likely Appointed Date. | likely Appointed Date.
18 | Expenditure for All expenditure | All expenditure including |
less than one year including insurance | insurance should be-
(partial Financial should be proportioned | proportioned based on |
Year / less than 12 based on the actual| the actual number of |
months) number of months. months.
19 | WPI for Toll Rate 4% a
increase -
20 | Traffic Growth Traffic Study should not
be older than 1-year
prior to the Bid Due
Date.
As per DPR Consultant, |
Prior to COD growth
@4%p.a. and thereafter |
5% p.a. for first-seven |
years of operation and
further thereafter |
growth @4% p.a. for 5.
years and beyond this
period @3% p.a.
Page
WwW
4 of 4
Page 22 of 22