MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (MSRDC) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR EMPANELMENT OF LAW FIRMS / ADVOCATES FOR MSRDC LTD. (First Call) Pre-Bid Clarifications 1. Clarifications in respect of queries raised by M/s., Cyril AmarchandMangaldas Sr.No. Reference in RFP 1. Definitions, Clause (iv) 2. Clause I (6) and Clause X (2) 3. Clause IV A (1) Query The definition of ineffective hearing is vague. It is suggested that the definitions and bifurcations be removed Limitation of (3) three agencies suggested to be removed from the panel of law firms to anyone who qualifies Criterion of 10 year experience of law firms proposed to be removed or reduced. Suggested to change the criterion to more than 10 agencies. 4. Clause IV (2) Criterion of 10 qualified lawyers having 10 years of experience in providing legal services in Highways / Infrastructure sector of Govt. of India/State Govt./Autonomous Bodies/Reputed Organisation proposed to be removed or reduced. 5. Clause IV (3) Requirement of Chartered Accountant suggested to be removed in entirety. 6. Clause IV (4) Requirement of Civil Engineers suggested to be removed in entirety. Clarification 1
7. Clause IV (5) Requirement for certificate of Client satisfaction to be removed. 8. Clause IV A The average Annual Turnover of the Law Firm (6) should be minimum Rs.2 Cr. (Relevant certificates audited accounts from CA regarding sound Financial standing of the Applicants / firms in terms of annual turnover, during the last three years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 must be appended). 9. Clause IV (8) With respect to empanelment, empanelment with Banks and statutory organizations also proposed to be included. 10. Clause V Proposed to remove the submission of (17) Certificate of registration. CV s of the key professional staff. 11. Clause VI (2(d)) 12. Clause VI (2(e)) 13. Clause VI (2(k)) 14. Clause VIII (6) The requirement of key professional staff to be associated with the firm proposed to be removed since it is redundant after removal of provisions of Clause IV (3 and 4). Submission of authorization letter suggested to be removed, as firms may not give such letter and a Partner may apply for RFP on the firm s behalf. It is suggested that the words, of the fact that all the cases are heard together or not be deleted After complete evaluation of financial offer MSRDC shall decide on fee/remuneration payable for each task. The empanelment will be subject to acceptance of rates approved by MSRDC. Revised RFP is uploaded 2
15. Clause XII (8) 16. Clause XII (15) 17. Clause XII (16) 18. Clause XII (17) 19. Clause XII (18) 20. Clause XII (19) 21. Clause XII (20) 22. Clause XIII (A) 23. Clause XIII (B) Submission of performance of security of Rs.1 lakh in the form of Bank Guarantee by selected candidates proposed to be removed. Suggested that the pecuniary limits on matters be removed. And accordingly Clause deleted. A blanket of 25% on all connected cases after the first case suggested to be deleted. Clerkage of 10% shall not include stationery and out of pocket expenses, which shall be payable on actuals. Suggestion to remove this clause due to ambiguity with respect to non-effective hearing. Suggestion to remove this clause of settlement of fees for legal opinion after discussion with all three shortlisted agencies and assignment to the Advocates/Law Firms who will offer the lowest fee. Prior concurrence of MSRDC for additional expenses suggested to be removed. The terms A..in matters in which such Advocate/firm is acting on behalf of or representing MSRDC, shall not represent any of the opposite parties in other cases till that case/matter is pending. suggested to be removed. The terms or is likely to be called upon to appear or advice. suggested to be removed.. 3
24. Clause XIII (C) 25. Clause XVII (xi) 26. Checklist of Point 6 27. Checklist of Point 8 28. Checklist of Point 9 29. Checklist of Point 10 30. Checklist of Point 12 31. Checklist of Point 13 Restriction on a firm to entertain any case against the MSRDC arising in any court during the pendency of such case Suggested to be wide and proposed to be removed. Termination as a result of frequent adjournments suggested to be removed since adjournment is at times obtained on client s instruction and/or in their best interest. The term whether it is valid to be removed since it is redundant considering that the Bar Council registration has no validity period. Submission of list of clients to be removed Submission of financial documents namely, Statement regarding annual turnover, IT Returns along with the gross billing suggested to be removed considering its confidential nature and no requirement in this RFP. Submission of a solvency certificate to be removed as not necessary Requirement of Trade Certificate suggested to be removed since not applicable to law firms. Requirement of Shop and Establishment Certificate suggested to be removed since not applicable to law firms 4
