A draft report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has objected to the quality of materials being used in the construction of the Signature Bridge in the Capital.
The report was wary of the standard of pre-fabricated components that were being produced in China. The draft report has been sent to the Delhi Government for its comments.
The CAG has noted that quality aspect was compromised as fabrication was being done in China and the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Corporation limited (DTTDC) had no mechanism to ensure quality control of the material and work being done there. The national auditor has also blamed the executing agency for escalating cost of the bridge from `459 crore in 2005 to `1,131 crore in 2010 due to delay in finalising the modified design of the project.
The report of CAG further states that it was the primary responsibility of the DTTDC to ensure quality of the material being used in the bridge was uniform but the DTTDC has no mechanism of its own to ascertain that. According to CAG, DTTDC is silent on the purchase of steel in China.
A Chinese company, Jiangsu Zhongtai Steel Structure Co ltd, a sub-contractor of Bridge Contractor Gammon-Constutora-Tensacciai JV, has been given the task of fabricating the 15,000 tonne steel pylon and deck girders.
The DTTDC top brass were quick to counter the questions raised over the quality of material and construction. They say that the audit had wrongly inferred that only Indian workshops were to be engaged for fabrication work and added that for quality control, a firm had been deployed by the contractor to test the material and the fabrication work in China. That firm, officials said, reports directly to DTTDC.
But the reply failed to cut ice with the CAG: “The reply is not acceptable. It is clear that the contractor has proposed the name of a Chinese firm and that was accepted by the consultant who is a private entity. And since the quality control firm was appointed by the Chinese contractor itself, it establishes an employer-employee relationship between the two and the fairness of the quality control process cannot be ensured.”
On the cost escalation, the report states the DTTDC had revised the estimate six times between May 2005 and October 2009 and took almost six years to award the work. Delay in taking decision by Delhi Government also contributed to the escalation in the estimated cost of the project as it rejected revised preliminary estimates for `993.11 crore in May 2007 when quoted amount was `845.97 crore only. But it had to approve the cost of `1,131 crore in February 2010 for the same project. The failure of DTTDC to manage the events increased the estimated cost of the project from `459 crore in March to more than double at `1,131 crore in February 2010 (an increase of `672 crore). DTTDC in its reply has stated (January 2012) that cost escalation was predominantly due to increase in prices of material and foreign exchange.