Report

Audit Objective 1: Whether sound system of planning for designing, preparing estimate is in place and being
followed to achieve the efficiency of operation.
Sub-Audit Objective 1.1: Whether Annual Works Plan/Long Term Roll on Plan (AWP)/(LTRoWP) are
technically sound and as per user’s requirement?
Case I : Unrealistic preparation of Annual Works Programme.
Annual Works Plan (AWP) is the basic plan document containing details of works to be executed during the
year with regard to resources and units held under Projects. Targets for works to be executed by BRO are
reflected in the AWP approved by the Ministry which is carved out of the Long-Term Plan of the Army and
the perspective plan of the client organization. AWP is required to be prepared in advance on realistic
planning of works with respect to available resources and not based on the Annual Procurement Plan (APP).
Demands for grants and budgetary allocations are to be made based on the AWP. AWP is prepared by the
DGBR between Dec to Jan each year and to be approved by the BRDB (now Ministry of Defence (B/R))
before the commencement of the financial year.
During scrutiny of BE folder for the year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, it came to notice that CE, Project
Shivalik has planned the targets below departmental capability which ranges from -15% to -85% (during
2018-19), -12.63% to -93.64% (during 2019-20) and -60.20% to -96.93% (during 2020-21). The details are
shown in Appx-A. It is also noticed that CE is holding surplus units for execution of departmental works in
respect of last three years as shown in Appx-B.
It is further noticed from analysis of requirement vs holding of V/E/P that units under CE are holding surplus
V/E/P for the period 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as shown in Appx-C.
A comparison was carried out between BE/RE targets planned and targets fixed and it was noticed that targets
actually planned were on the lower side. This has resulted in the underutilization of available resources i.e.
manpower and V/E/P. Due to the non-transfer of V/E/P and manpower to other projects, Govt. has incurred
expenditure on idle resources. Reasons for not planning targets as per departmental capability may please be
intimated to audit.
For better appreciation of the case, the following information may please be furnished to audit: -
1. The date on which BE/ RE were forwarded to DGBR for approval and the date on which DGBR
approved the BE/ RE.
2. Details of Task Force wise Approved Targets vs Final Achievement reported by work section may
be bifurcated for last 03 years i.e. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as under:-
Approved Targets Final Achievement

 In Departmenta Supply Execution Departmental Supply Execution
l Contract Contract Contract Contract
Permanent Works, Forest Clearance and Land Acquisition payment may also be segregated.
3. Task Force wise requirement of V/E/P and Units as per final target achievement (Departmental
works) may be worked out for last 03 years i.e. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 and results be
intimated to audit.
4. List of actual holding of V/E/P as per Annual Census Report of 21 and 36 BRTF for last 03 years
i.e. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.
5. As per AWP 2018-19, the requirement of HMP, Paver finishers and Road Rollers are shown as
deficient, whereas, as per the utilization report, these equipment were underutilized as per norms. It
is due to the wrong calculation of resources requirement of these eqpt in AWP 2018-19. Since the
BC 4 cm thick work on Road Ghastoli-Rattakona was considered under departmental execution
with supply material though the work has been executed under EPC mode. This shows that the
resources have not been considered correctly while preparing the AWP. Reasons for showing these
Eqpt as deficient at the time when the same are underutilized by the units may be intimated to audit.
6. Details of payment made in respect of excess resources/ units held against final achievement for
each Task Force.
Reply :
(i) The date of submission of RE-BE by this Project and the date on which HQ DGBR has
approved the same are appended below:-
Year Date of forwarding Date of approval by DGBR
AWP (BE) 2018-19 10 Sep 2017 15 May 2018
AWP (BE) 2019-20 02 Jul 2019 13 Feb 2019
AWP (BE) 2020-21 30 Apr 2019 29 Jan 2020
(ii) Details of Task Force wise approved targets vs final achievements reported for last three
years are as under :-
Approved Targets vs Final achievement for the year 2018-19
Items of work Approved Targets Total Final achievements Total

Tgts achvt
Departmental Supply Execution Department Supply Executi
Contract Contract al Contract on
Contrac
t
21 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt
cl-9) 35.23 - 2.50 37.73 27.58 - 2.50 30.08
Surf (eqvt
cl-9) 8.00 114.49 4.60 127.09 8.00 87.04 4.60 99.64
Pmt works 8.4

(Cr) 13.23 98.65 174.76 286.64 43.64 8.74 0 60.78
Maj bridges 64.7

(mtr) - 4 55.00 119.74 - 26.99 10.00 36.99
*LA/FC payment -Nil
36 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt 75.0

cl-9) 18.65 - 9.00 27.65 6.92 - 5 81.97
Surf (eqvt 22.9 20.0

cl-9) 3.51 9 64.96 91.46 3.51 22.99 3 46.53
Pmt works 105.

(Cr) 5.70 18.84 1053.13 1077.67 13.64 3.16 45 122.25*
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 53.93 - 53.93 - 40.58 - 40.58
*incl
LA/FC
payment of
Rs 5.55 Cr

Tgts achvt
Contrac
t
21 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt
cl-9) 31.89 - 0.50 32.39 30.11 - 26.39 56.50
Surf (eqvt
cl-9) 3.34 86.47 25.59 115.40 3.34 87.08 25.59 116.01
Pmt works
(Cr) 8.19 15.66 203.75 227.60 7.56 74.23 10.14 91.93*
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 5.41 163.59 169.00 - 5.41 103.59 109.00
*incl LA/FC payment of Rs 31.35 Cr
36 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt
cl-9) 6.85 - 8.09 14.94 24.13 - 163.48 187.61
Surf (eqvt 2.2

cl-9) - 7 4.20 6.47 17.61 2.27 119.71 139.59
Pmt works 55 251.

(Cr) 1.78 4.02 4 559.57 38.50 8.21 40 298.11*
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 26.60 19.00 45.60 - 37.60 88.77 126.37
Tunnel - - - - - - 212.16 212.16
*incl
LA/FC
payment of
Rs 35.26 Cr

Tgts achvt
Contrac
t
21 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt
cl-9) 22.56 - 62.36 84.92 22.45 - 33.94 56.39
Surf (eqvt
cl-9) 1.54 26.36 103.86 131.76 41.90 26.36 67.94 136.20
Pmt works
(Cr) 12.67 25.97 188.78 227.42 33.96 8.48 135.27 177.71*
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 72.00 377.81 449.81 - 45.54 45.56 91.1
120.0
Tunnel (mtr) - - 0 120.00 - - - -
*incl
LA/FC
payment of
Rs 0.18 Cr
36 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt 36.4

cl-9) 12.19 - 142.44 154.63 8.58 - 8 45.06
Surf (eqvt 4.0

cl-9) - 0 248.89 252.89 12.10 2.88 302.89 317.87
Pmt works
(Cr) 3.00 6.51 307.13 316.64 36.96 17.40 216.69 271.05*
Maj bridges
(mtr) 0.00 26.97 181.20 208.17 1.63 42.30 49.94 93.87
300.0
Tunnel (mtr) - - 0 300.00 - - 227.84 227.84
*incl
LA/FC
payment of
Rs 1.43 Cr
(iii) Requirement of resources worked out based on the targets for the last three years for
the Project has already been provided to Audit authority in soft as well as hard copies.
(iv) List of actual holding of V/E/P as per Annual Census Report. For last three years is
enclosed.
(v) Requirement of V/E/P is calculated at planning stage based on AWP targets and
deficiency/surplus is projected after considering the holding of eqpts. Utilization of the
V/E/P is reported based on the actual use.
(vi) No excess payment has been made in respect of excess resources /units held against
final achievement for each Task Force.However the the final decision is taken by the HQ
DGBR for such resources/units.
Case II: Unrealistic preparation of Annual Works Programme.
In continuation to Observation List no. 16 dt 12.07.2021, it is seen during scrutiny of documents pertaining to
E-4 section of Chief Engineer (P) Shivalik that the following 2 nd Line Vehicle/ Plant/ Equipment have been
received during the last three years by units under CE: -
Supply Order No. and Make Date of

Sr/No BA/EM No. Remarks
Date and Type Receipt
1 19E-73988 75 RCC
2 19E-73989 75 RCC
3 GEMC- Tata 19E-73990 75 RCC

511687754109223 dt 09 Tipper 09 Jan 2020
4 Oct 2019 1212 19E-73991 75 RCC
5 19E-73992 75 RCC
6 19E-73993 75 RCC
7 CH-2753306 123 RCC
8 GEMC- CH-2753307 66 RCC

JCB JS-
511687709852549 dt 31 27 Feb 2021
205
9 Aug 2020 CH-2753308 123 RCC
10 CH-2753309 123 RCC
Further,a comparison was carried out between demand projected in BE and vehicles received for the last three
years i.e. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, details of which are as under: -
Veh / Project demand Demand accepted by Dte Item Received by Unit

Se
Plant
r
/ 2018 2019 2020- 2018- 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
No
Eqpt -19 -20 21 19 -20 -21 -19 -20 -21
Tata
1 Tippe - - - - - - - 6 -
r
2 JCB - - - - - - - - 4
It can be seen from the above that no vehicle demand has been projected through BE by CE (P) Shivalik to
higher HQ for the last three years for ibid vehicles. However, the same has been procured by HQ DGBR
without any requirement. The procurement of vehicles without requirement needs justification.
Reply :
In response to the O.L. No. 31 dt 24 Jul 2021, it is submitted that although there was no demand projected for
Tata Tippers and JCB JS-205 in AWP 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020- 21, 06 Nos Tata Tippers and 04 Nos
JCB JS-205 excavators were released to this Project by HQ DGBR keeping in view the high altitude terrain
where the existing V/E/P are of old vintage, Chardham Yatra, Slide Clearance and Disaster Management.
It is confirmed that the Tata Tpr 1212 and JCB JS-205 where received by this HQ.
The said supply order was placed by HQ DGBR through Gem looking at the work load and deficiency of Veh &
Plant held with HQ CE (P) Shivalik and analysis by them it was not directly linked to vehicle demand by
planning section.
Since the work load increases/decreases will approval of works every year. There would be no loss to the state
as the eqpt will be utilized within the project or can be transferred to other project within the BRO.
Case III: Non-achievement of the targets (State-24)
During audit, it is observed that the designed capacity to execute the works under both the BRTFs
under CE and the work actually executed during the year 2018-19 to 2020-21 is as under: -
21 BRTF
% Diff in
FY Type of work Target Achievement Achievement of
Target
Agency Works
2018-19 Formation Cl-9 (Kms) 34.63 30.68 11%
Surfacing Cl-9 (Kms) 118.52 99.64 16%
Pmt Works (Rs Crs) 235.56 52.38 78%
Maj Brs (Mtr) 119.74 36.99 69%
Resurf Cl-9 (Kms) 35.16 16.25 54%
In Terms of Financial (Rs in Crs) 447.15 154.27 65%
2019-20 Formation Cl-9 (Kms) 31.89 30.61 4%
Surfacing Cl-9 (Kms) 121.40 116.01 4%
Maj BrsMtr (Kms) 167.50 109.00 35%
Resurf Cl-9 (Kms) 22.71 19.54 14%
2020-21 Formation Cl-9 (Kms) 77.55 41.32 47%
Pmt Works (Rs Crs) 91.35 40.51 56%
Maj Brs (Mtr) 330.69 141.81 57%
EPC Works
2019-20 Pmt Works (Rs Crs) 60.000 6.72 89%
2020-21 Formation Cl-9 (Kms) 34.360 14.661 57%
Surfacing Cl-9 (Kms) 60.000 29.882 50%
Pmt Works (Rs Crs) 140.046 131.5 6%
Maj Brs (Mtr) 120.000 5.4 96%
36 BRTF
Target Achievement year 18-19
Srl Items of work A/U Approved BE TGT 2018- Achievement during year % Achievement
No. 19 up to 31 Mar 2019
Chardham Other than Chardham Other than Chardham Other than

Chardham Chardham Chardham
1. Formation Eqvt- 14.96 82.74 6.92 46.25
Cl-09
2. Surfacing Eqvt- 44.48 20.027 36.89 1.56
Cl-09
3. Pmt works Lakh 107607.84 105.55 1679.83 104.99
4. Maj Pmt Bridges Mtr 53.93 - 40.58 75.25
5. Resurfacing Cl-09 37.31 - 3.60 9.65
6. Tunnel Mtr - 4.822 - -
No. 20 up to 31 Mar 2020

1. Formation Eqvt- 165 10.26 155.39 32.22 94.18 314.05
Cl-09
2. Surfacing Eqvt- 120 8.17 108.36 31.21 90.30 382.00
Cl-09
3. Pmt works Lakh 195.66 1239.71 191.37 4671.89 97.81 376.85
4. Maj Pmt Bridges Mtr 60 45.60 48.50 77.87 80.83 170.76
5. Resurfacing Cl-09 - 45.52 - 39.095 - 85.89
6. Tunnel Mtr 180 - 212.16 - 117.87 -
No. 21 up to 31 Mar 2021

1. Formation Eqvt- 119.43 32 36.48 8.58 30.54 26.81
Cl-09
2. Surfacing Eqvt- 227.63 65.50 260.63 57.24 114.50 87.39
Cl-09
3. Pmt works Lakh 28700.10 2442.06 6500.53 5812.65 65.53 238.21
4. Maj Pmt Bridges Mtr 135 98.17 29.02 64.85 21.50 66.05
5. Resurfacing Cl-09 - 27.795 - 22.56 - 81.16
6. Tunnel Mtr 300 - 223.02 - 74.34
The details of targets approved vis-à-vis achievement provided by CE during for the last 03
years were as under: -
Year Fmn (Km Cl-9) Surf (Km Cl-9) Pmt (Rs Cr) Maj Br (Mtr) Resurf (Km Cl-
9)
Tgt Achvt Tgt Achvt Tgt Achvt Tgt Achvt Tgt Achvt
2018- 112.0 112.05 188.06 156.6 150.10 183.13 90.67 90.77 19.85 19.85
19 9 0
2019- 200.5 244.11 186.57 255.6 451.54 390.05 224.1 235.37 65.06 58.63
20 5 0 0
2020- 257.0 101.45 393.74 454.0 544.92 448.76 638.8 240.62 22.56 22.56
21 0 7 6
Following comments are offered in audit:
(i) Achievement in execution of works is as short as 96% from the BE target. Specific reasons for
the shortfall may be intimated to audit.
(ii) Since AWP is prepared after taking into account holding of manpower/vehicle/plant/eqpt,
local climatic condition, etc., therefore, audit is of the view that manpower/vehicle/plant/eqpt
was under-utilised. Extent of under-utilisation of manpower/vehicle/plant/eqpt may be worked
out and results thereof may be intimated to audit.
In this connection following information may please be furnished to audit: -

1. The target and achievement in respect of EPC for last 03 years for both BRTFs may please
be furnished as per below format: -
FY Type of work Target Achievement % Diff in

Achievement of Target
2. The target and achievement in respect of EPC for last 03 years for both BRTFs may please be furnished as
per below format: -
F Typ Target Achievement % Diff in Achievement