32. Checklist of Point 16 33. Checklist of Point 17 34. Annexure II (Role of Law Firms) Clause 5 35. Annexure III (Information Sheet) Clause 8 36. Annexure III (Information Sheet) Clause 9 37. Annexure III (Information Sheet) Clause 12 38. Annexure III (Information Sheet) Ending line It is suggested that this requirement be modified to include the following: Letter of Appreciation be removed. Inclusion of Banks and statutory organizations Submission of details of the Chief Executive proposed to be substituted by details of concerned Partner. Suggested insertion of Advising on before Process for Stamp duty and registration of Suggested change for cases handled in past 3 years to 10 cases Details of cases won to Details of cases handled Details of annual turnover suggested to be removed Suggested to be removed since contact details of the officer/person concerned on client s side cannot be submitted. Suggested to remove Certified that no legal disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the firm, by or before any Bar Council of India in the last 3 years as it is not applicable to law firms. 5
39. Definitions Definition of Competent Authority requested. 40. Annexure V (Financial Proposal Submission Form) Consolidated Fee on per case basis for Litigation related work as indicated at Scope of Work. (Fee to be quoted separately for litigation in Supreme Court, High Court, Subordinate courts / Tribunals) where the representation on behalf of MSRDC Ltd. is likely to be required:. viii. We confirm that we have quoted price for scope of work/terms of reference as mentioned in the RFP document. 41. Annexure V (Financial Proposal Submission Form) Suggested to include hourly fee in the Financial proposal 2. Clarifications in respect of queries raised by M/s. Little and Company. Sr. Provision Clarification required Clarification No. 1. Definitions, Clause (iv) The definition of ineffective hearing shall not include adjournment sought by parties 2. Clause I (6) Limitation of (3) three agencies suggested to be removed from the panel of law firms to anyone who qualifies 6
3. Clause IV (2) Criteria of 10 qualified lawyers having 10 years of experience in providing legal services in Highways / Infrastructure sector of Govt. of India/State Govt./Autonomous Bodies/Reputed Organisation proposed to be reduced to 3 lawyers with 3-5 years of experience. 4. Clause IV (3) Requirement of Chartered Accountant suggested to be removed in entirety. 5. Clause IV (4) Requirement of Civil Engineers suggested to be removed in entirety. 6. Clause IV (5) Requirement for certificate of Client satisfaction to be replaced with an engagement/empanelment letter or and order/decree evidencing representation of client 7. Clause IV A (6) Requirement of certificate from CA depicting an average Annual Turnover of minimum Rs.2 crores suggested to be removed. 8. Clause IV (8) With respect to empanelment, empanelment with Banks and other authorities also proposed to be included. 9. Clause VI (2(d)) The requirement of key professional staff to be associated with the firm proposed to be removed since it is redundant after removal of provisions of Clause IV (3 and 4). 10. Clause VI (2(e)) Submission of authorization letter suggested to be removed, as firms may not give such letter and a Partner may apply for RFP on the firm s behalf. 7
11. Clause VIII (6) The criteria that the empanelment will be subject to acceptance of rates approved by the MSRDC is suggested to be removed since it is against the terms and conditions of the RFP 12. Clause XII (8) Submission of performance of security of Rs.1 lakh in the form of Bank Guarantee by selected candidates proposed to be removed. 13. Clause XII (15) Suggested that the pecuniary limits on matters be removed. 14. Clause XII (16) Instead of a blanket of 25% on all connected cases after the first case (paid in full), a step wise reduction is suggested. 15. Clause XIII (A) The terms A..in matters in which such Advocate/firm is acting on behalf of or representing MSRDC, shall not represent any of the opposite parties in other cases till that case/matter is pending. suggested to be removed. 16. Clause XIII (B) The terms or is likely to be called upon to appear or advice. suggested to be removed. 17. Clause XVII (xi) Termination as a result of frequent adjournments suggested to be removed since adjournment is at times obtained on client s instruction and/or in their best interest. 18. Checklist of Point 8 Submission of list of clients to be removed 8
19. Checklist of Point 9 20. Checklist of Point 10 21. Checklist of Point 13 Submission of financial documents namely, Statement regarding annual turnover, IT Returns along with the gross billing suggested to be removed considering its confidential nature and no requirement in this RFP. Submission of a solvency certificate to be removed as not necessary Requirement of Shop and Establishment Certificate suggested to be removed since not applicable to law firms 22. Point 17 Submission of details of the Chief Executive proposed to be substituted by details of concerned Partner. 23. Format I (Letter of Suggestion to remove the terms forest clearances Transmittal) 24. Annexure III (Information Sheet) Clause8 Suggested change for cases handled in past 3 years to a number of cases that may be suggested by MSRDC. 25. Annexure V (Financial Proposal Submission Form) 26. Query raised vide letter dtd. 04.12.2017 In case of fresh empanelment of law firms pursuant to the tender process, what Suggested to include hourly fee in the Financial proposal -- In case of matters which are being currently handled by a particular law firm, those matters will be retained with the same law firm. 9
will happen to the matters which are being currently handled by a particular law firm?. Further, in case a law firm which is currently on the panel of MSRDC, does not get empanelled with MSRDC pursuant to the subject tender process, then in that event will that law firm continue to represent MSRDC in the matters currently handled by that law firm? 10