My question is this: Is this something new? A surprise?
If it is NOT a surprise, then has anything happened over the decades
to hold the responsible accountable?
If not why? Is it because of a moral collapse of the people of Assam,
the intelligentsia? Or is it because there is no functioning system,
apparatus, tools --- that could be used by the people to demand and
exact accountability?
If there is no such institution of democratic governance that the
people can use to hold the responsible accountable, then should the
people not rise to CHANGE things, to reform the system dramatically?
And if such an effort is NOT led by the intelligentsia, like the
people in this forum, then WHO would?
Of course we know the answer, don't we? The insurgency is not
something that fell from the sky, it was a RESULT of the dereliction
of citizenship duties by its most privileged, those who have/had the
powers, the resources, and supposedly are the leaders of society.
And they are the ones who continue to cry, and call their fellow
Assamese morally bankrupt, coward,lazy and corrupt!
What nerve, what gall!
cm
Undue financial aid to the
contractor, excess payment
CAG report: Irregularities galore in PWD
By a Staff Reporter
GUWAHATI, AUG 17: The CAG's report for the year ending March 31,
2004 has found several gross irregularities in the PWD department.
The report exposes how the department's irresponsible action caused
huge loss to the government to the tune of many crores of rupees.
Delayed action, failure to comply with government instruction, favour
shown to contractors, fixation of different rates for identical
items which smacks of favouritism, non-invocation of penal clause
etc. have resulted in such huge loss. We bring to the readers'
notice a few cases of such irregularities committed by the
department pointing to serious mismanagement in the department. We
are quoting verbatim from the CAG's report.
Undue financial aid to the contractor and extra expenditure
[Injudicious decision of the department to include forest royalty in
the analysed rate of earthwork led to undue financial benefit of Rs
22.50 lakh to the contractor besides failure of the department to
comply with the instructions while awarding the work to the
contractor resulted in an extra expenditure of Rs 20.10 lakh.]
The work of Improvement of Singimari-Bongsar-Sualkuchi Road under
Central Road Fund of Ministry of Surface Transport (MOST) for
2001-02 was administratively approved (June 2002) for Rs 6.96 crore
and was awarded (June 2002) to a contractor at the tender value of
Rs 6.73 crore (4 per cent above the APWD Schedule of Rates 2000-01)
with the stipulated date of completion as June 2003. The physical
progress of the work up to March 2004 was 95 per cent and a total
amount of Rs 5.08 crore was paid to the contractor against the
measured work valued at Rs 6.05 crore.
Test-check (November 2003) of records of the Executive Engineer
(EE), Guwahati Roads Division revealed that: The Chief Engineer (CE)
PWD (Roads) allowed rate of Rs 97.35 per cubic metre for earthwork
with imported soil from private land within a distance of 3
kilometre including land compensation as per Assam PWD Schedule of
Rates, 2000-01 and in addition paid Rs 22.50 lakh to the contractor
towards Forest Royalty (FR) @ Rs 8.00 per cubic meter on 256006 cum
of earth work executed. The payment of Forest Royalty on soil
collected from private land was in contravention of Government
(Forest Department) order of June 1992 and thus resulted in excess
payment of Rs 22.50 lakh as detailed in Appendix-XXX.
Against the analysed rate of the item "Construction of Water Bound
Macadam (WBM)" the rates of collection of 63-45 mm size metal and
53-22.4 mm size metal from quarry were taken as Rs 383.75 per cum
and Rs 390.25 per cum (rate for machine broken metal) instead of Rs
335.65 and Rs 353.60 (rate for hand broken metal) though as per
approved estimate WBM was to be executed with hand broken metals.
Moreover, as per corrigendum issued by the CE in October 2001 on the
Schedule of Rates (SOR) 2000-01, the labour rate for WBM and the
carriage rates for stone metals were reduced with effect from
October 2001. However, this aspect was not taken into account while
awarding the work in June 2002. This had resulted in an extra
expenditure of Rs 20.10 lakh as detailed in Appendix-XXXI.