Y e of of Target
wor Dep Supply Executio Dep Supply Executio Dep Supply Executio
k t Contra n t Contra n t Contra n
ct Contrac ct Contrac ct Contrac
t t t
3. There is a mismatch between the details obtained from chief engineer and both the TFs. The same may
please be reconciled and furnished to audit.
Reply :
Para (i) of State-24 Shortfall in achievement is due to following reasons.
(a) Due to opending decision by Hon’ble Supreme court on works being executed under
Chardham Pariyojna.
(b) Due to poor performance of Contractors in respect of Suraithota, Subaigadhera,
Bhapkund,Girthiganga-II, Badamgad and Ghastoli bridge.
(c) Due to shortage of labour in light of Covid -19 pandemic.
(d) Due to snow and extreme cold in high Altitude area, where limited working season
available.
Para (i) of State-24 Reasons for under utilization of manpower/vehicle/plant/eqpt given in above Para (i)
(a) to (d).
Para 2 of State-24 Target Achievement in respect of GS work for last 03 years attached at Appx ‘A’.
Para 3 of State-24 Data of Tgt Vs achievement furnished as Appx ‘A’ reconciled and correct.
Sub-Audit Objective 1.2: Whether demand for grants and Budget Estimate are being prepared on the basis of
works projected in AWP?
Case I: During audit of the records of E-5 Budget Section, the following came to notice:
For the FY 2018-19, 2019-20& 2020-21 Budget Allotment was incommensurate with the AWP as shown
below:
FY Budget required as per Actual Budget Percentage Difference

AWP Allotment
2018-19 1591.96 373.33 77%
2019-20 948.53 661.82 30%
2020-21 1032.18 752.52 27%
There was a shortfall in the budget required as per AWP and the budget actually allotted. Audit is of the view
that AWP works which are prioritized as per the strategic requirement during the respective years and shortfall
in the monetary grants must have impacted the plans as well as targets fixed for achievement during the
respective years, thereby, affecting the war preparedness of the army in the border area. Please elucidate.
In this connection, the following information may be furnished:
(i) What were the specific reasons as to why the adequate/sufficient budget was not allotted/
received?
(ii) The list of works prioritized for the respective years and executed during the year.
(iii) A copy of Annual Works Plan/Long Term Roll on Works Plans.
(iv) Impact on the financial positions in r/o all jobs for the year 2018-19 to 2020-21 due to less
allotment of the fund.
(v) Details of AWP mentioning Date on which AWP was sent to DGBR for approval and Date of
approval of AWP by DGBR (in last 3 FY).
Reply :
(i) The date of submission of RE-BE by this Project and the date on which HQ DGBR has approved the same
are appended below:-
Year Date of forwarding Date of approval by DGBR
AWP (BE) 2018-19 10 Sep 2017 15 May 2018
AWP (BE) 2019-20 02 Jul 2019 13 Feb 2019
AWP (BE) 2020-21 30 Apr 2019 29 Jan 2020
(ii) Details of Task Force wise approved targets vs final achievements reported for last three years
are as under :-

Departmental Supply Execution Tgts Departmental Supply Execution achvt
Contract Contract Contract Contract
21 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt cl-
9) 35.23 - 2.50 37.73 27.58 - 2.50 30.0
Surf (eqvt cl-
9) 8.00 114.49 4.60 127.09 8.00 87.04 4.60 99.6
Pmt works
(Cr) 13.23 98.65 174.76 286.64 43.64 8.74 8.40 60.7
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 64.74 55.00 119.74 - 26.99 10.00 36.9
*LA/FC payment -Nil
36 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt cl-
9) 18.65 - 9.00 27.65 6.92 - 75.05 81.9
Surf (eqvt cl-
9) 3.51 22.99 64.96 91.46 3.51 22.99 20.03 46.5
Pmt works
(Cr) 5.70 18.84 1053.13 1077.67 13.64 3.16 105.45 122.25
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 53.93 - 53.93- 40.58 - 40.5
*incl LA/FC payment of Rs 5.55
Cr
21 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt cl-
9) 31.89 - 0.50 32.39 30.11 - 26.39 56.5
Surf (eqvt cl-
9) 3.34 86.47 25.59 115.40 3.34 87.08 25.59 116.0
Pmt works
(Cr) 8.19 15.66 203.75 227.60 7.56 74.23 10.14 91.93
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 5.41 163.59 169.00 - 5.41 103.59 109.0
*incl LA/FC payment of Rs 31.35 Cr
36 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt cl-
9) 6.85 - 8.09 14.94 24.13 - 163.48 187.6
Surf (eqvt cl-
9) - 2.27 4.20 6.47 17.61 2.27 119.71 139.5
Pmt works
(Cr) 1.78 4.02 554 559.57 38.50 8.21 251.40 298.11
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 26.60 19.00 45.60 - 37.60 88.77 126.3
Tunnel - - - - - - 212.16 212.1

*incl LA/FC payment of Rs
35.26 Cr
21 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt cl-
9) 22.56 - 62.36 84.92 22.45 - 33.94 56.3
Surf (eqvt cl-
9) 1.54 26.36 103.86 131.76 41.90 26.36 67.94 136.2
Pmt works
(Cr) 12.67 25.97 188.78 227.42 33.96 8.48 135.27 177.71
Maj bridges
(mtr) - 72.00 377.81 449.81 - 45.54 45.56 91
Tunnel (mtr) - - 120.00 120.00 - - -
Cr
36 BRTF
Fmn (eqvt cl-
9) 12.19 - 142.44 154.63 8.58 - 36.48 45.0
Surf (eqvt cl-
9) - 4.00 248.89 252.89 12.10 2.88 302.89 317.8
Pmt works
(Cr) 3.00 6.51 307.13 316.64 36.96 17.40 216.69 271.05
Maj bridges
(mtr) 0.00 26.97 181.20 208.17 1.63 42.30 49.94 93.8
Tunnel (mtr) - - 300.00 300.00 - - 227.84 227.8
Cr
(iii) Requirement of resources worked out based on the targets for the last three years for the
Project has already been provided to Audit authority in soft as well as hard copies.
(iv) List of actual holding of V/E/P as per Annual Census Report. For last three years is enclosed.
(v) Requirement of V/E/P is calculated at planning stage based on AWP targets and
deficiency/surplus is projected after considering the holding of eqpts. Utilization of the V/E/P is reported based
on the actual use.
(vi) No excess payment has been made in respect of excess resources /units held against final
achievement for each Task Force.However the the final decision is taken by the HQ DGBR for such
resources/units.
Sub-Audit Objective 1.3: Whether status of land i.e. detailed Ownership, Acquisition &Compensation along
with forest and environment clearance is ensured?
Case I: Non-acquisition of land/Forest Clearance prior to the sanction/execution of work. (Stat-4)
Land acquisition is the prime requirement of a project. In case, it is not handled properly and in time, the project
itself may get jeopardized at a later stage facing lot of litigations and complications. Land acquisition of Road
project is a time-consuming process because of civil laws & rules and involvement of numerous procedures
which vary from State to State. Moreover, litigation and different types of influences also play vital part in this
case. It is, therefore, pertinent that the process should start earnestly at the beginning of the Road Project itself
and proper liaison is kept at all levels for its expeditious finalization in time.
During test check of the records of CE (P) Shivalik it came to notice that 10 cases of Land Acquisition (LA) and
3 cases of Forest Clearance (FC) are pending under its AOR as shown below:
S.No. Name Stretch (Km) Area of Land Date of Initiation

of Road (Ha) of LA/FC Cases
LA Cases
1 Simli-Gwaldam 87.00 (Gwaldam) to 139.800 31.633 31-01-2011
(Bagoli)
2 -do- 139.800 (Bagoli) to 149.00 7.346 13-05-2016
(Simli)
3 Helong-Marwari By-pass 468.30 (Helong) to 489.350 67.316 -
(Marwari)
4 Helong-Joshimath-Marwari 468.30 to 480.95 1.08 -
5 Rishikesh-Joshimath-Mana 509.00 (Pandukeshwar) to 6.251 23-06-2006
528.00 (Mana)
6 Marwari Land Marwari (km 486.00) 2.301 08-09-2012
7 Badrinath-Bamni Land Badrinath Mess (Bamani) km 0.529 10-01-2020
521.00 on Rishikesh-
Joshimath-Mana
8 Joshimath-Malari 0.00 (Joshimath) to 31.00 37.20 29-11-2002
(Suraithota)
9 -do- 31.00 (Suraithota) to 62.669 47.50 05-09-2015
(Malari)
10 Kurkuti-Ghamsali-Niti 0.00 (Kurkuti) to 20.00 39.757 27-12-2018
(Ghamsali)
FC Cases
1 R-J-M (Helong-Joshimath- 480.95 to 493.60 2.379 -
Marwari Existing Road)
2 Geldung-Niti Pass 0.00 to 16.50 42.32 07-08-2012
3 Sumna-Lapthal-Topidunga 0.00 to 71.47 129.05 29-05-2014
It appears that the BRO authorities could not liaise with the civil/revenue/forest authorities to accelerate the
progress towards finalisation of the LA/FC. Therefore, non acquisition of Land and Forest Clearance in time
would require justification in audit.
In this connection, the followings information may please be furnished:-
(i) Action taken to expedite the acquisition of land and Forest Clearances.
(ii) Details of Jobs sanctioned for construction of roads on above mentioned 13 Road Sectors and its
current status.
(iii) Present position regarding pending Land Issues/Forest Cases.
Reply :
The information asked vide O. L. No. 33 dt. 28 Jul 2021 are submitted as under:-
Para A (i): Regular Liaison being made with civil authorities through DO letters,
Phone calls and personal visit to expedite the process of land
acquisition/Forest clearance.
Para A (ii): Details of jobs sanctioned and their current status is enclosed at Appx
‘A’.
Case II: Jobs sanctioned without land acquisition
As per para 4.3.7 of Technical Inpstruction No. 11, it would be advisable to obtain separate
Administrative Approval for land acquisition only so that all formalities are completed and land is taken over
before commencement of work so as to obviate any held up and time/cost over run on account of the delay.
Case I :-
It is seen from Adm Approval register that HQ Addl Dte General, BR, Sector 48C, Chandigarh vide
their letter No. 22009/ADGNW/SVK-239/SPC-109/337/E2 Estg dated 29.10.2020 conveyed the corrigendum to
Admin Approval and expenditure sanction of the Addl Dte General Boarder Roads for Approximate Estimates
for improvement/widening of Simli-Gwaldam road from Km 127.00 to Km 140.00 to double lane specifications
including surfacing works job No. 510/693. As per LPR for the month of April 2021 physical progress of job is
12.52% and financial progress is 5.02%.
It is also seen that no fund has been allotted for land acquisition for road from Km 127.00 to Km
140.00. Reasons for carrying out work without land acquisition may please be intimated to audit.
Case II :-
HQ DGBR vide letter No. 2000/AA/31/E2/Estg dated 10.10.2016 accorded sanction for construction of
55 mtr span PSC box Girder Bagoli Bridge at Km 141.28 on road Simli-Gwaldum for a sum of Rs.571.86 lakhs
and revised Adm Approval was issued for Rs.636.66 Lakhs. Drawing of substructure has been issued vide HQ
DGBR/B&T Dte letter No. 40752/Bagoli/SLK/DGBR/05/Br & Tnls Dte dated 15 Nov 2016 and further letter
No. 20021/Maj Br/Bagoli Br/31/E2 dated 22.11.16.
It is seen from HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No. 20021/Maj Br/Bagoli Br/42/E2 Br dated 6.2.2018 that no
provision for land acquisition or building compensation has been catered for while framing the Approximate
Estimates for bridge. Land acquisition has been carried under Job No. 510/691 (land acquisition and
compensation for improvement of road from CL-9 to NHDL specifications from Km 140.00 to Km 149.00) for
a sum of Rs. 532.11 lakhs and further revised to Rs. 3409.12 (dt 20.2.2020). Contract was concluded by Chief
Engineer on 10.7.2020 for construction of 55 mtr span at Km 141.280 with PSC box Girder type super
structures for a sum of Rs. 32,74,10,000/-.
It can be seen from the above that job has been sanctioned without acquisition of land and has resulted
into delay in construction of bridge. Reasons for not taking acquisition prior to sanction of bridge job may
please be intimated to audit.
For better appreciation of the case, following information may please be furnished to audit: -
i. The details of cases in which land acquisition could not be finalized but jobs were sanctioned for
roads/bridges and execution started on ground.
ii. The list of work held up/delay in completion along with details of cost over-run due to non-finalization
of land acquisition, may please be furnished to audit.
iii. Details of acquisition of land for completed/ under-progress roads under your AOR may please be
furnished in the format enclosed.
Reply:
Case No. I :- LA & FC for road sector km 127.00 tp km 110.00 of road Simly-Gwaldum : Forest clearance
(FC) for road sector from km 87.00 to km 149.00 on road Simly-Gwaldum road was already accorded vide GOI,
MEAF (FC division) F. No. 8-23/2014-FC dated 16 May 2014 . Case for LA was already initiated long back
with state Govt which was not materialized due to induction of new LA Act 2013 and carrying out of Social
Impact Assessment (SIA) etc. However, keeping in view of already obtained forest clearance and availability of
8 to 10 mtr land width as per revenue record with state PWD, sanction for widening/improvement of road sector
from Km 127.00 to Km 140.00 was accorded and the work is being exacted on ground without hindrance of
locals. LA proceedings for acquisition of private land is under process.
Case No. II :- LA & FC for Bagholi bridge: Bagholi bridge was sanctioned based on availability of FC and
initiation of LA proceedings prior to induction of prior to induction of LA Act 2013. Due to new LA act,
revenue department issued notification for acquisition of private land in 2020 after considerable delay and a bill
of LA amount including cost of private land under Bagholi villages was received vide DM Chamoli letter No.
2778/08-05/2015-16 dated 13 Jan 2020 and accordingly AE for land acquisition of private land was sanctioned
under Job No. 510/691 including LA of Bagholi bridge comes under the private land of Bagholi village.
Point No: 1 In general sanction of Approximate Estimates (AEs) is being accorded after obtaining FC and
completing LA proceeding. In certain cases where land is already in possession of BRO, AE for replacement of
bridges or improvement of road, may be sanctioned as state authority has no objection to execute the work and
LA proceedings will follow.
Case III: Non-mutation of land
During audit it was observed that in following cases although payment has been made to the Revenue/Forest
Authority but no mutation has been carried out:
S.No. Name of Road Survey/Khasra Area (In Date of Amt Deposited

