Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the project starting date as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104 (a).
It is not clear how the DOE has validated the project starting date (19 January 2007, the technical design contract) given that the investment analysis spreadsheet has indicated some expenditure (96.31 Bil VND) in 2006. In doing so, please also provide the information on the dates of all the documents which have been reviewed to validate the project starting date.

2: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the actions taken to secure the CDM status between the project starting date and the start of validation as per EB 62 Annex 13 paragraph 6(b) and 7.
It is not clear: (i) which company signed the Collaboration Agreement with Project Owner as CDM advisers on 13/11/2008 (page 18 of the PDD);
(ii) what are the outputs of the CDM advisory services given that several CDM consultant were involved in the project activity. In doing so, please explain in details on the output of each CDM advisory service.

3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
(i) The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the suitability of the discounting rate (0.1537, 0.1477, 0.1417, and 0.1313) given that they are not consistent with the maximum commercial lending rate (12.375%) which was used as the benchmark at the time of investment decision. In doing so, please also explain when the investment decision was made and explain the availability and validity of the benchmark (or discounting rate) at the time of investment decision.
(ii) The unit investment cost mentioned in page 133 of the validation report (17,399 million VND without VAT and 19,515 million VND with VAT) are not consistent with the value presented in page 134 of the validation report (16,051 million VND).
(iii) The DOE has explained that the tariff of the project activity is similar to those of registered projects, however the tariffs applied in other registered projects were not provided. In doing so, please provide the information on the tariffs of other projects which were used for cross-checking.
(iv) It is not clear how the DOE has validated that O&M cost is reasonable based on DOE's experiences for other projects validated (page 138 of the validation report).