Explanation of Claims/Objection received from CA Firms

Sr.N' o. 1 Anjali Jain & Explanation of Claims/Objection received from CA Firms Eligibility No Marks 8 Claims/Objection Received from CA Firm We have a sufficient number of staffs for qualifying the criteria and the staffs mentioned in the technical bid do qualify the criteria. Still we have been allotted 0 marks out of 60 marks in the criteria of assignment of key professional staffs. Clarification & Explanation 1. Inadequecy of relevent experience of CA,s and CA Inter.Team Leader and team member in the same CV. 2. No undertaking regarding blacklisting of firm submitted. 2 Jitendra Agarwal & 3 Manmohan Singh & Co. No 8 0 We wish to raise following 2 points which should be considered before making any allotment for this assignment (A) Evaluation of CVs: (B) Mandatory Submission of Undertaking wrt Black listing: Our expression of interest for above assignment has not been evaluated because of non submission of Financial statement including ITR,but we have to say that to the best of our knowledge we have attached the above documents along with other supporting document and request you to kindly re-verify the thing. 1. Proposal has been re evaluated and necessary correction has been made.now the firm score is 84 in stead of 8. 2. Required information are not detailed in key professional CV's. No Financial Statement supported with ITR attached which is essential for technical bid evaluation.hence not evaluated. 4 NKD & CO No 8 We noticed that M/s KBDS & co. (Serial No-2) has branch office in Bihar and head office in Delhi. As per ToR for Head office (Ten) Marks & for Branch office (Five) Marks should have been allotted. But MIS KBDS & co. Has been allotted (Ten) marks instead of Error in scoring has been rectified of KBDS, marks has been reduced to marks for only branch office in Bihar. (Total Score of KBDS & Co. is now 8) J. SINGH & ASSOCIATES 6 Jaiswal Brajesh & Co. 83 94 (Five) Our Claim and objections on the marks allotted on Assigned Key Staff CA (60 Marks) in this point our Firm has secured only Marks instead of 60 Marks because we have already enclosed our Four Qualified Chartered Accountants CVs and Four Semi-Qualified CA Inter Assistants CVs with Adequate Experience which was mentioned in your Terms of Reference-cum-RFP for selection of Auditors under Scoring Criteria Point number. We have submitted the CV alongwith the credentials of 3 CA Partners having experience more than 12 years and 9 CA(Inter)staff having experience more than your requirement i.e 3 years to years with similar work assignments. Relevent Experience not mentioned in CVs of qualified CA's as well as semi qualified CA-Inters.

Sr.N o. L.K.Saraf & Co 8 K.Hari Ji & Co. 9 Sushi) Kumar Sharma & Co. RN SINHA & CO 11 Sunil Shayama & 12 13 Gupta Sachdeva & Co MOHINDRA & ASSOCIATES 14 Chamaria & Co Explanation of Claims/Objection received from CA Firms Eligibility Marks No 1 94 69 0 No 0 No 3 No 0 90 Claims/Objection Received from CA Firm We are sending herewith papers and documents required by you in case of Audit Assignment of DRDA. Kindly correct data's in your record and allot marks accordingly. We are not agreed with marks awarded by your office to our firm for DRDA audit. Your evaluation committee has awarded only 4 marks for experience of Assigned KEY Staff whereas we have submitted profile of 12 CA (Inter) and all are having experience of Govt. Sector statutory and Internal Audit. We could not understand how your committee has awarded us only 4 marks for Assigned Key staffs. Hence we request you to please re evaluate our marks and give us 6 more marks. Irregularity in allotting marks for CV criteria. KINDLY ALLOT 0 MARKS AS REQUIRED(PL MAKE THE NECESSARY MODIFICATION AS REQUIRED IN THE TECHNICAL MARKING SCORE LIST). FIRMS SHOULD SUBMIT ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT AS THEY HAVE CLAIMED IN THE PROPOSAL. As such All most all the CA firms in the List haven't produced the undertaking Our firm proposal for appointment not considered for Technical evaluation due to reason that firm Head office or Branch Office not in Bihar We request you to please review the marks allotted to us based on the experience of our firm. please find attached CAG Empenalment letter as this letter is previously attached alongwith tender document and for some reason it was misplaced. Less points given in working experience of Assigned key staffs Clarification & Explanation As per conditions no document will be accepted after evaluation. 1. Only two CV,s of semi qualified CA has been submitted instead of three required CV,s. 2. Lack of relevent experience in attached CV,s Required information has not been mentioned in most of the CV,s. Claim of Head/Branch office in Bihar has been accepted but firm has not submitted CAG emplanelment for the Year 16-1. It has also been verified through online. all the CV,s has not been found. CAG empanelment verified though online and found correct. Now the proposal has been evaluated andrequired relevent experience / Adequecy of assignment has been not found.score awarded as per list uploaded.