No. Ha/Acre) Occupation/ with
Possession Civil/Revenue
Auth (Rs.)
1 R-U-H-L 286 0.248 Hec 1998-99 41,664/-
2 Rishikesh Dharasu 1439,1438 & 1429 0.099 Hec 2007 27,79,000/-
(NH-94)
3 -do- 2928 & 2905 3.985 Hec 2012-13 1,59,43,985/-
4 Dharsu-Gangotri 1028 0.021 Hec 1979-80 82,875/-
(NH-108)
5 -do- 1426/2m 0.040 Hec 2013 2,25,400/-
6 -do- 407 4.649 Hec 2011-12 15,91,50,600/-
7 -do- 256/1 e0 1.286 Hec - 1,10,34,000/-
257/1 e0 0.310 Hec
328/1 e0 0.410 Hec
Total 18,92,57,524/-
Audit is of the view that even after payment of acquisition cost of the land, lands as shown above could not be
mutated in the favour/name of BRO though a long period has lapsed. Audit is also of view that the BRO might
have created assets worth crores on these sites/lands and since mutations have not been carried out, owners of
the lands might claim their occupancy on the sites and would led to BRO assets worthless.
In this connection the following information may kindly be furnished:-
i. Specific reasons as to the delay in transfer of the title of land in favour of BRO.
ii. Complete details of the jobs/works sanctioned/executed or to be sanctioned/executed upon the
above pockets of land after taking possession/occupation thereof.
iii. Present position regarding determination of the title of the land.
iv. Details of payments deposited with revenue department and distribution thereof to affected
individuals/parties along with Job No.
Factual accuracy of the data/figures given in the OL may please be ascertained/verified and correct/actual
data/figures be furnished.
Audit objective 2: Whether the works are commenced and completed within stipulated time.
Audit sub objective 2.1: Whether execution of strategic Roads are given due priority?
Case I: Abnormal delay in execution of roads/bridges. (Stat-11)
A test check of the records of E2 Section/E8 Section and the data/ information furnished to audit revealed the
following delays in works:-
S.No. Delay Period No. of Works
21 BRTF 36 BRTF
1 6 months to less than 1 year 08 01
2 1 year to less than 2 years 15 02
3 2 years to less than 3 years 10 01
6 10 years and more 01 04
Delay in bridge work cases:
Audit is of the view that reasons brought out by the BRO for the delay in completion of Roads/Bridges do not
appear to be convincing as the limited working season is taken into account in deciding PDC and known to
contractors and TF in advance.
Therefore, exact reasons, such as non-carrying out Hydraulic tests, Soil investigation, design and drawing
approval from DGBR etc., for the delay in completion of bridges/roads, Job wise, may be furnished to audit.
For better appreciation of the case copy of the Statement of Case for extension of PDC for each case may also
be furnished to audit.
The factual accuracy of the data/figures given in the observation may be ascertained/verified and correct/actual
Reply: Reply attached as Appx
Case II : Abnormal Delay in completion of Suraithota Bridge.
During scrutiny of documents pertaining to E-8 section it is observed that Construction of 75 M span steel
superstructure bridge was sanctioned vide HQ DGBR vide letter No.30204/DGBR/DPK/2238/WP Dte dated 20
Nov 1998 for Rs. 303.20 lacs under Job No. 502/106 with an intermediate peer with department execution.
Later the bridge scheme was changed vide HQ DGBR letter No. 40726/Dhali/DPK/DGBR/47/Brs dated 24 Jul
2000 for construction single-span steel superstructure bridge and steel superstructure was to be executed through
execution contract. RAE was sanction for Rs.360.38 lacs vide HQ DGBR letter No.
30204/DGBR/Estg-II/DPK/6729/WP Dte dated 23 Aug 2004 with following provision:-
- Substructure (Abutments) Departmentally = 128.48 Lacs
- Super structure through Execution Contract = 231.90 Lacs
The work for design & Construction of (superstructure only) with bearings and pedestals of 75 Mtr span deck
type steel truss superstructure on existing departmentally constructed abutments at Km 31.650 on this road was
awarded to M/s Kundan Singh Prem Singh Jamnal, Rishikesh under CA No. CE (P) DPK/04/2003-04. The
stipulated date of completion of the CA was 15 Dec 2004 but the contractor could not complete the works in
time. On completing 94% Physical progress and 67.50% financial progress up to Aug 2007, the sliding bearing
was found defective after launching of superstructure. A considerable time was given to the contractor to rectify
the defects but he had not rectified the defects and finally, the CA was cancelled on 15 Oct 2009. PIP forwarded
to HQ DGBR for conclusion of risk & cost contract vide letter No. 24462/DGBR/SVK/ Suraithota Br/06/E8
dated 13 May 2010. NIT was issued by DGBR but tender action could not be finalized.
During Aug 2012, Due to heavy flood, water level increased and banks were eroded. A Tech BOO under
Shivalik Convening Order 126/2012 dated 21 Nov 2012 was convened for construction of steel structure.BOO
submitted that construction of superstructure on existing abutment was not safe due to scouring & erosion of
abutment.
Dte directed vide letter No. 40752/Suraithota/SLK/DGBR/02/B&T Dte dated 21 Mar 2017 that a Bridge is a
very costly asset and to declare a bridge unserviceable will entail huge loss to the state. Therefore, it is prudent
to deliberate and to analyze various aspects based on the software analysis results, physical analysis like NDT
test, load testing (partial) and deflection of the bridge. Availability of technical expertise to undertake the
technical consultancy was asked from three IITs namely Indian Institute of technology of Chennai, Roorkee and
Delhi, Vide letter No.80275/ARB/KS&PS/CA04/2003-04/212/E8 dated 28 Mar 2017.
Dr SR Chaudhary,Asst Professor,IIT Kanpur carried out the characterization of the bridge through vibration
measurements and numerical simulations for the development of a scheme for rehabilitation of the subject
bridge. NDT report along with the recommendation of Chief Engineer was submitted to Br Dte vide letter No
20021/Maj Br/Suraithota/KM 31.65/164/E2 Br dated 24 Feb 2018. The Br Dte vide letter No.
40757/Suraithota/SLK/DGBR/20/Brs&Tnls Dte dated 05 Apr 2018 directed for taking up a consolidated Job if
not feasible within the original Job for carrying out rehabilitation and repair to superstructure and river training
work to protect abutments before monsoon as per NDT report. Based on the report submitted by IIT Kanpur, a
fresh tender action for rehabilitation work was called by HQ CE (P) Shivalik.
Final report on condition Assessment & Development of appropriate Rehabilitation scheme for Suraithota Br at
Km 31.05 prepared by Dr Samet Roy Choudhari & Dr Prishati Choudhary of IIT Kanpur formed part of the
contract document for CA No. CE (P) SVK/11/2018-19 and details of work to be carried out as recommended in
the report are as under: -
(i) The bent plate and members near the bearing should be replaced and new elastomeric bearing
should be placed.
(ii) All joints to be thoroughly checked and should be secured by appropriate site welding or riveting
depend on the construction feasibility.
(iii) All the steel members should be painted to protect against corrosion as appropriate.
(iv) The broken area of the originally cracked portion of the abutment should be repaired with
preferably appropriate concrete mix.
(v) To secure the abutment, a diaphragm wall of about 400 mm to 600 mm should be placed in front of
the abutment raft. The depth of the diaphragm wall should be at least 3m below the bed level
around the area.
(vi) A few anchor blocks to be placed in the bank side to connect with the diaphragm wall with
preferably 32 mm or appropriate coated steel rod. In between the diaphragm and below the
abutment, high strength grout should be used to fill up and the remaining area should be filled with
mass concrete.
(vii) River training works should also be taken up around the abutment as the river course has changed
significantly.
Accordingly, Repair, Rehabilitation of substructure and Superstructure, design and construction of diaphragm
walls, other river training works and retaining walls for approaches etc for 75 M Maj Pmt bridge over
Dhauliganga at km 31.65 on Joshimath- Malari road was awarded to M/s Aero Infracon, Chandigarh, vide
letter no. 80263/Suaraithota Br/35/E8 dated 17 Jul 2018 under CA No. CE (P) Svk/11/2018-19 for Rs. 251.00
lacs.
Work order No. 01 was placed by HQ 1442 BCC vide their letter No. 8169/S-Thota /03/E8 dated 29 Aug 2018
with handing over of site to the firm on 29 Aug 2018 with date of completion of work as 28 Aug 2019 .Due to
non-completion of work and poor performance shown by the contractor even after a lapse of 16 months physical
progress achieved was 12% only. Numerous instructions and notices were served upon the contractor for
expediting the work. However, the contractor has failed to complete the work in the stipulated time.
Mismanaged work plan, less deployment of resources, non-induction of required equipment and machinery
were the reasons behind his poor performance.
In the meantime, a statement of case for cancellation of the CA No. CE (P) SVK/11/2018-19 was forwarded
duly recommended by CE to HQ ADGBR (NW) vide HQ CE (P) letter No. 80263/Suraithota Br/108/E8 dated
31 Dec 2019.
HQ ADGBR (NW) examined the proposal for cancellation in the lights of HQ DGBR policy No.
24228/DGBR/Gen/P/2458/E8 dated 15 Jan 2009 and 24228/DGBR/Policy Instr/28/E8 dated 16 Oct 2019 and
based on the contractor’s willingness to complete the work and undertaking with Time and Progress chart given
by the contractor, HQ ADGBR (NW) directed to ensure the completion of the bridge as per planned date and
intimate the position thereon vide their letter No. 82002/ADGNW/63/2019-20/SVK/16/E8 dated 13 Jan 2020. It
was added that in case the progress is not found in conformity with the plan as submitted by the contractor, the
matter may be reported for review.
During this period, time extension for the subject work up to and including 31 Mar 2021 with nil financial effect
was approved by the Accepting Officer based on the contractor’s revised T&P chart for completion of the work.
Accordingly, deviation order No. 02 dated 29 Jan 2021 was placed with date of completion on 31 Mar 2021.
The details of payments made to the contractor are tabulated as under:-
S/No. RAR Amount Paid Payment made
1 RAR-I Rs. 1933000.00 2 Dec 2018
2 RAR-II Rs. 656000.00 30 May 2019
3 RAR-III Rs. 191040.00 24 Dec 2020
4 RAR-IV Rs. 1255000.00 11 Feb 2021
It was intimated that Joshimath – Malari road being strategically important and only line of communication to
indo-china border, it was important that Suraithota Bridge be completed with dedicated resources and efforts. it
was proposed to cancel the subject CA and fresh tender to be invited on risk & cost so as to expedite and
complete the bridgework.
Due to poor performance shown by the contractor towards the work and even after lapse of 02 years 08 months,
the physical progress of work was only 20.25%. Mismanagement of work plan, non-induction of required Eqpt
and machinery and less deployment of resources were the reasons for poor performance.
A final notice was served to the contractor by accepting officer vide letter No. 80263/Suraithota Br/158/E8
dated 16 Mar 2021 and showcase notice was also issued to contractor vide letter No. 80263/Suraithota
Br/163/E8 dated 08 Apr 2021. In response,the contractor has intimated vide his letter No.
Aero/CE(P)/Shivalik/75M/Bridge/95 dated 14 Apr 2021 that due to Covid-19 and Glacier burst on 07 Feb 2021
the work could not be progressed. At presently only four skilled and four unskilled labours are deployed at site
and 10% physical progress was achieved in Jun2021 and up to dated 30.25% progress achieved.
It can be seen from above that timely decisions were not taken by the department which resulted in time and
cost overrun to the tune of Rs. 19.10 lacs. This would need justification.
1. Copy of BOO held for collection of Hydraulic data and its allied activity before conclusion of
contract.
2. Reasons for not cancelling the contract for not executing the work as per scheduled time.
3. Department has not taken timely decision after cancellation of the first contract. Reasons for
delay in timely action at different intervals.
Reply:
Copy of Tech BOO held under Shivalik Convening Order No. 126/2012 dated 21 Nov 2012 for collection
of hydraulic data and its allied activities is enclosed as Annexure-I herewith for your information.
2. Case for cancellation of Contract was forwarded to ADGBR (NW) vide HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No.
80263/Suraithota Br/175/E8 dated 22 May 2021 and a presentation was also made to ADGBR on 29 May 2021
by Offg Chief Engineer. During video conference, ADGBR (NW) stated that the cancellation of Contract is last
resort and not in any harsh. A updated information of this CA has also asked vide vide their letter
No.82002/ADGNW/SPC-13/2021-22/E8 dated 04 Jun 2021 for processing of the work on ground if the desired
progress has not achieved on ground then cancellation of Contract will be progressed. Now the Contractor was
progressed the work on ground and achieved 10% progress in the month of Jun 2021. Hence, the Contractor
progress is under watch for further action.
3. After cancellation of first Contract, Risk and Cost tender action was takenup by HQ DGBR and the
chronological order on action taken against Risk and Cost tender is enclosed at Annexure-II.
Case III : Delay in completion of Bhapkund Bridge due to wrong selection of foundation design.
During scrutiny of documents pertaining to E-8 section, it is observed that the existing road alignment
of Joshimath – Malari crosses Dhauliganga River at Km 53.00, where 140 feet TSRBB exists,as per the planned
programme, all existing bridges were to be replaced by permanent bridges confirming to Cl- R loading.
Accordingly, 85 Mtr span bridge scheme has been approved in place of the existing Bailley Bridge vide HQ
DGBR letter No 75016/Bhapkund Br/Km 53.150/J-M/54/E2 Br dated 09 Feb 2011.Adm Approval was also
issued vide DGBR letter No 30204/DGBR/Svlk/15327/WP Dte dated 24 Mar 2012 for Rs 632.56 lacs under Job
No 502/174 with the provision of execution of bridge proper through contract.
The tender action for the subject work was taken by HQ DGBR/E8 on 16 Apr 2012 and the tender
process was completed on 04 Jun 2015. DGBR approved acceptance of tender in favour of M/s Nand Lal
Tayal, 3/17, RHB Colony, Hanumangarh Jn, Rajasthan (L1), by the Chief Engineer Project Shivalik vide their
letter No. 24886/DGBR/SVK/ Bhapkund Br/xy/E8 dated 04 Jun 2015 and dated 04 Jun 2015 duly concurred by
IFA (BR) vide their Note No. IF/801/Vol.LL-XVI/R-Non-64 (14/05) dated 26 May 2015
Accordingly, the contract was concluded for design and construction of bridge under CA No CE (P)
SVK/05/2015-16 vide CE (P) Svlk letter No 80263/Bhapkund Br/145/E8 dated 30 Jun 2015 for Rs 539.00 lacs
and awarded to M/s Nand Lal Tayal, 3/17, RHB Colony Hanumangarh junction, Rajasthan. The period of
completion for CA was 24 months from the date of commencement of work given in WO.
Subsequently, Work Order No.01 dated 12 Jul 2015 was placed by OC 1442 BCC to the contractor
with the date of commencement of work on 21 July 2015 and date of completion on 20 Jan 2018.
An amendment No. 01 due to change of type of foundation from open to well and change in height of
abutment in respect of CA was approved by Accepting Officer on 05 Jun 2017. After this amendment No. 01
revised CA amount increased to Rs 681,15,385/- and the period of completion increased to 38 months instead of
30 months. Accordingly, Deviation Order No.02 dated 08 July 2017 was placed by OC 1442 BCC to the
contractor with date of completion on 20 Sep 2018.
Further an amendment No. 02 was approved by the accepting officer on 15 Oct 2019, due to a change
in the well foundation level of both side abutments. After Amendment No. 02 the total amount of CA increased
to Rs 734,46,154.00 and the date of completion of Bridgework changed from 20 Sep 2018 to 20 Aug 2020 as
per the DO No. 03 dated 17 Oct 2019.
As the Change in scope of bridge substructure work and increase in contract amount of bridge, a
Revised Adm Approval for Job No. 502/174 (RAE) was sanctioned vide CE (P) Shivalik letter No.
20000/AA/09/E2 Estg dated 29 Nov 2019 for Rs 1356.89 Lacs.
Further Accepting officer granted time extension of 180 days up to & including 20 Feb 2021. due to
COVID-19. Accordingly, Deviation Order No.04 dated 01 Sep 2020 was placed to the contractor with the date
of completion on 20 Feb 2021. The contractor has completed Physical progress 51.25% and financial progress
of 59.76% up to 31 Mar 2021.
Further, it is seen that numerous instructions and notices have been communicated to the firm for
expediting the pace of Bridgework, but the contractor has failed to increase the pace of work and has not
completed the bridgework in the stipulated time. It was intimated that Joshimath – Malari road is strategically
important and the only line of road communication to the indo-china border and it was important that
Bhapkund Bridgebe completed with dedicated resources and efforts. In view of this, it was proposed to cancel
the CAas per General Condition of 54 of IAFW-2249: 1989 Print and to invitefresh tender on risk & cost so as
to expedite and complete the bridgework.
It can be seen from the above that the work has not been completedwithin stipulated time even after a
period of 06 years from date of commencement as per Work Order No. 01 dated 21 Jul 2015.The open
foundation was provided before the finalization of the contract which was later changed to well foundation on
the basis of the same technical data collected initially. Audit is of view that technical data has not been
analyzed properly for selection of correct foundation before finalization of final bridge scheme and contract.
This has resulted in an abnormal delay in the completion of bridge and needs justification.
1. Reasons for change of type of foundation from open to well.

