01-10-19 को आयोजित एनएसईजेड प्राधिकरण बैठक के मिनट

atvst fasre anfiter_ ata orftrerxor

Minutes of NSEZ Authority meeting held on 01.10.2019 at 11:30 AM_ in the Conference hall of Service Centre, NSEZ under the Chairmanship of Dr, L.B, Singhal, Chairman & CEO, NSEZ Authority.

The following Members of the Authority were present.

1. Shri S.S. Shukla, Jt. Development Commissioner. NSEZ 2. Md. Ajaz, representative ofJt.DGFT, Kanpur. 3. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, Director, M/s Idemia Syscom India Pvt. Ltd. 4. Sh. Puneet Kapoor, Partner, M/s. APK Identification (A special Invitee from trade)

Besides, during the meeting Md. Salik Parwaiz, Jt. Commissioner (Customs). NSEZ, Shri Nitin Gupta, Dy. Development Commissioner. NSEZ. Shri R.P. Verma, Secretary, NSEZ Authority. Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra. Sr. Account Officer, NSEZ. Sh. Ram Sundar Jha, CA, M/s. Rajeev Sharma & Associates, Sh. S.K. Soni, GM-SBG, NBCC (India) Ltd.. Sh. Dharmendra Mudgal. Group General Manager. NPCC. Sh. W.B. Prasad, General Manager, M/s. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) were also present to assist the Authority.

At the outset. the Chairman & CEO, NSEZA welcomed the participants and after brief introduction, each item included in the agenda were taken up for deliberations one by one.

The Gist of discussion/decision is given below:-

1. feats 01.10.2019oY araliste atest facta ante eta orftrengor ht doco arige ar

NSEZ Authority was informed that no reference was received against any of decisions taken in its meeting of NSEZ Authority held on 26.06.2019. Accordingly. the Minutes of meeting held on 26.06.2019 were ratified. Further. NSEZ Authority reviewed the compliance of decisions taken in its meeting held on 26.06.2019 in terms of sub-Rule 14 of Rule 10 of SEZ Authority Rules, 2009 and expressed satisfaction over progress made in implementation of decisions taken by the Authority in its meeting held on 26.06.2019.

2, Hloseeqoelo aay at ay dareise

Hloseeqoelo aay at ay dareise & ferater & oreo H (deviation)Ae & Aeaeu F | 2.1 It was submitted before the Authority that the deviation statement submitted by M/s NPCC Ltd. in respect of construction of new warehouse in CWC Complex, NSEZ was placed before the Committee headed by JDC. NSEZ for examination. The Committee examined the deviation statement in details. Two members of the committee viz. Sh. Puneet Kapoor and Sh. Salik Jt. Commissioner (Customs) had visited the site on 20.06.2019 and had conveyed their observations as under:-

• i. They informed that M/s NPCC Ltd. has changed the scope of work in respect of construction of new warehouse in CWC Complex, NSEZ at their own without prior approval of the Competent Authority.

• li, M/s NPCC Ltd. could not explain the cost variation satisfactorily.

ey

Page 2 of 11

2.2. The Committee recommended to place the above facts before NSEZ Authority in its next meeting to be held on 26.06.2019 for consideration and appropriate decision. In view of above. the recommendation of committee was placed before Authority in its meeting held on 26.06.2019 for taking a view in the matter. 2.3. Sh. Dharmendra Mudgal, Group General Manager, NPCC appeared before the Authority. Sh. Mudgal was asked to produce justification and documentary evidence in support of deviation in Rs. 42.91,725/- over the tender award cost. Sh. Mudgal requested the Authority to give him some time to produce justification and documentary evidence in support of deviation. The Authority, after due deliberations. deferred the proposal. The Authority directed the Committee headed by JDC to re-examine the proposal again on receipt of detailed justification from NPCC and re-submit their findings in its next meeting for consideration. 2.4 Now. M/s NPCC Ltd. has submitted the following documents:-

• i. Copy of note sheet, where internal decision was taken for change in design.

• ii. Their communication with Architect for change in design.