Sr.N 1 S. TEKRIWAL & ASSOCIATES 16 Shivanand Kumar & Co. 1 Barun & Co. 18 P. JYOTI & Co. 19 Anand Mohan & NAVEEN UPADHYAYA & ASSOCIATES 21 Subhash kumar &associates. 22 D.P Chatterjee & Co. 23 KRISHNA KUMAR & ASSOCIATES 24 K.PANDEYA & CO 2 Khetan Rajesh Kumar & Co. 26 GHOSHAL & GHOSAL, Explanation of Claims/Objection received from CA Firms Eligibility Marks 63 marking No 2 CA serial No. 8. No 82 'Claims/Objection Received from CA Firm it is humble request to consider above for the matching Correction required in serial no. 8 Assigned key staff & we request you to kindly check the marks awarded in Assigned Key Staff Column - partner and semi- qualified No staff. Regarding objection in technical evaluation/selection against appointment of Chartered Accountants Firm for 84 conducting Statutory Audit of programme of Rural Develo ment De artment for the FY 16-1 As per the list declared by the department we are not No 0 satisfied the marks awarded. No 8 No 80 No Not Evaluaed 2 89 We hereby request yourself to Kindly provide us the basis of marks allotted agst. Assigned key professional staff qualification & experience. We further request you to kindly review the scores once again, before finalising the allotment. objection regarding evqluation of assigned Key Staff objection regarding evqluation of assigned Key Staff SHOULD BE AWARDED. Delayed due to Postal Department fault. our grievance/objection in the attached letter on the scoring pattern adopted and scores awarded by your office. Our Claim and objections on the marks allotted on 66 Assigned Key Staff CA Clarification & Explanation Two CV,s of semi qualified has been not submitted by the firm. Undertaking for blacklisting not submitted. CV,s of key professional also not attached. 1. all the CVs have not been found. Proposal has been re evaluated and total marks will be 88 in stead of 84. CV,s of two qualified has not been submitted. the CV,s has not been found. the CV,s has not been found. Proposal has been re evaluated and total marks will be 83 in stead of 80. No CVs attached for CA's & CA-Inter IT IS OUR REQUEST TO KEEPING IN VIEW OF MY ATTACHED PAGES FROM TO 98 MARKS Reason of delay is not considered. the one qualified CA CV and two semi qualified CA,s CV,s has not been found.

Sr.N o. 2 Sadana & Company 28 G. Mandal & Company 29 S.N. KAPUR & 30 S K JHA & ASSOCIATES 31 KAUSHAL PANDEY & CO. 32 A.MITRA & ASSOCIATES 33 PCS & ASSOCIATES 34 R R Shrivastava & 3 U. S. Prasad & Co. 36 MRKS AND ASSOCIATES 3 Goyal Parul & Co. 38 M DALMIA & CO 39 A.K. Salampuria & Explanation of Claims/Objection received from CA Firms Eligibility Marks No 1 No 4 81 No 6 No 8 40 1 No 2 80 No 8 83 88 Claims/Objection Received from CA Firm Objection in respect of marks allotted in Empanelment List objection regarding evqluation of assigned Key Staff protest against the allotment of statutory audit of programmes of Rural Development department across its administrative units I request you to please reset the scoring criteria and re evaluate the technical score. Objection regarding award of marks objection on point alloted on technical evalution of Qualified & Semi qualified Staff on application for conducting Statutory audit programmees protest against the allotment of statutory audit of Programmes Claims regarding CV of CA Inter and CA Employee we request you to please re-evaluate the marks given to us. i have objection on the calculation of score provided Objection regarding award of marks Objection in marks alloted in DRDA Application Objection in marks alloted Clarification & Explanation the CV,s has not been found. Proposal has been re evaluated and necessary correction has been made,now score is 2 instead of 4.But firm has not submitted CV's of all key professional. 1. Relevent experience to justify adequacy for the assignment could not be established through the CVs of Semi Qualified Staffs. No undertaking regarding blacklisting of firm submitted. Re evaluation has been made and found that firm has less than 8 year experience and deducted 3 marks. Relevent experience also missing in few CV's. CVs are not authenticated/ not signed.hence unsigned CV,s has not been evaluated. 1.Required information are not mentioned in all key professional CV's. 2.Relevent experience to justify adequacy for the assignment could not be established. Proposal has been re evaluated and total marks will be 8 in stead of 2. 1. CV of One semi qualified CA has not been submitted. 2. Relevent experience to justify adequacy for the assignment could not be established. Required information has not been mentioned in the CV,s. Required information has not been mentioned in the CV,s. Only two CA-Inter's CV's are attached in stead of three CV,s.In other CV,s there is lack of required information.