2. Details of technical data on the basis of which the foundation type was provided as open before
finalization of final bridge scheme and contract vis-s-vis technical data on the basis of which the
foundation design was changed to well at later stage.
Reply:
1& 2 Reason for Change of type of foundation from open to well: -
(a) Hydraulic data& TBOO for selection of suitable site for construction of subject Bridge was
submitted to HQ DGBR vide HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No. 75016/Bhapkund Br/Km 53.150/J-
M/52/E2 Br dated 05Jan 2011 (Copy enclosed at Annexure- “I”). Accordingly, the Final Bridge
Scheme has been issued by HQ DGBR/B&T under Drawing No 1597/B&T Dte/SLK/2011 sheet
No 1RR dated 27 Jan 2011(Copy enclosed at Annexure- “II”).
(b) The contract for Construction of subject bridge was concluded on 30 Jun 2015 vide HQ CE(P)
Shivalik letter No. 80263/Bhapkund Br/145/E8 dated 30 Jun 2015.
(c) The Contract was concluded after 4 & 1/2 Years from collection of hydraulic data. During this
period i.e. from 09 Feb 2011 to 30 Jun 2015, the region experienced very heavy rainfall due to
which there is considerable geological change in the terrain and bridge site. This has necessitated
revision of approved bridge scheme.
(d) In view of above, a fresh SoC along with complete details of river contour plan, cross section and
L-section duly recommended by Chief Engineer was forwarded to HQ DGBR/B&T Dte vide HQ
CE (P) letter No. 75016/Bhapkund Br/Km 53.150/JM/137/E2 dated 09 Jan 2016. The type of
foundation from open to well foundation has been changed and also approved by DGBR/B&T Dte
vide their letter No. 40752/Bhapkund/SLK/DGBR/66/Brs&TnlsDte dated 25 Jan 2016 (Copy
enclosed at Annexure- “III”).
3. Case for cancellation of Contract was forwarded to ADGBR (NW) vide HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No.
80263/BhapkundBr/446/E8 dated 22 May 2021 and a presentation was also made to ADGBR on 29 May 2021
by Offg Chief Engineer. During video conference, ADGBR (NW) stated that the cancellation of Contract is last
resort and not in any harsh. A updated information of this CA has also asked vide vide their letter
No.82002/ADGNW/SPC-13/2021-22/E8 dated 04 Jun 2021 for processing of the work on ground if the desired
progress has not achieved on ground then cancellation of Contract will be progressed. Now the Contractor was
progressed the work on ground. Hence, the Contractor progress is under watch for further action.
(a) In the ensuing years since finalization of hydraulic data especially in the year 2012-13 the region
experienced torrential rainfall. Due to this natural disaster, the mountains which have fractured rock or
laminated interlayed with debris, large number of landslides occurred. This has resulted into change in terrain
features in the entire Uttarakhand region.
(b) In particular to the bridge site there were substantial changes in the feature. Comparing
photographs taken in 2010 for hydraulic data (Plate-1) and latest photographs of the same location (Plate- 2), it
can be seen that there was a rock mass projecting in valley side as shown in Plate 1 and the same was not seen in
Plate 2. The rock face has slipped due to land slide over a passage of time. The abutment at Joshimath side
was sited on this rock face thus altering the terrain features.
(c) A joint survey with contractor was carried out for the location as per FBS and following
details have emerge:-
Joshimath Side
(a) In the Joshimath side there was a reverse slope in the hill.
(b) The bed level of nallah is 53.85 Mtrwhere as in FBS it was considered as 78.24 mtrs.
(c) Face to face distance is 79.05 mtrs.
(d) Following are the implications:-
(i) Height of foundation will increase on Joshimath side to 20-25 M.
(ii) Slope of hard rock on which foundation was placed is veryacute.
(iii)
(iv) Side, marginal widening was involved to achieve the required geometrics. But
due to change in ground profile and increase in height of abutment blasting will
be required to achieve the road geometrics. Further any blasting on site will
damage the existing bailey bridge thus disrupting traffic flow.
(v) Due to increase in height of foundation the width of abutment
(vi) will also increase.
(vii) To accommodate large size abutment and also to maintain line
(viii) of communication, approximately 13-14 Mtrs of cutting is required in hard

rock having a height of cut of 40-5- Mtrs. This will lead to unstable slope in
Joshimath side which may be dangerous to safety of bridge.
Malari Side
(a) There is a straight rock face of about 60 mrts within distance of 7 mtr from the edge of the bridge.
(b) Following are the implications if bridge is made skew keeping the location of foundation of Malari
Side as given in FBS and moving the foundation location of abutment in Joshimath side.
(i) To maintain the geometrics there will be large amount of cutting involved in hard rock that
will make the slopes unstable.
(ii) Vertical clearance will not be available for launching of bridge.
5. Considering the points given in para 11 above, the bridge is proposed to be shifted away by 5 mtrs
from Malari ide and 15 mtrs downstream in Joshimath side.
6. The Nallah profile (Plate 5) was also surveyed and photographs as showing nallah profile (Plae 6) is
enclosed. Following observation are made :-
(a) There is a difference in RL of bed level given in FBS and present ground condition table give below :-
Location FS RL (MR) EXISTING RL
Bailey Bridge 95 81.82
FBS 78.24 53.85
Proposed 39.32
(b) The difference in bed level at FBS location and proposal loction is (53.85-39.32) 14.85 mtrs.
7. The X section at revised location is given in (Plate 7) and Photographs in (Plate 8). In the place 9, the
footing arrangements is given. I can be seen that due to face profile of ground there is a requirement to offset
the footing to provide minimum ledge that is required for construction. Following are the advantages of new
revised bridge alignment :-
(a) It sill improve road geometrics (Plate 3)
(b) Height of abutment of Joshimath side will be approximately 13 mtrs and
foundation level will be almost same as given in FBS.
(c) Vertical clearance easily available for launching of steel super structure
through bridge.
(d) Stability of hard rock approaches will enhance safety of bridge for posterity.
(e) Ref profile drawing (Plate 6), Proposed founding level on Joshimath side is
About 48.61 mtrs away from water line and also the slope is gradual. Presence of large boulders in the river
bank will help in making the bridge safe from bank erosion.
8. Due to changes in ground profile of the existing site from FBS the new alignment is proposed this has
better geometrics and safer in following terms
(a) Stable slopes on approaches
(b) Abutments safe from erosion
(c) Existing Baily Bridge safe for traffic during construction.
9. Now, the contract was cancelled vide HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No. 80263/Subaigadhera Br/385 /E8
dated 20 Jul 2021 (Copy enclosed at Annxure-“II”.
Case IV: Delay in completion of Subaigadhera Bridge due to improper planning of Bridge Scheme.
During scrutiny of documents pertaining to E-8 section it is observed that the alignment of road Joshimath –
Malari crosses Subaigadhera / Nallah at Km 20.05, where 80 feet span DSBB exists. As per the planned
programme all existing bridges were to be replaced by permanent bridges confirming to Cl- 70 loading.
Accordingly, 85 Mtr span bridge was approved in place of existing Bailley Bridge vide HQ DGBR letter No.
30204/DGBR/SVLK/15297/WP dated 25 Dec 2012 for Rs. 594.14 lacs and corrigendum issued vide HQ CE (P)
Shivalik letter No. 20000/Corrigendum/AA/16/E2 Estg dated 20 Mar 2015 for Rs. 851.88 lacs.
The tender action for subject bridgework was taken by HQ DGBR on 20 Dec 2013 and the tender
process was completed on 05 Mar 2015. The DGBR approved acceptance of tender in favour of M/s Maa
Shakambhari Devi Construction Co. Gwalior (MP), by the Chief Engineer Project Shivalik vide their letter No.
24965/DGBR/SVK/Subaigadhera Br/xy/E8 dated 05 Mar 2015 duly concurred by IFA (BR) vide their Note No.
IF/801/Vol.L-XV/R-Non-1146 (11/02) dated 23 Feb 2015.
Accordingly, the subject CA was concluded by HQ CE (P) Shivalik vide letter No. 80263/Subaigadhera
Br/82/E8 dated 23 Mar 2015 under CA No. CE (P) SVK/ 13 /2014-15 for an amount of Rs.796.00 lacs. The
period of completion for subject CA was 24 months from the date of commencement of work as per Work
Order.
Subsequently, Work Order No.01 dated 22 Jul 2015 was placed by OC 1442 BCC to the contractor with the date
of commencement of work on 01 Aug 2015 and date of completion on 31 Jul 2017. The progress of work was
60.35 % even after a lapse of more than 5 years and it was proposed for cancellation of subject Contract as per
General Condition 54 of IAFW-2249: 1989 Print due to non-completion of work by the contractor.
A joint survey with the contractor at the bridge site as per FBS was carried out after handing over the
site after the Uttarakhand State experienced cloud bursts, heavy rains and a National disaster in Jun 2013 which
fractured rock or laminated interlayer with debris. It was noticed during a joint survey that, due to a change in
ground profile, blasting would be required to achieve the road geometrics on the Joshimath side, which was not
possible because blasting might damage the existing Bailey bridge thus disrupting traffic flow. Similarly, in the
Malari side abutment, to maintain the geometrics, large amount of cutting was involved in hard rock which
might make the slopes unstable and vertical clearance may not be available for the launching of the bridge.
Keeping in the view of above, the bridge was proposed to be shifted away by 5 mtr from Malari side
and 15 mtr downstream in Joshimath side in pursuant to the prelim proposal. The proposal for the new
alignment suggested better geometrics and safer on account of the following aspects:
(a) Stable slopes on approaches
(b) Abutment safe from erosion
(c) Existing Bailey bridge safe from traffic during construction.
Accordingly, the revised span of the bridge from 85 mtr to 104.50 mtr was proposed and case for
approval of CFA was forwarded to HQ DGBR/ B&T Dte by HQ CE (P) Shivalik vide letter No. 20021/Maj
Br/Subaigadhera/Km 20.050/J-M/171/E2 Br dated 09 Jan 2016.The revised span of 104.50 was approved by
HQ DGBR (B&T Dte) vide their letter No. 40780/Subaigadhera/SLK/DGBR/16/Brs & Tnls Dte dated 07 Mar
2016.
Based on approval, amendment No. 01 dated 13 Dec 2016 in respect CA was issued by the Accepting
Officer. After this amendment revised CA amount increased toRs. 9,11,24,500/-&span of the bridge increased
from 85 Mtr. to 104.50 Mtr. The period of completion was also increased to 28 months instead of 24 months.
Accordingly, Deviation Order No.02 dated 26 Dec 2016 was placed by OC 1442 BCC to the contractor with
date of completion on 30 Nov 2017.
Further, time extension of 592 days upto & including 15 Jul 2019 with Nil financial effect was
approved by Accepting Officers. Accordingly, Deviation Order No.03 dated 16 Nov 2018 was placed by OC
1442 BCC to the contractor.
Again, time extension upto & including 20 Oct 2020 with Nil financial effect was approved by
Accepting Officers after due approval of ADGBR (N-W). Accordingly, Deviation Order No.04 dated 15 Apr
2020 was placed by OC 123 RCC to the contractor with date of completion on 20 Oct 2020.
Further Accepting officer granted time extension of 180 days upto & including 18 Apr 2021 due to
COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, Deviation Order No.05 dated 08Dec 2020 was placed by OC 123 RCC to
the contractor with date of completion on 18Apr 2021.
Even after a number of time extensions and extensive support by the department, the contractor has
failed to progress the work in a desired and professional manner.
Due to poor performance shown by the contractor, even after a lapse of more than 06 years from date
of commencement as per Work Order No. 01 dated 22 Jul 2015the physical progress of work is only 60.35%.
From time to time various notices have been issued to the firm for expediting the bridgework, but the contractor
has failed to accelerate the pace of work and has not completed work in the stipulated time.
A final notice was served to contractor vide HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No.
80263/SubaigadheraBr/360/E8 dated 22Mar 2021 and show cause notice also issued to contractor vide letter
No. 80263/SubaigadheraBr/361/E8 dated 08 Apr 2021 Again the contractor shows his inability to progress the
work due to non-release of payment dues and second wave of pandemic Covid-19 vide his letter No.
MSD/SUBAGADHERA/MB/2/2021 dated 05 May 2021.
It is seen from the above that bridge design was changed from 85 Mtr to 104.5 Mtr after conclusion of
contract. Audit is of view that technical data has not been analyzed properly for selection of bridge site before
finalization of final bridge scheme and conclusion of contract. This has resulted in an abnormal delay in the
completion of bridge and needs justification.
1. Whether Hydraulic data was collected before finalization of final bridge scheme and
conclusion of contract. If yes, copy of BOO held for collection of Hydraulic data and its allied
activity.
2. Reasons for not carrying out the survey to analyze the design data and road geometrics before
finalization of final bridge scheme and conclusion of contract.
3. Reasons for change in span of the bridge from 85 mtr to 104.50 mtr.
Reply:
It is stated that Hydraulic data for subject bridge was carried out before finalization of Final Bridge Scheme and
conclusion of contract. A copy of TBOO dated 05 Oct 2010 for selection of bridge location prior to contract
conclusion is enclosed at Annexure- “I”.
The final Bridge Scheme (design data) was approved based on survey carried out on ground i.e., based on
hydraulic data details.
Reason for change in bridge span: -
(a) The contract for Construction of subject bridge was concluded on 23 Mar 2015 vide HQ CE(P)
Shivalik letter No. 80363/SubaiGadhera Br/82 /E8 dated 23 Mar 2015.
(b) The Contract was concluded after 5 Years from collection of hydraulic data. During this period i.e.
from 18 Nov 2010 to 23 Mar 2015, the region experienced very heavy rainfall due to which there is
considerable geological change in the terrain and bridge site. This has necessitated revision of approved bridge
plan.
(c) In view of above, a joint survey was carried out with the contractor as per FBS, it was noticed that, due
to change in ground profile, blasting would have required to achieve the road geometrics of the Joshimath side,
which was not possible because blasting might damage the existing Bailey bridge thus disrupting traffic flow.
Similarly, in the Malari side abutment, to maintain the geometrics large amount of cutting was involved in hard
rock which might make the slopes unstable and vertical clearance may not be available for launching of bridge.
(d) Keeping in the view of In view of above, the bridge was proposed to be shifted away by 5 mtr from
Malari side and 15 mtr downstream in Joshimath side in pursuant to the prelim proposal. The proposal for the
new alignment has better geometrics and safer from the following aspects:
(i) Stable slopes on approaches
(ii) Abutment safe from erosion
(iii) Existing Bailey Bridge safe from traffic during construction.
(e) Accordingly, the revised span of the bridge from 85 mtr to 104.50 mtr was obtained from HQ DGBR
(B&T Dte) vide their letter No. 40780/Subaigadhera/SLK/DGBR/46/Brs&TnlsDte dated 07 Mar 2016
Annexure- “II”.
Now, the contract was cancelled vide HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No. 80263/Subaigadhera Br/385 /E8 dated 20
Jul 2021 (Copy enclosed at Annexure- “III”.
Case V: Delay in completion of roads resulting into Cost-Overrun of Rs. 216.75 Crores.
Preparation of detailed project report on a technically sound proposal with realistic estimation of
quantities, cost and time of construction substantially influences the quality, performance and completion cost of
a project. Avoidance of problems during construction and its service life hinges heavily on the accuracy and
completeness of detailed project report of a road. For this purpose, instructions are given in Technical
Instruction no. 04, some of which are as under: -
2.2.4 Road Designs and Specifications
(a) Road Design: Bring out the special features of road design e.g. fixation of grade line vis-a-vis
HFL/water table, high embankments, treatment of sections in cutting, design of road junctions,
geometric deficiencies in the case of existing roads, remedial measures for land slide prone areas,
etc. Attach design calculations where necessary. Discuss any deviations from the prescribed
standards with reasons for the same.
(b) Pavement Design: Give existing soil investigation data for pavement design in a tabular form
including Bankleman Beaw Deflection data, if required in case of existing roads. Discuss
methodology of collecting these data and bring out the pavement design proposals with respect to
the alten1atives considered. If stage development· of pavement is considered economical,
considering existing/likely future traffic, this will be clearly stated and pavement design will be
adopted accordingly giving economics both for stage and final development. The renewal cycle of
resurfacing will be kept in mind in stage development.
(c) Masonry work other than cross-drainage works: Bring out the proposals for retaining walls,
breast walls, pitching, parapet walls, railings etc. Attach design calculations wherever required.
During scrutiny of records it is observed that following roads fall under the AOR of CE (P) Shivalik.
Name of road (Mention NH No. if Total Length of