• iii. Certificate from Jamia Millia Islamia University toward proof for checking of structural design calculations and drawings.

• iv. Certificate from Chartered Engineer towards variation in quantities of BOQ due to redesigning and

• v. Copies of both the drawings of CWC.

of structural design calculations and drawings.

• iv. Certificate from Chartered Engineer towards variation in quantities of BOQ due to redesigning and

• v. Copies of both the drawings of CWC.

2.5 M/s NPCC Ltd. has also informed that the initial estimated cost was Rs. 3,25.68,239/and the work was finally awarded to contractor at a cost of Rs. 2.89.12.804/-. It was further informed by them that due to inevitable circumstances prevailing at the site, they had to change the design/scope of work resulting in upward change in BOQ worth Rs. 42,91.725/- against the tender awarded cost. Due to this, the total cost of project has been revised to Rs.3,32,04.529/and, therefore, M/s NPCC Ltd. has requested to sanction additional amount of Rs. 6,36,290/over the approved estimated cost at the earliest possible so that the work can be resumed on site and slab can be casted.

2.6 In view of above, as directed by NSEZA, the matter was placed before Committee headed by JDC, NSEZ for examination of documents submitted by M/s NPCC Ltd. 2.7. The Committee examined the documents submitted by M/s NPCC Ltd. in detail and observed that M/s NPCC Ltd. has submitted the documents mentioned in para 2.4 above along with certificate from independent Chartered Engineer stating as under:-

tted by M/s NPCC Ltd. in detail and observed that M/s NPCC Ltd. has submitted the documents mentioned in para 2.4 above along with certificate from independent Chartered Engineer stating as under:-

“The structural drawings, designs & BOO for the submitted two options has been analyzed. It is found that both the options are conforming relevant codes of practice as per the latest Indian Standards. The head wise variations occurred in the quantities of BOQ due to redesigning affected the amount of BOQ as given in the annexure. Both the submitted BOQ form NPCC has been checked andfound satisfactory as per the design & drawings oforiginal as well as redesigned set." 2.8 The Committee observed that the documents submitted by M/s NPCC Ltd. were as per deliberations held in the Authority meeting dated 26/06/2019. Therefore. the Committee recommended to place the proposal regarding approval of aforementioned deviation along with Nya

|

Page 3 of 11

documents submitted by M/s NPCC Ltd. in support of their contention justifying the same before NSEZ Authority in its next meeting for consideration and appropriate decision. In view of above, the above proposal was placed before the NSEZ Authority for appropriate decision.

Decision:- NSEZ Authority deliberated in details & gone through the condition of MoU executed by NPCC. The Condition No. 6 is reproduced below:-

efore the NSEZ Authority for appropriate decision.

Decision:- NSEZ Authority deliberated in details & gone through the condition of MoU executed by NPCC. The Condition No. 6 is reproduced below:-

"Any deviation in work due to change in designs and specifications will require the prior approval of the Development Commission, NSEZ. Extra/substitute items arising out of the change in design/specification shall however, fall within the purview of the executive Agency (NPCC. Variation in quantities of times shall be charged to work with the approval of Development Commissioner, NSEZ. However, no appeal! is required, if the overall cost in within approved sanctioned cost." Keeping in view the detailed documents submitted by M/s NPCC in support of said deviation, conditions of MoU and work progress of construction of CWC, the Authority decided to approve the additional amount Rs.6,36,290/over the approved estimated cost of Rs.3,25,68,239/- (authority already approved the cost in its meeting held on 25.6.2018) on account of change BOQ due to change in design/scope of work, making the total cost of the project to Rs,3,32,04,529/-. The Authority expressed displeasure against the agency for its failure to take prior approval when scope of work and consequent deviation of cost changed. The Authority directed that a written warning be issued to the NPCC not to repeat such lapses in future and take prior approval of the Authority in case of deviation either in scope. quantity and value of the work.

irected that a written warning be issued to the NPCC not to repeat such lapses in future and take prior approval of the Authority in case of deviation either in scope. quantity and value of the work. The Authority further directed that a copy of the warning may also be sent to the Chairman, NPCC for his perusal and issue of necessary instructions to the officer in-charge, NPCC to ensure strict compliance of MOU in future.

