The undersigned has gone through the tender case and observed the following: 1.

The base price calculated for the instant tender in the year 2010 for parking area, cant be considered reasonable and not agreed too, as the reserve price was evaluated for the period of three years i.e. from 2010 to 2012 where as the instant tender will be spanning over 2012 to 2014. It is also a vital fact that during the intervening period considerable increase is noticed in the no. dwellers / users of the parking areas due to enhanced No. of trains, commercial and other socio economic factors of the region, the finance member also is of the same opinion. It is appearing that the base price not matching (almost half ) with the H-1 rates of earlier discharged tender, at that time H-1 tenderer of instant case was new entrant and fair competition took place between them in the discharged tender. On finalizing the instant tender Railway is bound get the same rate old base price, for an additional year, which is apparent loss right from now 2. While floating of the instant tender the parking area which is significantly increased, which ought to have been deliberated but not given due cognigence. The same should have been reflected in the tender document for obtaining the most reasonable and profitable offer to the . The additional space given/ available to the parking contractor will not be fetching any revenue to the s. 3. In the scope of work approximate No. vehicles dealt in the parking area per day is not mentioned which would have been more helpful for the better appreciation of tender value for the bidders and T.C. members to decide the tender. 4. Under signed agrees with the remarks of the finance member vide C ( i ) ( ii ) ( iii ) at page 3 of the minutes. The reserve price fixed in the year 2010 at parking at an increased collection charges from the parking users, hence it cant be compared with the earlier reserve price considering the increasing trend of users and parking charges. From the tender files it is appearing that the trend of increase of base price in the instant case is not linear and rather it is the function of the increase of no. users and increase in parking charges, which can be better derived by an independent census jointly by commercial, finance and Engg. Department. Hence undersigned does not agree with the reasonableness deliberated by the convener of the TC.

5. It also appears that fair competition did not take place, the same contractor continuing for the years together and owing to which the correct trend of the rise of reserve price could not be assessed. 6. The instant tender having base price to the tune of Rs.1 crore approx., and NIT of the tender is not published in any of the national daily, which also may attract complications in futur 7. The matter is sub-judice as appear from the caveat filed by the H-1 tenderer and time asked by Railway advocate. 8. In view of the above undersigned is of the opinion that the instant tender should be discharged, and tender should be called afresh duly evaluating and incorporating the latest census, parking area and fresh base price. Undersigned is also of the opinion that fresh tender basing on the factual position will fetch more revenue to the Railways. Till the time present parking contractor should be called for negotiation and should be asked to deposit the revenues at par with the rates of discharged tender. The negotiation with current contractor will become tool to reveal the correct base price on date. C