S/No State
NH/SH) road (Km)
1 2 3 4
A MH 3054GS
1 NH
(a) Rishikesh-Dharasu Uttarakhand 121.294
(b) Helong-Marwari bye pass -do- 6.250
(c) Helong-Joshimath-Mana -do- 59.600
Total NH 187.140

2 OTNH
(a) Bhaironghati-Nelong Uttarakhand 23.600
(b) Nelong-Naga -do- 8.100
(c) Naga-Sonam -do- 11.200
(d) Naga-Nilapani -do- 9.800
(e) Joshimath-Malari -do- 62.669
(f) Malari-Girthidobla -do- 19.000
(g) Girthidobla-Sumna -do- 6.850
(h) Sumna-Rimkhim -do- 14.000
(i) Kurkuti-Ghamsali-Niti -do- 20.000
(j) Mana-Musapani -do- 10.325
(k) Musapani-Ghastoli -do- 7.400
(l) Ghastoli-Rattakona -do- 17.950
(m) Rattakona-Manapass -do- 15.000
(n) Simli-Gwaldam -do- 62.000
Total OTNH 287.894
Total MH 3054 GS 475.038
B MH 3054 MoRT&H
(a) Dharasu-Gangotri Uttarakhand 124.000
TOTAL MH 3054 MoRT&H 124.000
C MH 4055 MHA
(a) Naga-Jadang Uttarakhand 5.234
(b) Geldung-Nitipass -do- 17.275
(c) Sumla - Thag La -do- 11.053
(d) Mendi - Tsanchok La -do- 14.956
(e) Sumna-Lapthal-Topidunga -do- 71.490
TOTAL MH 4055 MHA 120.008

G/Total 719.046
Out of these roads Adm approvals of 11 roads were test checked and it was noticed that various jobs as
mentioned in the enclosed statement were sanctioned for improvement/ widening of roads and surfacing works
on these roads. Works of improvement/ widening and surfacing were not completed in time due to various
reasons such as change of specifications, revision of SSR etc. This has resulted into time overrun and cost
overrun of Rs. 216.75 Crores (Revised/Re-revised AA compared to initial AA for various jobs).The details of
these 11 roads are enclosed for reference.
Reasons for delay in completion of jobs may please be furnished to audit along with supporting documents.
The similar details as shown in the enclosed statement may also be provided for the balance roads.
Factual accuracy of the data/figures shown above may please be ascertained/ verified and correct/actual
data/figures may be furnished.
Statement Attached.
Reply: Reasons for delay in completion of jobs are attached at Appx ‘A’.
Case VI: Non-completion of IRMD/SRMD in time.
As per para 559 & 560 of Border Road Regulations, IRMD works are to be completed within six
months of their declaration and SRMD works in their one year from date of their sanction and the total extent to
which works are to be taken up under Para 560 and Para 559 of BR Regulation shall not exceed 25% of budget
for maintenance and resurfacing for a particular project on an average.
Scrutiny of report/ returns maintained by E-2 works of Chief Engineer(P) Shivalik (refer HQ Chief
Engineer (P) letter No. 50009/CE Visit/42/CES dated 15 Jun 2019) that 41 Nos of SRMD/IRMD declared from
2008-09 to 18-19 are still not completed.
Action taken to complete IRMD/SRMD may pl. be intimated to audit.
Present position of IRMD/SRMD may also be intimated.
Reply :
Details of running jobs/under progress/yet to be completed IRMD/SRMD are as Appx ‘A’.
HQ CE(P) Shivalik regularly monitor these works and intimate both TFs for timely completion of work.
Regular letters are being issued to complete all IRMD/SRMD timely by Project HQ.
Ground executive are trying for finish work early.
Audit sub-objective 2.2: Whether the specifications as per revised norms are being adopted in new road works?
Case I : Non-preparation of estimates as per IRC code.
As per IRC: SP: 48-1998, flexible pavement Design in areas with an altitude of above 3000 M
will be designed as under.
(1) Areas where subgrade is frost susceptible
In areas where the sub-grade is frost susceptible as defined in clause 10.22.3.3 IRC: SP: 48
1998, the flexible pavement design will be as per clause 10.22.3.5.1 (a) of IRC: SP: 48 1998 as given below:-
(a) Non-frost susceptible sub base 300 mm

(b) Crushed stone base (CSB) 150 mm
(c) BM/DBM 75 mm
(d) Asphaltic concrete (AC/BC) 40 mm
_______________________________________________________________________
Total 565 mm
(Note: if CBR value requires higher thickness, the same may be made up by increased sub-base thickness)
(2) Where sub-grade is non-frost susceptible
In areas where altitude more than 3000m when sub-grade is non frost susceptible then the
flexible pavement will be designed as per IRC-37 while incorporating the clause 10.22.3.5 (c) of IRC:SP:48-
1998 that stipulates a minimum pavement depth of 45 cm to prevent the adverse effect of frost penetration.
HQ Addl Dte General vide letter dt 14.03.2019 referred to the book IRC SP 48.1998 (clause
10.22.3.3) that whenever a pavement design is carried out on frost susceptible basis, the characteristics and
gradation of sub-grade soil are got tested and ascertained for frost susceptibility. Such design will be followed
only when it is properly established that soil at sub-grade level is frost susceptible and a test report of the sub-
grade is invariably enclosed with the estimate/DPR to confirm frost susceptibility.
During scrutiny of A/Approval register and its connected documents, it came to notice that 08
under mentioned Jobs were sanctioned for surfacing work for 21 /36 BRTF: -
CRUST THICKNESS DETAILS OF SURF WORKS
SL/ JOB NAME OF WORKS CRUST CRUST As per Remark

No No THICKNESS as THICKNESS design s
per AA Revised AA (IRC-37)
1 511/34 Surfacing works for NHSL NFSSB 150

(RAE) specification bet Km 0.00 to Km NFSSB 150 MM MM
7.00 on Girthidobla-Sumna Road CSB 150 MM CSB 150 MM
CMBM 50 MM DBM 50 MM 565 MM
OGPC 25 MM BC 30 MM
Total 375 MM
Total 380 MM
2 511/37 Surfacing works for NHSL NFSSB 150 MM

specification from Km 9.00 to Km CSB 150 MM
19.00 on Malari-Girthidobla Road DBM 75 MM 565 MM
AC 40 MM
Total 415 MM
3 502/168 RE-RAE Surfacing works for NFSSB 300 MM

(RE NHDL specification bet Km 41.775 CSB 150 MM
RAE) to Km 48.675 on Joshimath-Malari DBM 75 MM 565 MM
Road AC 40 MM
Total 565 MM
4 510/422 Work done Surfacing works ON R- GSB 150 MM

(Work J-M Rd from Km 148.325 to WBM 250 MM
Done) 159.675 BM 75 MM
SDBC 25 MM
Total 500 MM
5 516/234 Work done Surfacing works bet GSB 150 MM
GSB 150 MM
(work Km 57.00 to Km 68.175 on WBM 150 MM
WBM 150 MM
done) Dharasu-Gangotri Rd DBM 50 MM
BM 50 MM
BC 40 MM
SDBC 25 MM
Total 375 MM Total 390 MM
6 509/157 Surfacing works to NHDL NFSSB 300

(RE- specification on Rd Musapani- NFSSB 300 MM MM
RAE) Ghastoli bet Km 0.00 to Km 9.535 CSB 250 MM CSB 250 MM
OGPC 25 MM 565 MM
CMBM 50 MM DBM 75 MM
AC 40 MM
Total 625 MM
Total 665 MM
7 509/159 Surfacing works of rd Mana- NFSSB 300

Musapani bet Km 0.00 to Km NFSSB 300 MM MM
10.325 CSB 150 MM CSB 150 MM
OGPC 25 MM 565 MM
CMBM 50 MM BM 75 MM
AC 40 MM
Total 525 MM
Total 565 MM
8 S- Surfacing works from Km 0.00 to GSB 150 MM

4500/03 Km 11.600 on Rattakona-Deotal Rd WBM 150 MM
DBM50 MM 445 MM
BC40 MM
Total 390 MM
In 02 cases, crust thickness have been considered less than the required design as per IRC (Job No 511/34,
511/37) and in 03 cases similar crust thickness was not provided while sanctioning the original/revised estimate
(Job no. 516/234, 509/157& 509/159). Reasons for not providing required crust thickness as per IRC and same
crust thickness on the entire road may please be intimated to audit.
In this connection, the following information may please be furnished to audit: -
1. Whenever a pavement design is carried out on a frost susceptible basis, the characteristics and
gradation of sub-grade soil are to be got tested and ascertained for frost susceptibility. Whether the
above tests were carried out in respect. If yes, copies of the same may be provided.
2. Initial crust thickness sanctioned in Adm Approval was changed in revised AdmApproval, the cost
analysis may be carried out for work done in original/revised sanction (Extra Expdr may be worked
out) and reasons for the change in crush thickness for the same road under same jobs may be intimated.
3. Cost over-run due to change in crust thickness and delay in sanction of work/ execution of work.
4. Details of other jobs in which crust thickness has not been provisioned as per IRC/ MoRT&H etc.
5. Details of jobs in which estimates were not prepared as per IRC codes etc. and reasons for the same.
6. As per estimates submitted by BRTFs, crust thickness has been considered/ calculated based on TI- 14
(as per IRC-37 (2001)), however, the crust thickness in the flexible pavement have been revised in IRC
37 (2018 publication). Reasons for not preparing estimates as per the revised crust thickness provisions
IRC-37 (2018) may please be intimated. A comparison in crust thickness provisioned in surfacing
works may be carried out in respect of works sanctioned based on TI-14 and IRC-37 (2018 publication)
and results be intimated to audit.
Factual accuracy of the data/ figures given in the OL may please be ascertained/ verified and correct/
actual data/ figures be furnished.
Reply:
As for as consideration of less crust thickness than the thickness required as per IRC SP-48-1998, following is
submitted:-
(a) Job No. (511/34):- Crust thickness is taken 375 mm in original AA based on the Para
3.7.2 of T1 No. 14 wherein, it is stated that, for new roads in remote hilly area where traffic intensity is
thin and requirement of road only for strategic consideration and the road is susceptible to heavy
snowfall during winter. The strengthening of these road will be done in phased manner when the traffic
will increased.Hence as per present traffic, economical crust thickness was consider being beneficial to
the state.
(b) Job No. (511/37) :- The provision of T1-No-14 as per Para 3.7.2 is also applicable for
this Job being less CVD i.e. 124 and remote area road used by ITBP/Army only. Hence, less thickness
is adopted for crust which will be strengthen as and when traffic will increase in future.
As for as non providing same crust thickness in 03 Nos Jobs as given below, following is submitted:-
(a) Job No. (516/234):- In original AA crust thickness was considered 375mm and in RAE
it was taken 390 mm which is 15 mm more than original AA because of suitable combination of layers
of DBM & AC in place of CMBM and OGPC.
(b) Job No. (509/157):- In original AA, crust thickness was considered 525 MM and same
has been revised in RAE as 565 mm which is as per IRC-37.
(c) Job No. (509/159):- In revise AA, 565 mm crust thickness was considered as per IRC-
SP-48-1998 for entire road. Therefore, thickness of crust increased by 4cm in revise proposal . It is
also for placing adequate combination of DBM and AC layers.
Further point wise replies of audit observation are given as under:-
Point No. 01:- The roads on which NFSS has been proposed falls under high altitude area ranging
3001 Mtr to 3900 Mtr. In such area due to frost heaving thawing action and icing problems, during
winters sub base and base course has been considered as per IRC-SP-48 clause 10.22.00 in
conjunction with it TI-14 as NFSS layers.
Point No. 02:- Only to bituminous layer thickness changed in revise AA for entire road length. Sub
base and base layer thickness not charged in RAA. Hence uniform pavement thickness provided on
entire length of road.
Contd….P/2
Point No. 03:-Job wise cost analysis due to change in bituminous layer is tabulated as under:-
Job No Per unit rate of Per unit rate of Per unit rate of Per unit rate of AC
CMBM as per OGPC as per AA DBM as per RAA as per RAA (Sqm)
AA(Sqm) (Sqm) (Sqm)
DBM AC
511/34 796.50 389.30 456.50 333.30
509/157 831.80 456.10 596.67 450.80
509/159 704.50 391.00 656.70 426.30
From the above comparison of rates it may be seen that rates of revised bituminous layer i.e. DBM &
AC are lower than the rates of original proposal of CMBM and OGPC. Hence the change in specification of
bituminous layer is beneficial to the state.
Point No. 4&5:- Crust thickness always provided as per IRC code of practice, T1 No. 4 and as per design
criteria whichever is required on case to case basis. There is no other Job where above method is not adopted.
Point No. 06 :- There are two Jobs 511/34 and 511/32 where crust thickness is considered as per T1 No-14 for
economy point of viewed as stated in Para 2 (a) & (b) above.
Case II : Non-inclusion of latest MoRTH specifications (5th Revision).
A comparison was carried out between Standard Schedule of Rates 2016 and MoRTH specifications for Road
and Bridge Works (5th Revision) and it is seen in Thematic audit that there is wide variation between these
books as shown below: -
SSR Brief Description of SSR items As per MoRTH Specifications for Road and
Item No. Bridge Works (Fifth Revision) and Observation
S-510 Providing and laying 50 mm thick compacted BM As per Table:500-7 of MORT&H Specifications for
layer and precoated stone aggregate as per Table:500-6 Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision), the
& 7 of MORT&H specifications for Road and Bridge bitumen content considered 3.4% by mass of total
Works mixed with 3.3% by weight of total mix as mix. Whereas is DGBR SSR-2016 the same
binder asphalt VG-10 penetration grade as per considered as 3.3% which is as per fourth Revision.
MoSRT&H data book and rolled to the required
specification.
S-511 Providing and laying 50 mm thick DBM layer, As per Table:500-10 of MORT&H Specifications
precoated stone aggregate physical for Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision), the
requirements/grading/mix composition requirement as bitumen content considered minimum 4.5% by
per Table - 500-8/9/10 respectively of MORT&H mass of total mix. Whereas is DGBR SSR-2016 the
specifications for road and bridge works with 4.25% same considered as 4.25% which is as per fourth
asphalt VG-10 penetration grade as per MoSRT&H Revision.
data book and rolled to the required specification.
S-512 Bituminous Concrete 25 mm thick using bitumen VG- The 25 mm thick BC layer have not been
10 provisioned in MORT&H Specifications for Road
and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision).
S-512A Providing and laying 30 mm thick BC on bituminous