==> picture [61 x 48] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> Wee<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

Page 4of 11

3, WaouRogosdso at wditeper aM 3H feral worreht Hr aah Se LATTE ae oh HFAa

3.1. It was submitted before the Authority that M/s. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) vide their letter dated 30.04.2019 informed that BECIL is mandated by the Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India to undertake and execute such projects i.e. Supply and Installation of Integrated Security & Surveillance System for government agencies across the country and was requested to allow to conduct a survey of this office premises to understand the requirement and propose state-of-art solution. Accordingly. vide this office letter dated 14.05.2019. M/s Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) was advised to conduct a survey and submit the estimated cost for supply and installation of integrated security & surveillance system in NSEZ. Noida for further examination.

• 3.2. Now, M/s Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) has submitted the following estimates/documents for Supply and Installation of Integrated Security & Surveillance System in NSEZ after conducting a survey in NSEZ:i. Estimate of Rs. 6,31,56,936/- for Network Video Recorder (NVR) based Solution. Details of estimate are given below:1) BOQ for NVR based solution as per requirement of this office with estimate of Rs. 3,02,53.326/- for 126 Cameras.

2. Optional-

   • i) 2 Ton Industrial Grade AC for Control Room with estimate of Rs. 4,79,509/-

   • ii) Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Cost for 4 years with estimate of Rs. 1,60,18.901/-

Optional-

  - i) 2 Ton Industrial Grade AC for Control Room with estimate of Rs. 4,79,509/- 

  - ii) Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Cost for 4 years with estimate of Rs. 1,60,18.901/- 

  - iii) Skilled Manpower with estimate of Rs. 1.64,05,200/- 

• ii, Estimate of Rs. 10,20,42,421/- for Solution as per the guidelines by MHA. Details of estimate are given below:1) BOQ as per guidelines of MHA with estimate of Rs. 5.22.06,212/- for 134 Cameras.

  • 2. Optional:-

    • i) Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Cost for 4 years with estimate of Rs. 2.76,69,292/-

    • ii) Skilled Manpower with estimate of Rs. 1,64,05,200/iii) Redundancy/Failover Solutions with estimate of Rs. 57,61 ,718/-

• iii, |Unpriced BOQ-Optional/Additional locations as per MHA Guidelines. iv. Recommendations to enhance the security of the premises.

yer

|

Page 5 of 11

v. Systems minimum specifications as per MHA Guidelines.

3.3. It is mentioned that the estimated cost submitted by M/s NPCC Ltd. for installation of 126 nos. CCTV Camera was Rs. 3,35,51,312/- and NBCC had quoted Rs. 3,24,53,003/3.4 The matter was placed before the Committee headed by JDC. NSEZ for examination of the estimate and recommendations.

3.5 The Committee observed that BECIL is an empanelled agency by MHA for the purpose of installing CCTV system in Govt. buildings. Also they have sufficient domain knowledge towards installation of CCTV systems, as may be seen from their past records whereas other two PSUs viz M/s NPCC Ltd. & M/s NBCC India Ltd. do not have much experience in the relevant field and also they have not been empanelled by MHA for the purpose. The Committee considering pros and cons and having regard to experience & expertise of M/s. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) recommended that their proposal which is as per MHA Guidelines may be placed before NSEZA in its next meeting for consideration. Before considering the proposal, M/s. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) may be called for presentation before NSEZ Authority in its next meeting.

In view of above, all the three estimates along with recommendations of the committee as mentioned above were placed before Authority for appropriate decision.

NSEZ Authority in its next meeting.

In view of above, all the three estimates along with recommendations of the committee as mentioned above were placed before Authority for appropriate decision.

3.6 M/s. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) made a presentation before the Authority and explained all components to be installed, way of installation, modus operandi for maintenance and utility of surveillance system.