Clarification Explanation of Claims/Objection received from CA Firms Sr.N Eligibility Marks Claims/Objection Received from CA Firm o. protest of Technical score evaluation 40 Anil Mihir & No 1 protest of Technical score evaluation 82 41 Pandey & Co. Objection in marks alloted 42 Mukesh Seema & 89 & Explanation I. Relevent experience to justify adequacy for the assignment could not be established. 2. Merely length of experience provided without qualitative details to justify the adequacy. I. Proposal has been re evaluated and total marks will be 8 in stead of 82. 2. One CV of Semi Qualified furnished without information about passig as well as qualitative details of experience. Proposal has been re evaluated and total marks will be 94 in stead of 89. 43 Burman Singh And 89 44 S.Chawdhury & 2 4 SAROJ KUMAR JHA & ASSOCIATES 84 46 Thakur Bhuwanesh & 90 4 RAJIV RANJAN & ASSOCAITES NO 83 0 VKBK&CO 49 Anju Sharma & Co. No 3 Assigning Lower Marks in Score in Scoring Criteria no Short Marks allotted on our firm's Technical score Objection in Technical Score grievance and objection related to marks awarded Technical Evaluation. claims and objection on Technical Score FIRMS SHOULD SUBMIT ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT AS THEY HAVE CLAIMED IN THE PROPOSAL. As such All most all the CA firms in the List haven't produced the undertaking claims and objection on Technical Score in CV,s has not been found. CV,s has not been found. CV,s has not been found. CV,s has not been found. Not evaluated due to less experience of Firm. CV,s of all the key professional has not been submitted in the proposal.

Sr.N o. 0 Singhania Agrawal & Co. Explanation of Claims/Objection received from CA Firms Eligibility NO Marks Claims/Objection Received from CA Firm we are registered with CAG under registration no. ER0096. We have also submitted required forms and documents for renewal of our registration every year including 1-16, 16-1 and 1-18. In confirmation of this we have already submitted acknowledgements for the same. Clarification & Explanation No empanellment with CAG for FY 16-1. It has been also been verified online. 1 Subodh Goel & Co. 2 CSG No No 0 claims and objection on Technical Score Non consideration of our firm No undertaking regarding blacklisting of firm submitted. 1. Proposal has been re evaluated and necessary correction has been made,now score is 88. 2. Required information are not detailed in key professional CV's.

Sr.No. 1 R. Shah & Co. Observation during re-evaluation Eligibility Marks No 89 Remarks I Re evaluation has been made and necessary correction done as ITR/Audit report not submitted by the firm.hence, proposal is not eligible for evaluation as per RFP condition. 2 Sanjeev Kiran &. 8 Firm is less than 8 years old. marks for experience should be given in place of marks. (Total Score now 84)

(V) SI.No. Firm Name Date of Establishment of Firm 1 2 3 1 G.K. Sureka & Co. 18.04.1994 2 R.N. Mishra & Co. 3 R.N. Singh & Co. 4 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 1 List of Qualified CA firms as per RFP Criteria General Experience of Firm(Tech 2) ( Relevent Experience of Firm ( marks) Head /Branch Assigned Key Office in Bihar Staff ( Marks) CA (60 Marks) 4 6 8.02.199 02.03.1992 Amitabh Chandra & 2.04.01 Co. Sachidanand 21.0.03 Choudhary & Co. Chankya Ashok & Co..12.04 30.03.1993 6 M.K. Singh & Co. Shamse Rub & 16.4.1993 6 30.01.192 60 V. Rohtagi & co Sanjeev Shankar 22.08.199 Urmila & Co. 03.06.1998 Daruka & Co Kumar Kishore & 08.08.02 Chandra Dinesh K Yadav & 14.01.03 01.0.199 4 R.M. Jaiswal Brajesh & Co. 0.11.1996 4 09.01.199 4 16 K. Hariji & Co. Mukesh Seema & 1 13.06.00 4 18 NR Baid & Co. 11.02.191 2 03.01.1991 Roy Ghose & 19 11.0.1994 2 R. DE & 0.01.1998 2 21 S.K.Bats & Co Total Technical Score Rank 8 9 98 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 9 6 96 96 8 9 9 9 9 11 9 12 9 13 94 14 94 1 94 16 94 1 92 18 92 19 92 92 21