macadam layer with precoated stone chips grading
confirming to Table:500-17 and mix satisfying the
requirement of table 500-16 of MORT&H
specifications, mixed with 5% binder asphalt VG-10
penetration grade by weight of total mix and 2%
As per Table:500-17 of MORT&H Specifications
cement by weight of mix ( for filler) all as specified as
for Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision), the
per MoSRT&H data book.
bitumen content considered minimum 5.4% by
mass of total mix. Whereas is DGBR SSR-2016 the
S-513 Providing and laying 40 mm thick BC on bituminous
same considered as 5% which is as per fourth
concrete layer with precoated stone chips grading
Revision.
confirming to Table:500-17 and mix satisfying the
requirement of table 500-16 of MORT&H
specifications, mixed with 5% binder asphalt VG-10
penetration grade by weight of total mix and 2%
S-513A Providing and laying 50 mm thick BC on bituminous As per Table:500-17 of MORT&H Specifications
concrete layer with precoated stone chips grading for Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision), the
confirming to Table:500-17 and mix satisfying the bitumen content considered minimum 5.2% by
requirement of table 500-16 of MORT&H mass of total mix. Whereas is DGBR SSR-2016 the
specifications, mixed with 5% binder asphalt VG-10 same considered as 5% which is as per fourth
penetration grade by weight of total mix and 2% Revision.
Hence, reasons for non-inclusion of latest MoRTH Specifications for Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision)
while preparing estimates may please be intimated to audit.
In this connection, the following information may kindly be furnished:
1. The details of other SSR – 2016 items which are not as per latest MoRTH Specifications for Road
and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision).
2. The details of work in which estimates were prepared as per SSR – 2016/ MoRTH Specifications
for Road and Bridge Works (Forth Revision) and type of specifications adopted during execution
on ground. If any variation in specifications then intimate details along with cost impact.
Reply :
Estimates have been always prepared as per items of work given in approved SSR applicable than. Certain items
which are not covered in SSR rate analysis is prepared by considering various inputs from SSR.
Point wise replies are given as under:-
Point No. 01 :- SSR prepared at HQ DGBR by a BOO, and approved after detail deliberations and financial
concurrence of IFA (BR). Hence reply to this point may please be sought from HQ DGBR.
Point No. 02 :- All the estimates wef 01 Apr 2017 have been prepared as per specifications of works given in
SSR 2016. Certain items such as CTSB, CTB and SAMI layer etc have been included in estimate based on IRC
provisions after design check and approval of competent authority with financial concurrence of IFA (BR).
However RA of these items prepared by taking inputs from SSR 2016. The execution of work is carried
out/being carried out as per specifications of SSR items considered in estimates.
Audit sub-objective 2.3: Whether availability of clear site is ensured prior to conclusion of contract?
Case I : Execution of EPC Contract under CE (P) Shivalik
Scrutiny of engineering procurement construction jobs in CE(P) Shivalik, it came to notice that total 22 jobs
were sanctioned. Following points are offered in audit with respect to EPC contracts:-
1) As per para 3 of SOP, Execution of works through EPC mode is a new assignment for BRO, hence there is
a need of dedicated team of officials to resolve the issue on various occasions for pre constructional
activities like monitoring/liaisoning for land acquisition & forest clearance shifting of utilities/environment
clearance etc. with state Govt. officials.
It is seen that 7 jobs amounting to Rs. 372.55 Crores were sanctioned for pre-construction activities on various
stretches of road and further 9 jobs were sanctioned for execution contracts for the ibid 7 jobs as shown in
enclosed statement.
It is also noticed that payment of land acquisition/environment mitigation/shifting of utilities/tree cutting
amounting to Rs. 59.93 Crore were paid after Letter of Acceptance as shown in the enclosed statement whereas
as per the contract conditions the Site shall be made available by the Authority to the Contractor pursuant hereto
free from all Encumbrances and occupations and without the Contractor being required to make any payment to
the Authority because of any costs, compensation, expenses and charges for the acquisition and use of such Site
for the duration of the Project Completion Schedule.
Reason for not clearing the site before conclusion of contract may please be furnished to audit and further
pending cases of land acquisition/environment mitigation/shifting of utilities/tree cutting which could not be
finalised before issue of tender may also be furnished to audit.
For better appreciation following details may please be furnished to audit:

a. Whether amount deposited with revenue department for land acquisition has been timely
disbursed to the concerned party/individuals? If yes, details thereof.
b. Details with supporting documents in r/o EPC works in following format:
S.No. Job No.- Date of completion Cost of preconstruction Date of start of main Enhanced cost of
Road Sector preconstruction activities (In Rs.) construction works EPC works due to
activities delay in completion
of pre construction
activities and
handing taking over
of site to EPC
contractors(In Rs.)
Reply : Awaited
Audit sub-objective 2.5: Whether the expenditure exceeded the tolerance limits?
Case I : Revised Administrative approval cases. (Stat-19)
In terms of Para 552 of the Border Roads Regulations, if during execution of the Project, it is anticipated that the
scope of work/Project would change or if expenditure exceeds or appears likely to exceed, the amount of
administrative approval/expenditure sanction beyond permissible limit, a report will the made at once to the
DGBR, explaining the reasons for the change in scope or for the excess of expenditure. A revised admm
approval will be obtained/expenditure sanction obtained.
Further, DGBR, New Delhi letter no. 41543/Tech Policy/DGBR/44/T. Coord/west Dte dated 12.01.18
stipulates that if there is a change in scope of work beyond AA+10% which cannot be regulated under Para 603
of Border Roads Regulations, CE can execute such changes after obtaining AIP from CFA. However, the same
need to be regularized through the sanction of RAE.
However, during audit of E-2 Section as well as data/ information furnished to audit, it came to notice
that during the period from April-2018 to March-2021, the following 17cases were initiated for seeking the
revised approximate estimates/ revised admn approval.
It is observed from the above that non-timely initiation of RAE, i.e. before date on which expenditure exceeded
Adm Approval plus permissible Limit, towards obtaining the RAA has resulted in cost overrun to the tune of Rs
22996.88 lakh. The reason for the delay in initiation of RAA may be furnished to audit.
For better appreciation of the case the following information may also be furnished to audit:-
(i) Copy, each, of the reports made to DGBR in terms of Para 552 of the BRR.
(ii) Copy of the AIP received from CFA in the event of changes executed by the CE.
(iii) Copy each of the original adm approval.
(iv) Copy each of the RAE/RAA.
The factual accuracy of the data/figures given above may also be ascertained/verified and correct/actual
Sl No Name of work (Job No.) Date on which Date of Date of Reasons for delay in Cost over
expenditure initiatiin of acceptance of obtaining RAE if any run due
exceeded Adm RAE case RAE to delay
Approval + in
Permissible Limit obtaining
RAE
(In Lakh
Rs.)
21 BRTF
1 Constr of Suraithota BR Dec-17 13/01/2018 07/07/2018 Not Provided 310.07

at Km 31.65 (BCC)
(502/106 Re-RAE)
2 Impvt J-M Km 41.776 to Feb-18 06/01/2018 22/09/2018 -do- 1469.07
48.675 (502/164 RAE)
3 Provision of surfacing Aug-19 09/09/2019 23/09/2019 -do- 1444.66

works for CI-9 Specn
bet Km 41.775 and Km
48.675 on Road J-M
(502/168 RAE)
4 Impvt/Widening of road Jul-17 21/09/2017 29/11/2017 -do- 2016.76

J-M from Km 15 to 25
(502/182 RAE)
5 Constr of GDS Rd (Fmn - 20/03/2018 15/06/2018 -do- 680.11

& Pmt) 6.55 Km (511/16
Re RAE)
6 Provision of surfacing Nov-17 01/12/2018 19/05/2018 -do- 214.99

works for CI-9 Specn
bet Km 0.00 to 7.00 on
GDS (511/34 RAE)
7 Constr/Impvt of road G- - 26/05/2018 01/01/2019 -do- 749.00

R from Km 0.00 to
17.95 to CI-9 spefc & S-
4(502/04 RAE)
8 Impvt/Widening Km Dec-17 14/02/2018 25/08/2018 -do- 1672.95

0.002 to Km 10.4107
(509/158 RAE)
9 Provision of surf wks on Mar-18 15/04/2018 25/11/2018 -do- 1053.09

road M-M to NHDL
spcn (Km 0.00 to
10.325) (509/159)
10 Widening/Impvt of Road Aug-18 Oct-18 Dec-18 -do- 114.06

Malari-Girthi-Dobla
from CI-9 to NHDL
Specn from Km 9.00 to
19.00 (511/32 RAE)
36 BRTF
11 516/268: Const/impvt of - 13.11.18 19.12.18 -do- 4594.7

BN road from 0.00 to
Km 12.00
12 516/262: Provision of - 16.01.18 19.01.18 -do- 1111.52

surf bet km 12.00-23.00
on BN Road
13 516/291 (RAE): - 27.02.18 19.12.18 -do- 1806.13

Constr/impvt of road
Noaga-Nilapni bet km
0.00-9.80
14 516/242: Impvt and - 05.04.18 18.05.18 -do- 14.26

widening of BN road bet
km 12.00-23.00
15 94 (34)-UR-BRO-2014- - 25.09.18 13.11.18 -do- 1084.16

15-100- Widening/lmpvt
of road from 14.00 to
18.00 on RD road
16 94 (34)-UR-BRO-2014- - 05.01.19 26.02.19 -do- 3321.2

15-101- Widening/Impvt
of road from 65.00 to
76.00 on RD road
17 516/190 Re-RAE): - 16.11.20 25.11.20 -do- 1340.15

impvt/widening of DG
rd from km 57.00 to km
68.175
Total 13272.12
1 Replies to the audit observation (State-19) tabulated as under:-
21 BRTF
SL/No Job No NAME OF WORK Reasons for delay in obtaining Cost over run due to delay
RAE if any in obtaining RAE (In
Lakh Rs.)
1 502/106 (Re-RAE) Constr of Suraithota BR at km RAE was initiated on 13 Jan 2018 The cost of work increased
31.65 (BCC) after one month from the date of not due to delay in
expendature exceeded. Hence this sanctioning in RAE. This is
is not a case delay in initiate of due to extra scope of
RAE. rehabilitation work
Generally time for issue RAA is Amounting to Rs 2.5 Cr.
likely 6 to 8 month from the date
of initiation of RAE due to
rectification of observations.
2 502/164 (RAE) Impvt J-M Km 41.776 to RAE was initiated on 06 Feb 18 The cost of work increased
48.675 when expendature increased over not due to delay in
AA + Permissible limit and obtaining revised sanction
revised sanction issued on 18 Jan this is basically due to
2018. Time taken 4 month. increased scope of Pmt
works. Ref RAA Part-II
enclosed.
3 502/168 (RAE) Provision of surfacing works RAE initiated and sanctioned in The cost of work increased
for Cl-9 specn bet Km 41.775 Sep 2019. No delay. due to increased scope and
and Km 48.675 on road J-M risk and cost contract. In
this connection RAA Part-II
may be seen.
4 502/182 (RAE) Impvt/Widening of road J-M RAE initiated well in time and Job was sanctioned
from Km 15.00 to 25.00. sanction with in 2 month from considering escalation upto
date of imitation. Hence no delay 2016 on SSR 2009 rates
in sanctioning of RAE. mean while SSR revised
and pricing of work done in
RAE as per SSR 2012
which resulted cost over
run. Scope of work also
increased. Ref RAE part-II
5 511/16 (RE-RAE) Constr of GDS Rd (Fmn & RAE sanctioned on 15 Jan 2018 Cost is increased due to
Pmt) Km 6.55 and initiated on 20 Mar 2018. It increase in length of road by
took less then 3 months to accord 500 mtr and revision of SSR
RAA. at time to time.
6 511/34 (RAE) Provision of surfacing works RAE initiated on 01 Dec 18 and Cost Increased due to
for Cl-9 specn bet Km 0.00 to sanction accorded on 19 May Provision of crash barrier,
7.00 on G-DS road. 2018, hence no delay in and road marking and
sanctioning/Initiation of RAE. change in mode of
execution not due to delay
in sanction.
7 S-4502/04 (RAE) Constr/Impvt of road G-R RAE sanctioned in 7 months from Cost increased due to
from Km 0.00 to 17.95 to CL- the date of initiation by HQ realignment of road as per
9 specfication ADGBR due to rectification of ground requirement felt
observations during execution. Scope of
work increased and SSR
revised also the factor to
increase cost of work
8 509/158 (RAE) Impvt/Widening Km 0.002 to RAE sanctioned in 6 month from Cost increased due to
Km 10.4107 the date of initiation which is due increase scope of Pmt works
to rectification of observation. which may be seen from
enclosed RAA part-II of.
Time over run is due to
natural calamity during
2013-14.
9 509/159 Provision of surf wks on road RAE initiated on 15 Apr 2018 and Cold mix bituminous
M-M to NHDL spcn Km 0.00 sanctioned on 06 July 2018. No macadam and OGPC could
to 10.325 delay in obtaining RAA not cenmenced due to non
availability of cold mix
plant. Contract for NFSSB
and CSB material was not
concluded due to natural
calamity in Uttarkhand state
in 2013-14. Due to these
factors work could not
commenced on time
resulting cost over run.
10 511/32 (RAE) Widening/Impvt of road RAE sanctioned in two month Cost increased due to
Malari-Girthi-Dobla from CL- time from the date of initiation increase in scope of work.
9 to NHDL specn from Km hence no delay in obtaining Please ref RAA part II in
9.00 to 19.00 sanction this regard.
36 BRTF
11 516/268 Const/Impvt of BN road Re-Revised RAE was This is a complete execution contract Job for
from Km 0.00 to Km sanctioned in one month time which tender was accepted for Rs 35.93 Cr
12.00 from its date of initiation. against AA of Rs 24.05 Cr after FC from
concerned AO office. Since work may not
complete with in AA Qty hence fresh survey
was done and RAE sanctioned for increased
Qty for Rs 48.62 Cr on 28 Jun 2016. Mean
while contractor stopped work since Oct 2012
and went for arbitation and final award was
given on 25 May 18. The work was stopped
for 5½ year period. Finally contract was fore
closed and. fresh tender was called for
execution of balance work than previous RAA
rates were not workable hense RE-RAE was
initiated and sanctioned for Rs 70 Cr. Thus the
cost of work increased in this instent case due
to contractual letigation.
12 516/262 Provision of surf bet Km No Delay In this case as per record the work could not
12.00 to 23.00 on BN be executed as per original planning due to
road failure of supply contract and ban of Govt for
installation of HMP. Resulting time over run.
Time over run and conclusion of fresh
contract on risk and cost and change in
specification of bituminous layer resulted
increase in cost of work. Hence cost is not
increased due to delay in obtaining RAE.
13 516/291 Const/impvt of road Re-RAE initiated on 27 Feb Original AA was issued by considering BM &
(RAE) Naga-nilapani bet km 2018 and sanction accorded SDBC as bituminous layers which could not
0.00 ti 9.80 on 19 Dec 2018. It taken be executed due to ban imposed by Govt
nearly 10 month being full (forest & environmental) being ECO sensitive
scope Job (Fmr+Pmt+Surf) of zone. Later on based on recommendation of
road Naga-Nilapani. Many CRRI, specification of bituminous layer
times observation raised by charge to CMPM which was also not found as
HQ ADGBR and which were per standerd and further charged in CMBM.
rectified during above period. RAE of Job was issued on 09 Mar 2016 and
ffurther RE-RAE was issued on 19 Dec 2018.
Copy of Re-RAE enclosed. Therefore, due to
non implementation of original proposal,
revised sanction was necessary. However in
Re-RAE cost of work reduced by Rs. 4.5 cr
with respect to RAA amount.
14 516/242 Impvt and widening of RAE sanctioned in 1½ month Cost of work increased not due to delay in
(RAE) BN road bet Km 12.00 to from the date of initiation. sanctioning of RAE. Cost increased due to
23.00 increased scope of Pmt work and provisioning
of lined drain and crash barrier, application of
various SSR rates resulted increased in cost of
work.
15 94 (34)- Widening/Impvt of road Sanction for RAE was Cost of work increased not due to delay in
UR-BRO- from 14.00 to 18.00 on accorded in less then two sanctioning of RAE, it has been increased due
2014-15- Rd month from its date of to increased scope of PMT works and
100 initiation provision of slope protection work in RAE
16 94 (34)- Widening/Impvt of road No delay in sanctioning of Cost increased due to increase in scope of
UR-BRO- from 65.00 to 76.00 on RDPR work as per Chardham specification ie
2014-15- Rd provision of adequate drainage, retaining
101 structures, dumping of mud etc and costing of
work as per rate applicable than.
17 516/190 Impvt and widening of No delay Cost of Rs 13.40 Cr increased due to

(RE- DG road from Km 57.00 provision of new Major Pmt Bridge of 85 Mtr
RAE) to Km 68.175 span in the scope of original Job.
From the above table it may be ascertained that.