Thus, irregular payment of forest royalty on collection of soil from
private land for use on earthwork and non-adherence to the
instructions contained in the corrigendum on SOR 2000-01 issued by
the Chief Engineer (CE) resulted in an excess payment of Rs 22.50
lakh and an extra expenditure of Rs 20.10 lakh.
The matter was reported to Government in May 2004; their replies had
not been received (October 2004).
Extra financial burden and excess payment
[Delay of over two years in taking up of a road work in Guwahati by
the contractor due to non-availability of store materials and
non-finalization of approved stone quarries by the Chief Engineer
led to extra expenditure of Rs 2.85 crore which included excess
payment of Rs 1.87 crore to the contractor.]
Government of Assam Public Works Department (PWD) administratively
approved the work "Improvement of Guwahati-Shillong (GS) Road from
Ulubari to Ganeshguri Chariali including construction of drain cum
footpath with culvert etc." in two phases for Rs 4.54 crore during
March 1994 (Rs 2.13 crore) and January 1995 (Rs 2.41 crore). The CE,
PWD (Roads) awarded (May 1996) the work to a contractor at a tender
value of Rs 4.52 crore (with a premium of 26.97 per cent above PWD
Schedule of Rates (SOR) of 1990-91) and stipulated the completion of
the work by May 1997.
Test-check (May 2003) of records of the Executive Engineer (EE),
Guwahati City Division No.1 revealed that the contractor could not
start the work due to non-availability of stock material with the
department and due to his inability to collect stone materials from
quarries situated in the state of Meghalaya because of ban by
Government of Meghalaya on collection of stone materials etc. The
contractor had started the work in December 1998 and demanded (date
not on record) enhancement of rates. Based on the recommendations
(January 1999) of the tender committee of the department, the CE
allowed (March 1999) price enhancement of 90 per cent over SOR
1990-91 to the contractor and allowed him to collect stone materials
from equidistant local quarries of Assam. The CE also revised the
estimate for the work incorporating some new items for Rs 12.15
crore which was approved by the Government in October 2000. As of
March 2004, the physical progress of the work was 100 per cent and
the division paid Rs 8.96 crore to the contractor against the
measured value of work for Rs 9.50 crore (up to seventh running
account bill).
Thus due to delay of the department for a period of over two years
in finalising alternative stone quarries at equidistant locations
within the State with consequential grant of price escalation from
26.97 per cent to 90 per cent over SOR, there was extra financial
burden of Rs 2.85 crore.
Further scrutiny revealed that the EE made an excess payment of Rs
1.87 crore to the contractor due to allowing of incorrect and higher
analysed rates for scheduled items as well as payment of
inadmissible items of carriage as given under:
The EE paid the contractor's bills by allowing higher analysed rates
of completed items with cement, brick, stone materials etc., than
those of SOR 1990-91. This had resulted in an excess payment of Rs
1.08 crore to the contractor as given in Appendix-XXXII.
According to agreement, rates for all items of works were for
completed and finished items. In violation of the agreed terms, the
division paid Rs 78.57 lakh (Rs 41.35 lakh + 90 per cent above) to
the contractor towards carriage charge of charge of boulders,
metals, chips, gravel earth etc., from quarry including loading and
unloading and stocking in measurable stacks. This resulted in
further excess payment of Rs 78.57 lakh.
The matter was reported to Government in May 2004; their replies had
not been received (October 2004).