(V) List of Qualified CA firms as per RFP Criteria Head /Branch Assigned Key Date of General Relevent Experience of Office in Bihar Staff Experience of SI.No. Firm Name Establishment of Firm(Tech 2) ( Firm ( marks) ( Marks) CA (60 Marks) Firm 6 2 3 4 1 1 H.N.M & 14.06.08 22 Thakur Vaidyanath 01..190 23 Ayar & Co. 0 H S Parmar & Co. 1.0.192 24 01.01.199 2 KRA & Co. Laxmi Tripti & 26 26..1988 AK Mishra & 0 2 06.09.1990 0 18.03.199 28 Chamaria & co Suman Jejani & 29 06.12.1999 Bipin Vivek & 0 30 22.12.00 0 T""" uhuwanesh & 31 30.12.03 K K Chenani & 4 32 01.04.1993 Gupta Subhash Kumar 49 33.0.00 & Co. 49 Ketan Rajesh & Co. 08..00 34 Burman Singh & 4 3 29.12.0 A. K. Salampuria & 24.0.198 36 P. Jyoti & Co. 1.03.01 3 CSG &.12.1998 38 2 N. K. D. & Co. 1.0.1998 39 Mashi Maheshwari & 4 1.0.08 40 Co. 1 13.03.1961 41 Parik & Co Total Technical Score 8 91 Rank 9 22 90 23 90 24 90 2 90 26 90 2 90 28 90 29 90 30 90 31 89 32 89 33 89 34 89 3 88 36 88 3 88 38 8 39 8 40 86 41

(V) SI.No. 1 42 43 44 4 46 4 49 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 Firm Name 2 Pande & Co. H L Shah & Naveen Upadhyay & KBDS & Co. Go al Parul & Co. Jitendra Aggarwal & Saroj Kumar Jha & Kaushal Pandey & Co. Sanjeev Kiran & D.P. Chatterjee & Co. J. Singh & Arun Kumar Singh & Co. Rajiv Ranjan & P. Puneet & Co. M. Dalmia & Co. Subhas Kumar & S.N. Kapur & CMS Date of Establishment of Firm 3 01.04.192 02.01.1988.09.1996.12.1996 2.02.00 18.0.198 1.06.1999 2.03.09 22.12.09 01.0.1949 14.04.198 21.0.1991 19.03.1994 01.01.1996 01.12.03 06.04. 01.11.1980 0.06.00 List of Qualified CA firms as per RFP Criteria General Relevent Head /Branch Assigned Key Experience of Experience of Office in Bihar Staff Firm(Tech 2) ( Firm ( marks) ( Marks) CA 60 Marks 4 6 0 4 1 0 0 0 49 49 2 4 43 43 43 43 4 46 46 Total Technical Score Rank 8 9 8 42 8 43 8 44 8 4 8 46 84 4 84 84 49 84 0 83 1 83 2 83 3 83 4 83 83 6 82 81 8 81 9

SI.No. 1 60 61 62 63 64 6 List of Qualified CA firms as per RFP Criteria Date of General Relevent Head /Branch Assigned Key Firm Name Establishment of Experience of Experience of Office in Bihar Staff Firm Firm(Tech 2) ( Firm ( marks) ( Marks) CA (60 Marks) 3 4 6 2 Sanjay Jagannath & 03.03.03 41 Shrawan Rungta & 31.12.04 41 Co. 04.12.1991 40 U.S. Prasad & Co. R R Shrivastava & 28.11.01 38 M.K. Mishra & 1.0.08 1 41 Dutta P. Kumar & 23.04.1996 40 Total Technical Score 8 (V) Rank 81 60 81 61 80 9 62 8 63 6 64 6