(a) Reason for delay in obtaining RAE. The revised sanction has been accorded between 1 month to 8
month duration depending upon the nature of case. Nos of RAE sanctioned in few days to two month period.
Where the CFA is ADGBR/DGBR, the time increased due to rectification of observation being answered by
RCC TF and HQ CE (P). However all out efforts are being made to accord RAA an fast track basis.
(b) Cost over run due to delay in obtaing RAE. Basically there is no cost over run due to delay in
obtaining RAE because rates considered in RAE at the time of initiation do not change in 4-5 months and
RAA accorded on same rate. Revised sanction of Jobs has been accorded timely in all the cases except
contractual litigation. Cost of work generally increased due to following reasons.
(i) Non implementation of original proposal due to induction new Rules/Policy by
State/Central Govt. natural calamity and change in hill profile etc.
(ii) Failure of contract. Leading fresh contract on risk and cost basis.
(iii) Change in SSR rates during currency of work.
(iv) Slow funding which leads revision of PDC.
(v) Change in scope of work as per ground requirement during execution of work because of hilly
terrain.
(vi) Less availability of CPLs, and working days being the work at extreme border and in HAA region
which results time over run.
Copy of P-552 perused by different CFA and revised sanction is enclosed herewith in support of reason given
for cost over run. There is no case of initiation of Para-603, hence same is not enclosed.
In view of the above, it is requested to settle the audit observation please. Your valuable views for better
functioning is always solicited please.
Audit sub-objective 2.9 : Whether norms for EPC mode are being adhered to?
Case I: Execution of EPC Contract under CE (P) Shivalik
In accordance with the MoD (BR) policy guidelines, projects amounting to at least 40% of work
planned in LTRoWP are to be outsourced for FY 2018-19. MoD (BR) vide No BRDB/02/85/BEA/2016/D(BR-
I) dated 29th Aug 2017 has directed that:
(a) All projects of value more that 10 Crores (excluding land acquisition cost) will be
taken up only after preparation of DPR. This will apply to both the EPC Projects and
departmentally executed projects.
(b) All projects for which the value as per the DPR is above 100 Crs will be mandatorily
executed as an EPC project. For any exception, approval of Projects Approval Board
(PAB) will be obtained.
Execution of works through EPC mode is a new assignment for BRO, hence, there is a need of
dedicated team of officials to resolve the issues on various occasions for pre constructional activities like
monitoring/liaisoning for Land Acquisition & Forest Clearance shifting of utilities, Environment clearance etc
with state Govt Officials. Pre-tender stage activities such as to provide input, formulation & acceptance of
tenders for civil works contract and Authority’s Engineer as well as regular interaction with Regional Office
of MoRT&H for MoRT&H funded works. The post tendering action such as Monitoring of construction,
supervision, quality control, progress of work, fund demand and monitoring expenditure pattern etc will also
be required to be taken care of during the construction period. For effective contract management and proper
monitoring of progress of work, Project Implementation Cell (PIC) at HQ CE (P) to assist Chief Engineer
needs to be established and for this no additional/fresh sanction of manpower is required.
DPR Consultancy
(a) Unless otherwise specified in the SC, the CLIENT shall use its best effort to ensure that the
following:-
(i) provide the Consultants, Sub consultants and Personnel with work permits and such
other documents as shall be necessary to enable the Consultants, Sub consultants or Personnel
to perform the Services.
(ii) assist for the Personnel and, if appropriate, their eligible dependents to be provided
promptly with all supporting papers for necessary entry and exit visas, residence permits,
exchange permits and other documents required for their stay in India.
(iii) facilitate prompt clearance through customs of any property required for the
Services.-
(iv) issue all such instructions as may be necessary or appropriate for the prompt and
effective implementation of the Services to official, agents and representatives of the
Government.
Role and Responsibilities of Project Implementation Cell
The role and responsibilities of Projects Implementation Cell (PIC) on behalf of Chief Engineer is as
under:-
a. Shall act as a coordinator between DPR consultant & state Govt authorities wherever
required as per the terms & condition of contract.
b. Shall be interface between contractor, Authority’s Engineer and implementing Agency/Deptt
and also assist in administering the contract as per CA conditions/ provisions.
c. Shall also ensure that Authority’s Engineer Supervise the work as per provisions of the CA
and employment of key personals as per CA provisions.
d. Shall also liaise with Govt agencies for removal of bottlenecks (if any), and will work as
enable for consultancy contractor & Authority’s Engineer to function and deliver the project
on schedule.
Budget Control and Accounting Procedure
a. On receipt of allotment of funds for civil works from Ministry by HQ DGBR, the funds will
be further allotted to Chief Engineer (Project) being Authority/Employer/CLIENT in
consultation with PCDA (BR). Demand of Cash assignment will be placed by CE (P) after
vetting by ACDA/AO (P) to HQ DGBR (E5B) for their countersignature and further
forwarding to PCDA (BR) with a request to allot sub-heads/code heads and minor heads to be
operated by ACDA/AO (P) HQ Chief Engineer (Project) and place either the cash assignment
to the authorized bankers of the project or make necessary provision through SBI-CMP. The
budget & expenditure of EPC works shall be controlled centrally at HQ CE (P) and
ACDA/AO (P) & HQ CE will open the construction account for this purpose for all the
sanctioned jobs under EPC mode of execution.
b. All bills including Project contingencies shall be cleared by Chief Engineer (Project) after the
financial concurrence/vetting by ACDA/AO(P) of HQ CE (P).
Project Director (PD)
Responsibility of Project Director ie. Commander TF assisted by OC RCC/BCC is
a. to provide ground data for implementation of the project such as assessment of land
acquisition and forest clearance, co-ordination with State Govt authorities for disbursement of
compensation & shifting of utilities.
b. to provide inputs for formulation of tender, to ensure that the project land is made available
free of all encumbrances and handed over to the contractor within the stipulated item as given
in Contract Agreement for civil works and co-ordination in removal of bottlenecks in progress
or works.
c. to be enable for DPR consultant & Authority Engineer to function and deliver the project on
schedule by taking required steps.
d. to ensure that the works are executed in accordance with the CA provisions in the supervision
of the Authority Engineer.
e. to ensure proper supervision & quality assurance of the executed works by making proper
check and balances without hindering the stipulated time period as given in the CA provisions.
f. to progress of bills to ensure timely payment of dues.
g. to monitor physical & financial progress of works and report to higher HQs whenever
required.
h. to direct Authority Engineer to update CPM chart on weekly basis.
Scrutiny of engineering procurement construction jobs in CE(P) Shivalik, it came to notice that total 22
jobs were sanctioned. Following points are offered in audit with respect to EPC contracts:-
1) It is observed in audit that total nine Jobs were Sanctioned for pre construction activities and execution
contracts on the same stretch of roads, i.e., Rishikesh (R) to Gangotri (G) and Joshimath (J) to Malari
(M) as shown below :
S.No. Road Sector Pre construction activity Execution Contracts Job No.
Job No. AA Amt Job No. AA Amt
(In Cr) (In Cr)
1 J-M road Km 489.00 to Km 528.60 - - NH-07 (58)-UR 130.68
2017-18-531
2 J-M road -do- - - NH-58-UR- 119.451
2018-19-538
3 J-M road -do- - - NH-58(07)-UR- 80.1
2018-19-536
4 R-D road Chamba bye pass ( Km 59.42 to Km NH-94-UR- 67.68 NH-94-UR- 107.07
65.00) 2017-18-518 2017-18-533
5 R-D road Km 76.00 to Km 110.00 including NH-94-UR- 85.2 NH-94-UR- 237.76
Kamand realignment 2017-18-525 2017-18-527
6 R-D road Km 110 to Km 142 excluding NH-94-UR- 72.34 NH-94-UR- 346.5
Chinyalisour bye pass 2017-18-520 2017-18-526
7 R-D road Chinyalisour bye pass NH-94-UR- 21.7 NH-94-UR- 43.39
2017-18-519 2017-18-529
8 D-G road Km 101.06 to Km 110.86 NH-94-UR- 43.39 NH-94-UR- 59.24
2017-18-523 2017-18-535
9 D-G road Km 110.86 to Km 124.00 NH-94-UR- 30.25 NH-108-UR- 25.87
2017-18-521 2018-19-537
Total 320.56 Total 1150.061
Reasons for not sanctioning single job on the same stretch of Road may please be intimated to audit.
2) As per para 3 of SOP, Execution of works through EPC mode is a new assignment for BRO, hence
there is a need of dedicated team of officials to resolve the issue on various occasions for pre
constructional activities like monitoring/liaisoning for land acquisition & forest clearance shifting of
utilities/environment clearance etc. with state Govt. officials.
It is seen that 7 jobs amounting to Rs. 372.55 Crores were sanctioned for pre-construction activities on
various stretches of road and further 9 jobs were sanctioned for execution contracts for the ibid 7 jobs
as shown in enclosed statement.
It is also noticed that payment of land acquisition/environment mitigation/shifting of utilities/tree

cutting amounting to Rs. 59.93 Crore were paid after Letter of Acceptance as shown in the enclosed
statement whereas as per the contract conditions the Site shall be made available by the Authority to
the Contractor pursuant hereto free from all Encumbrances and occupations and without the Contractor
being required to make any payment to the Authority because of any costs, compensation, expenses
and charges for the acquisition and use of such Site for the duration of the Project Completion
Schedule.
Reason for not clearing the site before conclusion of contract may please be furnished to audit and
further pending cases of land acquisition/environment mitigation/shifting of utilities/tree cutting which
could not be finalised before issue of tender may also be furnished to audit.
For better appreciation following details may please be furnished to audit:
c. Whether amount deposited with revenue department for land acquisition has been timely
disbursed to the concerned party/individuals? If yes, details thereof.
d. Details with supporting documents in r/o EPC works in following format:
S.No. Job Date of completion Cost of Date of start of Enhanced cost of EPC
No.- preconstruction preconstruction main works due to delay in
Road activities activities (In Rs.) construction completion of pre
Sector works construction activities
and handing taking
over of site to EPC
contractors
(In Rs.)
3) As per Term of Reference (TOR) for the Performance of Duties of Authority Engineer, during the
Construction Period, the Authority’s Engineer shall review and approve the Drawings furnished by the
Contractor along with supporting data, including the geo-technical and hydrological investigations,
characteristics of materials from borrow areas and quarry sites, topographical surveys, and the
recommendations of the Safety Consultant in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10.1 (vi). The
Authority’s Engineer shall complete such review and approval and send its observations to the
Authority and the Contractor within Fifteen days of receipt of such drawing; provided, however that in
case of a Major Bridge of Structure, the aforesaid period of Fifteen days may be extended up to Thirty
days. In particular, such comments shall specify the conformity or otherwise of such Drawings with the
Scope of the Project and Specifications and Standards.
Whether the Drawings were collected from the contractors by the Authority’s Engineer and the same
reviewed as mentioned above? If yes, job wise details thereof may be furnished to audit in the
following format:
S.No. Job Date of submission of Date of approval of Details of work Payment made to
No. Drawings by the the Drawings by the carried out before contractor before
Contractors Engineer Authority approval of drawing approval of drawing
4) Sources of stores like cement, steel, gabion box, drapery etc is to be used only on approval of
competent authority. Third party lot wise test of stores like cement, steel, gabion box, drapery etc. is to
be carried out and thereafter stores satisfying the criteria as per relevant IRC/MoRTH specifications
shall be incorporated to works. Also all construction materials fine aggregate, sand and water is to be
tested at frequency as per the IRC/ MoRTH specification.
Whether invoice of materials obtained and tests were carried out as per IRC/MoRTH specifications? If
yes, contract wise details of the same may be provided to audit as per below format:
S.No. Job No. CA No. Month Name of Qty Invoice Amount

item no./ (In Rs.)
date on
invoice
S.No. Job No. CA No. Month Name Frequency Frequency Tests

of of test as per of test carried
Store MoRTH actually out by
carried out third
party
5) The construction of Roads are carried out as per the standards and specifications laid down in various
IRC standards and MoRTH Specification for Road and Bridge works. To ensure quality, field
laboratory is to be established and manned by qualified engineers/technician. The quality of natural
materials, factory manufactured materials, specified items, mix items are important for construction of
quality roads. The various quality control tests on various ingredients and mixes and their frequencies
are stipulated in MoRTH specifications for road and bridge works. As such it is important for all
stakeholders to ensure that all the quality test at the specified frequencies are conducted.
However, audit has observed that despite provisions of lakh of rupees in AA/TS for QCC in
followings nil expenditure has been incurred. Please elucidate.
S.No. Job No. Provn as per AA/TS Expenditure

for QCC (In Rs.)
(In Rs.)
1 94(34)-UR-BRO-2014-15-101 75,05,423 0
2 516/404 14,92,596 0
Details of field lab and qualified engineer/technician deployed in CA were not available in file. The
details of the same may be provided as per format given below:
S.No. Job CA LOA Date on Details of Details of

No. No. which field equipment engineer/technician
lab held in lab employed by contractor and
established their qualifications
Further as per MoRTH guidelines, The Authority's/ Independent Engineer shall ensure that the
Contractor submits all the records/documents for quality control /assurance and handover a copy
of it to the Authority before the completion certificate is issued. However, no such
records/documents were found in files. Whether the same has been obtained or not may be
intimated to audit. If it was submitted by the contractors, copy of the same may furnished to
audit in r/o all EPC works with details in following format:
S.No. Job Details od Date of submission Details of Remarks, if