3.7. Sh. Alok Mukherjee, one of the Authority members suggested that storage capacity should be availed through cloud storage (on-line storage) instead of installation of server etc. which will reduce the cost of project also and basic need be assessed again properly. Decision: After due deliberations, the Authority decided that the matter may be re-examined by the Committee headed by Jt. Development Commissioner. NSEZ, co-opting Shri Alok Mukherjee also to see that whether scope of work can be revised to reduce expenditure and if so, to what extent. After finalization of 'Scope of Work’, the proposal may again be placed before the Authority with the recommendation of the committee for decision. The Committee may also examine whether any agency can be engaged on nomination basis as per provisions of GFR or competitive bidding amongst the PSUs may be waged.

|

Page 6 of 11

4, Bomar dh adicttenrrart tq safes wareA eligi & Beau Fi

4.1 It It was submitted before the Authority that the work for Renovation of Conference Room at NSEZ, Noida was awarded to M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. vide this office letter dated 29.10.2018 at estimated cost of Rs. 51,54,841/-. M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. vide their letter dated 17.05.2019 awarded the work to M/s. Certain Advent at cost of Rs. 29,35,061/-. 4.2 During execution of work, it was felt that following items should also be included for keeping the conference room in sync:-

• i. Supplying and commissioning of hermetically sealed double glazed unit made with 6 mm thick clear float glass both side having 12 mm air gap. Stainless steel (SS 304 grade) adjustable friction window stay 210 x 19 mm.

• ii. 4x16 sq. mm + 2x6 sq. mm earth wire.

• iii. TPN 12 way box.

• iv. Box 8x8. v. | Thickness above 10mm up to 25 mm.

• vi. For extension of false ceiling towards TV area dismantled.

• vii. | Placement of 24 U Rack.

• viii. | Supplying and commissioning of hermetically sealed double glazed unit made with 6 mm thick clear float glass both side having 12 mm air gap. Stainless steel (SS 304 grade) adjustable friction window stay 510 x 19 mm.

• ix. Connector cable from pop up box to laptop. x. Mics for Conference Table.

• xi. Control Unit (Mixer).

• xii. Extension cable from mics to control unit.

• xiii. |Bosch Amplifier. xiv. D-link Ethernet switch. xv. Dismantling of old unit of Cassette AC.

ference Table.

• xi. Control Unit (Mixer).

• xii. Extension cable from mics to control unit.

• xiii. |Bosch Amplifier. xiv. D-link Ethernet switch. xv. Dismantling of old unit of Cassette AC.

4,3, Subsequently, M/s. NBCC (India) Ltd. vide letter No. NBCC/NSEZ/GNOIDA/DGM/2019-20/36 dated 18.07.2019 has submitted the cost to completion after revision as under:L. Total of civil Ta so Wak TERT OS Ts MST works 2. NBCC Charges @ 9% Rs. 3,99,200/3. For Design & Drawing charges) @ 2% - TP Rs.Rs. 49,23.469/-88,.711/Grand Total 4.4 —_ In this regard, it is mentioned that the completion cost is within the sanctioned cost including Rs. 17,06,120/- for the items indicated in para 4.2.

4.5 Matter was placed before the Committee headed by JDC, NSEZ for examination of Ne above additional work, its estimate and recommendations. Newa

Page 7 of 11

;

4.6 The Committee discussed the additional work/items in details and observed that for effective functioning of the infrastructure created in the conference room these additional items are essential and also the rates quoted for various items appear to be reasonable. Therefore, after due deliberations the Committee recommended to place the proposal regarding additional items as mentioned above costing Rs. 17,06,120/- which would result in total expenditure of Rs. 49,23,469/- against approved cost of Rs. 51,54,841/- before NSEZ Authority in its next meeting for approval.

In view of above, additional items mentioned above against additional cost of Rs. 17,66,120/- was placed before Authority for consideration and approval.

thority in its next meeting for approval.

In view of above, additional items mentioned above against additional cost of Rs. 17,66,120/- was placed before Authority for consideration and approval.