Avoidable excess expenditure due to non-fixation of uniform rates
for different bridge works with the same specification
[Because of the failure of the Chief Engineer PWD (Roads) to adopt
uniform standards in fixation of rates for identical items of bridge
works the Deportment incurred avoidable excess expenditure of Rs
73.61 lakh]
The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) conveyed
(February 2000) their administrative approval to Chief Engineer
(CE), City Works, Guwahati for construction of six RCC bridges over
River Bharalu under Guwahati Metropolitan Storm Drainage Improvement
Programme at an estimated cost of Rs 4.36 crore. The work was to be
completed with loan assistance from the Housing and Urban
Development Corporation (HUDCO). The CE awarded (March 2000) the
civil works of the six bridges to six different contractors at a
total tender value of Rs 3.51 crore with the stipulation for
completion of all the bridges by December 2000. The tendered value
of the works was subsequently (date not available) enhanced to Rs
4.11 crore. As of March 2004, an expenditure of Rs 3.83 crore was
incurred against six bridges of which work on one bridge was in
progress and the other works were completed.
Test-check (May 2003) of records of the EE, Guwahati City I Division
revealed that the CE prepared estimates for different bridges on the
basis of the rates quoted by the contractors. On scrutiny of tender
documents it was noticed that the CE had allowed different rates to
different contractors for the same item of bridgework with same
specification without any explanation on records.
Thus, due to irregular allowance of differential rates to different
contractors for identical works without adopting any standard rate
by the CE, the Guwahati City Division-I incurred an avoidable excess
expenditure of Rs 73.61 lakh compared to the lowest rate quoted for
different items by the different contractors as detailed in
Appendix-XXXIII.
The matter was reported to Government in May 2004; their replies had
not been received (October 2004).
Unproductive expenditure and undue financial benefit
[Failure of the Department to construct approaches to a newly
constructed bridge due to land acquisition problems rendered Rs 6.70
crore spent on construction of that bridge unproductive besides,
allowing undue financial benefit of Rs 3.49 crore to a firm due to
non-invoking of penal clause]
In January 1989, the Additional Chief Engineer (ACE), PWD (Roads)
awarded the work of construction of a RCC bridge (Length 251.23
meters) over river Kollong at Kajolimukh to a construction firm 'X'
at a lump sum tender value of Rs 1.92 crore with stipulation to
complete the work by July 1991. The firm could not complete the work
till February 1992 and went for arbitration (April 1992) in the
Court against the department's notice (March 1992) for rescinding
the work order with invoking clause 19(c)62 of contract agreement
due to delay in completion. The department had paid (June 1992) Rs
33.76 lakh to the firm 'X' being the value of work done by it and in
August 1996, rescinded its work order in terms of arbitration award.
Subsequently, in November 1997, the Chief Engineer (CE) allotted the
balance work to a second construction firm 'Y' at the lump sum
tender value of Rs 5.07 crore with the stipulation to complete the
work by November 1999. The CE enhanced (June 2002) the tender value
of the bridge proper to Rs 7.61 crore with inclusion of some
supplementary items of work.
Test-check (October 2003) of records of the Executive Engineer,
Guwahati City Division-III (erstwhile Deputy Project Superintendent,
Brahmaputra Bridge Approach Construction Division) and information
collected subsequently revealed that:
The firm 'Y' completed the work of the bridge proper in October
2002, which was after three years from the stipulated date of
completion. The division paid Rs 6.36 crore to the firm 'Y' up to
March 2004 till which time the bridge could not be opend to
vehicular traffic due to non-completion of its approaches owing to
non-payment of land compensation in full against the land acquired
for the approaches.
Thus, due to taking up the construction of the bridge and its
approaches without proper land acquisition and settlement of land
compensation the expenditure of Rs 6.70 crore (Rs 0.34 crore + Rs
6.36 crore) on construction of bridge turned unproductive.
The department while rescinding work order of firm 'X' in terms of
clause 19(c) and 68.3.1 (c) of contract agreement in August 1996,
did not impose penalty on it under clause 19(c) despite the fact
that the court verdict was in favour of the department. Consequently,
the department had to unjustifiably bear the burden of additional
expenditure of Rs 3.49 crore which provided undue financial benefit
of Rs 3.49 crore to the firm 'X'
The matter was reported to Government in July 2004; their replies
had not been received (October 2004).
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
