मूल्याङ्कन समिति · all evaluations
Upgrading of Nagdhunga–Naubise road, section 3
DoR/NCB/W/2082-83/14 · opened 2082-07-14 at 14:00 before four bidders’ representatives · seven bids · committee of three
Day 11 of 21
| Bidder | Letter of bid | Bid security | Audited accounts | Similar works | Equipment and personnel | Arithmetic | Committee |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siddhi Construction Pvt. Ltd.Kathmandu · Class A · रु २२,५०,००,००० | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | responsive |
| Himal Nirman SewaLalitpur · Class A · रु २३,१०,००,००० | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | responsive |
| Gandaki BuildersPokhara · Class A · रु २४,८०,००,००० | ✔ | ✔ | ✖ missing | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | non-responsive |
| Everest JVKathmandu · Class A · रु २५,२०,००,००० | ✔ | ⚠ 112 days | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | to decide |
| Koshi NirmanBiratnagar · Class A · रु २५,९०,००,००० | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ⚠ 1 of 2 | ✔ | ✖ +रु ४.२ ल | to decide |
| Annapurna NirmanChitwan · Class A · रु २७,१०,००,००० | ✔ | ✖ missing | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | non-responsive |
| Tribeni ConstructionButwal · Class A · रु २६,४०,००,००० | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✖ none | ✔ | ✔ | non-responsive |
Every mark was pre-filled by reading the bids and is editable — click a cell to change it, and the change records who made it and when. The committee’s mark governs; the opening minutes and each bid’s documents are one click away.
| Bidder | Read out | Arithmetic correction | Evaluated price | vs estimate | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siddhi Construction | रु २२,५०,००,००० | — | रु २२,५०,००,००० | −6.2% | 1 · lowest evaluated |
| Himal Nirman Sewa | रु २३,१०,००,००० | — | रु २३,१०,००,००० | −3.7% | 2 |
| Everest JV | रु २५,२०,००,००० | — | रु २५,२०,००,००० | +5.0% | 3 · security short |
| Koshi Nirman | रु २५,९०,००,००० | + रु ४,२०,००० | रु २५,९४,२०,००० | +8.1% | 4 · correction refused? |
| Tribeni Construction | रु २६,४०,००,००० | — | — | +10.0% | not evaluated |
| Gandaki Builders | रु २४,८०,००,००० | — | — | +3.3% | not evaluated |
| Annapurna Nirman | रु २७,१०,००,००० | — | — | +12.9% | not evaluated |
Only substantially responsive bids are evaluated. ITB 31 allows the employer to correct arithmetic; a bidder who refuses the correction forfeits the bid security.
एआई समीक्षा · AI REVIEWadvisory · the committee decides
⚠
Gandaki, Koshi and Tribeni filed from one internet address within fourteen minutes, and their bills of quantities share an identical spelling error in eleven item names.
All three are registered with the same telephone number in the bidder registry. This is a pattern in the submission record, not a finding, and it has no bearing on responsiveness.
See the evidenceRefer to PPMO
⚠
Siddhi Construction has won 61% of this office’s works tenders across 18 bids since 2079.
See the 18
✔
Seven bidders against a median of four for works of this size and district, and the lowest evaluated bid is 6.2% below the estimate — not abnormally low under ITB 33.2.
Each bid is read against this tender’s own clauses. Nothing here scores or ranks a bidder: the committee marks every requirement itself and signs the report.
The seven bids as opened · submission logs · bidder registry · 1,860 comparable tenders
Bid by bid
Siddhi Constructionरु २२,५०,००,०००nothing blocking
✔All 23 requirements met; bid security valid to 2083-01-20, 120 days from closing.
✔Arithmetic checks out in all 47 rows of the bill of quantities.
⚠Rock excavation priced 38% below the district median of 23 comparable contracts — the item most often varied upward later on this corridor.
⚠Front-loading: items billed in the first three months are 31% above median while later items are below.
Himal Nirman Sewaरु २३,१०,००,०००nothing blocking
✔All 23 requirements met. Rates sit within the district range on every major item.
✔Two similar works, both within seven years and above रु १५ करोड.
Everest JVरु २५,२०,००,०००1 for the committee
✖Bid security valid 112 days from closing; ITB 19.1 requires 120. Eight days short.
✔JV agreement signed by both partners, lead partner meets 50% of the turnover requirement.
⚠Equipment list names a paver finisher on lease; the lease expires before the works end.
Koshi Nirmanरु २५,९०,००,०००2 for the committee
✖Arithmetic error of रु ४,२०,००० against the bidder. ITB 31 lets the employer correct it; refusing the correction forfeits the bid security.
⚠Only one of the two similar works qualifies; the second is a water supply contract, not a road.
⚠Filed from the same address as Gandaki and Tribeni.
Gandaki Buildersरु २४,८०,००,०००non-responsive
✖Audited accounts for 2080/81 not submitted — ITB 5.4.
⚠Filed from the same address as Koshi and Tribeni, within fourteen minutes.
Annapurna Nirmanरु २७,१०,००,०००non-responsive
✖No bid security in the submission — ITB 19.1.
✔Everything else in order; the firm has bid here eleven times and won twice.
Tribeni Constructionरु २६,४०,००,०००non-responsive
✖No similar works certificate above रु १५ करोड within seven years — ITB 5.3.
⚠Filed from the same address as Gandaki and Koshi.
Draft evaluation report
Nine pages in the standard format, every conclusion linked to the page of the bid it came from. Four bids non-responsive; the lowest evaluated responsive bid recommended at रु २२,५०,००,०००, which is 6.2% below the estimate.
| Recommendation | Amount | Ground |
|---|---|---|
| Award to Siddhi Construction Pvt. Ltd. | रु २२,५०,००,००० | Lowest evaluated substantially responsive bid, ITB 33 |
| Second ranked, if the first declines | रु २३,१०,००,००० | Himal Nirman Sewa |
| Member | Marked | Signed |
|---|---|---|
| Er. Sabita Adhikari — chair | 6 of 6 | — |
| Deepak Thapa | 6 of 6 | — |
| Maya Lama — accounts | 2 of 6 | — |
The report cannot be signed until all three members have marked every requirement, and it is not a recommendation until all three sign with their tokens. It then goes to the chief of the entity, who awards or returns it with reasons.
Open the draft Download as DOCX Remind Maya Lama