4.7 Sh. S.K. Soni, GM-SBG, NBCC (India) Ltd., appeared before Authority and explained the need of additional items for renovation and operationalization of apparatus installed in conference hall. Sh. Soni also explained the terms & condition of MoU which are reproduced below:

Any deviation in work due to change in designs and specifications will require the prior approval of the Development Commission, NSEZ. Extra/substitute items arising out of the change in design/specification shall however, fall within the purview of the executive Agency (NPCC. Variation in quantities of times shall be charged to work with the approval of Development Commissioner, NSEZ. However, no appeal is required, if the overall cost in within approved sanction cost."

Decision: The Authority, after due deliberations, approved the additional items required for renovation of conference hall as per agenda and also approved the cost of these items to the tune of Rs. 17,06,120/- as the completion cost is within the sanctioned cost for the work.

Page 8 of 11

• : WEATA

nference hall as per agenda and also approved the cost of these items to the tune of Rs. 17,06,120/- as the completion cost is within the sanctioned cost for the work.

Page 8 of 11

• : WEATA

• 5, Waa g.ss. a aa TA TRatsensitferlarovaeaicnes& & fore IIgsIgclfeel aT | 5.1. It was submitted before the Authority that Department of Commerce vide letter No. K- 46012/8/2017-States Cell dated 05.02.2019 had conveyed the following directions for compliance in respect of projects approved under Trade Infrastructure for Export Scheme (TIES) and while preparing a new DPR for any project proposal: i. For all the projects being implemented by Department of Commerce or its attached/subordinate offices and autonomous bodies, the DPR should be prepared as per CPWD standard Schedule of Rates and follow all related provisions in GFR, 2017.

  • ii. Besides, during and after implementation of the project, inspection/evaluation of the same should be got conducted by a reputed and accredited Third Party. In case of projects being implemented by State Government, this can also be carried out by a Government Department, which is different from the implementing Department.

  • 5.2. Keeping in view of above directions, it has been decided to seek consent of Indian Institute of Technology. Delhi vide this office letter dated 15.03.2019.

e implementing Department.

  - 5.2. Keeping in view of above directions, it has been decided to seek consent of Indian Institute of Technology. Delhi vide this office letter dated 15.03.2019. 

  - 5.3 Now, Prof. A.K. Jain, Consultant-in-charge, Department of Civil Engineering. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi has submitted the offer to conduct quality inspection/evaluation of ongoing projects with the following scope of work:- 

     - a) Quality assurance team of Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi shall visit the site of work on monthly basis and examine the quality of materials for construction by visual inspection and tests at site in their presence. Necessary advice shall be given by IITD for quality assurance. IITD shall provide the report of each visit. 

• b) IITD shall examine the quality of work by visual inspection and non-destructive tests of some selected structural elements. IITD shall provide necessary advice for improvement

• | of quality, remedial/strengthening and preventive measures. | c) ITD shall conduct load test(s) on some typical structural elements to assess their | structural adequacy/stability. Necessary facilities for sand bags and loading/unloading of structural elements by sand shall, however, be provided by the client.

     - d) Some specialized tests (such as concrete core test ete.) shall be conducted at IIT, Delhi whenever required. 
  
     - e) Any pre-construction advice shall be provided by [ITD as and when required.
  

e specialized tests (such as concrete core test ete.) shall be conducted at IIT, Delhi whenever required.

     - e) Any pre-construction advice shall be provided by [ITD as and when required. 

5.4 Total consultancy charges for providing above mentioned services is 2% of the final closure cost of contract plus GST @ 18%. 5.5 In this regard, it is mentioned that this office had taken grant from Department Of Commerce for only one project under TIES ie. Solid Waste Management which has already been completed and thesame was monitoredby _a committee consisting of officers of Department of Commerce, NSEZ and M/s NPCC Ltd. Further, M/s PWC, a nominated agency by the Department of Commerce for monitoring the status of the project, has inspected the project at various stages from time to time. There is no other project funded under TIES scheme. 5.6 As far as works other than TIES are concerned, the same are carried out by the Govt. undertakings viz M/s NBCC India Ltd. and M/s NPCC Ltd. and both the agencies have their own system for quality check. Thus, for the projects implemented in the Zone, quality audit is an

• Yay\

Page 9 of 11

inbuilt system in the said undertakings. Thus there doesn't appear to be any need to engage IIT for the purpose.

In view of above, the proposal of IIT, Delhi in respect of consultancy charges @ 2% of final closure cost of contract was placed before Authority for consideration and appropriate decision.

pose.

In view of above, the proposal of IIT, Delhi in respect of consultancy charges @ 2% of final closure cost of contract was placed before Authority for consideration and appropriate decision.

Decision:- The Authority deliberated on the agenda and noted that there was only one work under TIES and the same has been completed. This was monitored by a Committee comprising of Dy. Development Commissioner, NSEZ. Dy. Director, Deptt. of Commerce. and NPCC. M/s. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) has also monitored the same separately. So there is no need for technical assistance of IIT, Delhi. For future project under TIES, if any, the proposal may be placed before the Authority for consideration.

Page 10 of 11

;

6. Witte & wat & far afaa Htenavenraat tq Aras

6.1. It was submitted before the Authority that proposal for Remuneration for the staff/officers nominated for the Authority work was placed before the Authority in its meeting held 19.09.2018. The Authority was informed that the Chairman & CEO, NSEZ Authority on 25/05/2011 fixed additional remuneration for Secretary, NSEZ Authority, Accounts Officer, NSEZ amounting to Rs. 2000/- per month. It was also informed that following officers/official are also looking after the work of the Authority in additional to their normal duties:i. Estate Officer, NSEZ Authority ii. Asstt. (Estate Section)

6.2 As the remuneration was fixed in year 2011, i.e. seven year back, it was proposed to revise the remuneration to Rs. 5000/- P.M and accord approval for above to officers also as mentioned above. 6.3. The Authority in its meeting held on 19.09.2018 after due deliberation decided to refer the matter to the Committee formed by Department of Commerce under the chairmanship of JDC, MEPZ SEZ and comprising of JDC, Noida SEZ; JDC, Kandla SEZ so as to maintain uniformity in administrative/financial decision making process in SEZ Authorities across the country. This matter was not deliberated in the said committee as per report available in this office. However, the matter has been discussed with MEPZ SEZ, Madras. They have informed that they are paying Rs. 5,000/- per month as remuneration for the staff/officers nominated for the Authority work.

6.4 In view of above, it is proposed to upwardly revise the remuneration as under:-

they are paying Rs. 5,000/- per month as remuneration for the staff/officers nominated for the Authority work.

6.4 In view of above, it is proposed to upwardly revise the remuneration as under:-

==> picture [372 x 89] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br>

|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|S.No.|Designation|of officers/staff|Proposed|Amount|(%)|
|1.|Estate|Officer,|NSEZ|Authority(DDC)|2|5,000/-|per month|
|2.|Secretary, NSEZ|Authority|%|5,000/-|per month|
|on|Sr.|A.O, NSEZ|Authority|~|5,000/-|per month|
|4.|Asstt/UDC,|NSEZ|Authonty|=|3,000/-|per month|

----- End of picture text -----<br>

The proposal was placed before Authority for consideration.

Decision:- NSEZ Authority after due deliberation approved and revised the remuneration performing for additional work relating to NSEZA as proposed above.

4. ded vad sear fees gnr cht or ét uRaraarat Ay Bete |: Progress report in respect of ongoing projects awarded to NBCC was placed before the Authority. The Authority reviewed the projects one by one and after due deliberations, expressed the satisfaction over progress made in the implementation of projects.

5. daewade feiaes cht Sr tél ofatsrarat at Balla | Progress report in respect of ongoing projects awarded to NPCC was placed before the Authority. The

,

Page 11 of 11

Authority reviewed the projects one by one and after due deliberations, expressed the satisfaction over progress made in the implementation of projects.

Meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.

rity reviewed the projects one by one and after due deliberations, expressed the satisfaction over progress made in the implementation of projects.

Meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair.

==> picture [32 x 47] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> #] i<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

(S.S. Shirkla) Jt. Development Commissioner

==> picture [111 x 102] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> |yr ‘<br>Cs<br>(Dr. L.B. Singhal)<br>Chairman & CEO<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>