No. Document of records for quality Discrepancy found, any
required for control by the EPC if any
quality contractors
control/
assurance
6) As per the contract provisions as Safety Consultant is to be appointed by the contractors with
appropriate qualifications as mentioned therein. However, no record regarding the appointment of
Safety Consultant was found in records. Details of Safety Consultant, if appointed by the contractor
may be furnished to audit (with copy) in following format:
S.No. Job No./CA Details of Qualifications Payment Remarks, if any

No. Safety of Safety (month-wise)
Consultant Consultant made to the
safety consultant
7) Audit observed that DPR for following road works were held up due to Hon’ble Supreme Court
decision. Audit is of the view that no proper survey was done before start of preparation of DPR which
led to progress of DPR held up. In this regard following details in following format may be furnished to
audit:
S.No. Name of Work Progress of DPR Expenditure

preparation incurred till date
(In Rs.)
Gangotri-Dharasu NH-108 (New NH-34)
1 Km 0-28.5
2 Km 28.5-45.20
3 Km 67-86.12
4 Km 86.12-101.3
Joshimath-Mana NH-58 (New NH-7)
5 Helong Malari Joshimath Bypass
6 Construction & up-gradation of existing
road to 2-lane with paved shoulder from
existing chainage km 504+871 to km
509+725
7 Strengthening of existing road between km
468+300 to km 480+950 (Helong
Joshimath)
8) It was observed in audit that in one of the cases penalty of Rs. 4,72,29,022.00 was imposed by DM
Tehri Garhwal because prior permission was not taken before extracting stones. For better appreciation
of Royalty payments details of Royalty in following format may please be furnished to audit:
S.No. Job Amount of Amount of Amount of Amount of Amount of Penalty, if
No. Mineral Mineral excavated royalty royalty due any
/CA materials materials materials paid to the to be paid imposed by
No. required in extracted utilized in concerned the the
the contract the works authority concerned concerned
authority authority
on the a/c of
excavation
of mineral
materials
9) As per the Construction Account for Job No.-94-UR-2017-18-491 a total of Rs. 12,87,41,676/- has
been paid to the contractor on the account of GST over and above the Tendered Cost (inclusive of tax).
As GST regime started on 30 th june 2017 and bid due date was Feb 2017 and date of commencement of
work was 01-02-2018 therefore following details may be furnished regarding GST payment to the
contractor:
a. Component wise detail calculation for determining the basic rates of materials (Cement, Steel,
Bitumen etc.) after incorporating all taxes as per Ministry’s circular dated 19-11-2018.
b. The calculation sheet as per MoRTH circular dated 19-11-2018 duly certified by statutory
Auditor of EPC contractor.
10) As per condition 19.9.2 of the Contract, ‘In the event of the failure of the Authority to make payment to
the Contractor within the time period stated in this Clause 19.9, the Authority shall be liable to pay to
the Contractor interest @ 9% (nine per cent) per annum, on all sums remaining unpaid from the date on
which the same should have been paid, calculated in accordance with the provisions of sub-Clauses (a)
and (b) of Clause 19.9 (i) and till the date of actual payment’. In this regard following details on the a/c
of interest payment, if any, in r/o all EPC contracts may be furnished to audit:
S.No. Name of Work Job No. Amount of Interest Payment on Remarks

the a/c of delay (In Rs.)
11) Following details on the a/c of quality control assurance may please be furnished to audit:
S.No. Activity Details in r/o role & responsibility Details in r/o role &
of Contractors responsibility of Authority
Engineer/Independent
Engineer
1 Field laboratory with adequate Details of equipment such as Date of approval of test
equipment Procurement Year, Date of
Installation, No. of tests carried out
on such eqpt., etc.
2 Upkeep and maintenance of - -
laboratory
3 Quality Control Personnel Details of Engineers & Staffs Date of approval for the
designate deployed and their qualification. deployment of Contractor’s
personnel and date of
deployment of team of material
engineer, QC engineer, Lab
technician, etc.
4 Quality Assurance Plan Date of submission of the plan Date of approval of the plan.
5 Source of man-made materials - Date of approval.
6 Calibration of measuring Date on which calibration carried out Date on which the calibrations
devices such as certified
provisioning, dial gauges,
weighing pads etc.
7 Calibration of plant, Date on which calibration carried out Date on which the calibrations
Equipment and Machinery certified
such as batching plant, hot
mix plant, etc. on regular
basis
8 Tests on factory made Dates on which tests in field lab Date of witness and ensured.
materials such as cement, and/or in third party laboratory were
steel, bitumen, geo- carried out.
synthetics, etc.
9 Specialized items such as - -
bridge bearing, expansion
joints, crash barriers, etc.
10 Testing of Ingredients of Date of testing & results. Date on which ensured.
GSB, WMM, concrete etc.
11 Third party laboratory Date on which third party lab testing When the testing was ensured
in absence of adequate expertise
and /or equipment
12 Performance of Paver and Date on which Paver and Grader Date of checking and
grader performed verification
13 Collection of samples from Date of collection Date of ensuring
pavement layers for
verification
14 All tests for raw material, Details of frequency of tests. Date of ensuring
finished layers as per
MoRTH specifications
15 Percentage of tests Whether 100% tests conducted or Date of witness of tests (at lease
not. 50%) and details of source of
testing facility
16 Monthly Inspection Report Date of submission Date of approval
17 Acceptance/ Rectification Details of defects rectified Details of test
acceptance/rectification
18 Documentation Details of documents maintained. Whether any discrepancies
found in documentation
19 Completion certificate Date of completion Date of issue of completion
certificate.
Reply : Awaited
Audit Objective 3: Whether adequate Budgetary provision are made and proper accounting of expenditure is
done in an effective and transparent manner.
Audit sub-objective 3.1: Whether sufficient funds are allotted to achieve the approved targets?
Case I : Budget Allotment and Expenditure. (Stat-2)
During audit of the records of E-5 Budget Section, the following came to notice:
For the FY 2018-19, 2019-20& 2020-21 Budget Allotment was incommensurate with the AWP as shown
below:
FY Budget required as per Actual Budget Percentage Difference
AWP Allotment
2018-19 1591.96 373.33 77%
2019-20 948.53 661.82 30%
2020-21 1032.18 752.52 27%
There was a shortfall in the budget required as per AWP and the budget actually allotted. Audit is of the view
that AWP works which are prioritized as per the strategic requirement during the respective years and shortfall
in the monetary grants must have impacted the plans as well as targets fixed for achievement during the
respective years, thereby, affecting the war preparedness of the army in the border area. Please elucidate.
In this connection, the following information may be furnished:

(i) What were the specific reasons as to why the adequate/sufficient budget was not allotted/
received?
(ii) The list of works prioritized for the respective years and executed during the year.
(iii) A copy of Annual Works Plan/Long Term Roll on Works Plans.
(iv) Impact on the financial positions in r/o all jobs for the year 2018-19 to 2020-21 due to less
allotment of the fund.
(v) Details of AWP mentioning Date on which AWP was sent to DGBR for approval and Date of
approval of AWP by DGBR (in last 3 FY).
Reply :
(i) Budget allotted centrally and it has further been proportionally distributed to each and every project based on
the demand/ work on priority
(ii) LPR of the respective years has already furnished
(iii) Copy of AWP is enclosed herewith
(iv) fund allotted on the basis of target and has been expended with respect to allotted target and there is no
impact on financial position in r/o jobs.
(v) details of AWP mentioning date on which AWP was sent to DGBR for approval and Date of approval by
HQ DGBR already forwarded vide ION no.............
Case II : Rush of Expenditure (Stat-25)
Para 62 (3) of GFR 2017 stipulates that Rush of expenditure, particularly in the closing months of the Financial
year, shall be regarded as a breach of financial propriety and shall be avoided. Ministry of finance’s instructions
restricts last quarter expenditure to 33% ceiling and last month (March) expenditure to 15% ceiling (Ref:
Ministry of Finance Letter No. 3(1)/GFR-Exp Control/TA-II/2016-17/131 dt. 06/03/2017). Further, the Ministry
of Finance OM vide F No. 32 (15)-B(W&M)/2019 dt. 27 Dec 2019 revised the ceilings to 25% and 10 %
respectively.
Cap on Expenditure in last quarter/last month as per ibid MoF OM:
Expenditure during Till 2018-19 Since 2019-20
Last Quarter 33% 25%
Last month (March) 15% 10%
Balance Period (Jan & Feb) 18% 15%
Following is the pace of expenditure in the last quarter:
Budget Head 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
MH 3054 GS Maint - - 44%
MH 3054 Maint MoRTH 41% 28% -
MH 5054 GS - 30% -
MH 5054 Chardham Works - 26% -
MH 8444K Deposit Works - - 36%
MH 2078 OP Works - 80% -
It can be observed from above that there has been a rush of expenditure in the last quarter against the norms laid
down by the MoF. Please justify.
For better appreciation of the case following details may be furnished:

i. Code Head wise Budget Estimates (BEs) for the last three FYs.
ii. Code Head wise Budget Expenditure details in the following format:
Expenditure during 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Code Head:
Last month (March)
Balance Period (Jan & Feb)
iii. Copy of Final MER for the FYs 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21.
Factual Accuracy of the data/figures given in the OL may please be ascertained and correct/actual data/figures
be furnished.
Reply: It is submitted that rush of expenditure in last quarter because of addl demand of funds received in 4 th
quarter resulting more expenditure and in MH 2078 of FY 2019-20, work is related with Air Force and
maximum expenditure booked in last qtr against concerned job. Details are as per attached Appendix.
Case III: Mismatch between physical &financial progress. (Stat 26)
As per Para 10.1 & 10.2 of Technical Instruction no. 22, provision in the Technical sanction for various
items will form the limit for financial booking for any job under operation. The following steps will be taken by
the project/TF for streamlining the financial management of various Jobs under operation in the TF:-
(a) A TS register will be maintained and operated for recording the month-wise and Job wise expenditure.
(b) All Jobs under operation will be entered in this register and provisions as per TS recorded in it.
(c) At the end of each month, the physical progress of each Job will be checked and marked in pencil
against each Job.
(d) Whenever an allocation of a debit voucher is to be done and the expenditure is required to be booked to
various Jobs, this will be done on a pro-rata basis against every single component of the TS, strictly
based on the percentage progress achieved. For instance. an upto date physical progress of 26% in a
Job will dictate, that the expenditure to the extent of 26% only be booked for each component of the
TS. This will be done every month in separate columns, so that the trend of expenditure at various
stages is known and corrective measures can be taken, whenever called for.
(e) The 2 IC Task Force will ensure that the booking of expenditure is done strictly for all Jobs,
particularly those that have been sanctioned after 01 April 1995.
(f) The 2 IC TF and Commander TF will render a certificate every month certifying that, the expenditure
against each component of the TS in various Jobs has been booked strictly on the basis of the
percentage progress. Detailed reasons for overbooking in any Job will also be brought out, along with
plans for correcting the imbalance.
(g) The financial accounting being done at the Task Force level by the 2 IC Task Force and the Budget
section and the AO Task Force and his financial accounting staff need to have regular interaction, to
ensure correct booking of all expenditure.
Review of 3 years 2018-19, 2019-20- 2020-21 was carried out and found that physical progress was not at par
with financial progress as shown in the table below:-
S/No Year Total No of No. of mismatch cases b/w No. of mismatch cases b/w
cases physical & financial progress physical & financial
where diff is more than 1% progress where diff is
more than 10%
21 BRTF
1 2018-19 75 64 36
2 2019-20 73 63 35
3 2020-21 62 55 34
36 BRTF
1 2018-19 163 55 27
2 2019-20 87 65 28
3 2020-21 59 41 13
It can be seen that no proper monitoring has been carried out as per the ibid technical instructions. Reasons for
the mismatch between the physical progress and financial progress may please be intimated to audit.
Reply :
The main reason of mismatch between physical and financial progress is due to procurement for the F/Y &
being assets in hand for execution of work during the F/Y. However, Jobwise details attached as Appx ‘A’ to
this letter.
There are no huge mismatch between physical & financial progress resulting multi nos of jobs completion
reports part ‘A’ & ‘B’ had been initiated and all are satisfactorily noted keeping there is no issue of mismatch
more than 10% and above, which is in policy in vogue.
Case IV: Irregular booking of CPL wages amount in jobs
As per Para 10.1 & 10.2 of Technical Instruction no. 22, provision in the Technical sanction for various items
will form the limit for financial booking for any job under operation.
However, audit observed that in the following jobs (under 21 BRTF) CPL wages were not booked as
per actual deployment on the ground. The same is illustrated in the statement attached herewith.
Therefore, audit is of the view that there has been irregular booking of CPL wages which would require
justification.
Reply: There are no variation between CPL booked in the job and actual ground deployment of CPL in
respective jobs. Sometimes for closing of a particular jobs and due to non availability of scope in CPL head,
CPLs are deployed on another job on specific situation. On regular basis CPLs are booked on respective Jobs
only. However Point have been noted and time to time instruction are being issued to TFs for issuing SW bill on
which scopes are available.
Case V: Irregular booking of expenditure to other jobs.
Asper Para 184 (xvii) of the Office Manual Part-XIII, Vol. III, No expenditure should be allowed to be booked
to the jobs to which it does not pertain. There have been instances that of expenditure being booked to Jobs
under which fund is available although the expenditure does not pertain to that job(s). The practice is highly
irregular and all out efforts should be taken to stop the same forthwith.
During scrutiny of correspondence file, it is seen that the job No. 94(34)-BR-BRO-2014-15-101 has been
sanctioned for stretch between Km 65.00 to 76.00 R-D road for impvt/widening of road vide HQ DGBR letter
No. 47003/DPR/65-76/RD/SVLK/DGBR/West Dte dated 16 Apr 2015 for Rs. 5840.02 Lakhs under Major head
5054. Accordingly, work was executed 10.62% till Mar 2018 with costed progress of Rs. 6,20,00,541/- and
expenditure booked upto Sep 2019 was Rs. 17,41,44,029/- (MER Sep 2019). Thus, there was an excess booking
of Rs. 11,21,43,482/- with respect to costed progress of the job.
The excess booking in expenditure was due to dis-proportionate expenditure on account of mandatory Pay&
Allces, Ration money, TA/DA and usage rate.
For regularization of the excess expenditure of Rs 11,21,43,482/-, it was proposed to transfer Rs. 900.00 lakhs
of this excess booking against Job No108(34)UR-BRO-2014-15-67 stretch from km 116.00 to km 134 D-G
road, Job No. 516/190 (Fmn & pmt works between km 57.00 to km 68.175) on Dharasu-Gangotri road and Job
No. 94(34)-UR-BRO-2014-15-100 (Widening/impvt of road to NHDL spec from km 14.00 to km 18.00 of
Rishikesh-Dharasu road. All these jobs were having similar Major head i.e. MH 5054.
Job No. 108(34)UR-BRO-2014-15-67 for the stretch from km 116.00 to km 134. (lmpvt/widening of existing
single lane to two lane specn from km 116.00 to km 124.00 of Dharasu-Gangotri rd, R-DPR amt Rs. 4754.09
lakh), and the TS issued within permissible limit was Rs. 4991.79 lakhs (AA amt plus 5%) and expenditure
booked as on 28 Feb 2020 was Rs. 4325.00 lakh. Thus, there was less booking of Rs. 666.79 lakhs in Job No.
108(34)UR-BRO-2014-15-67. Physical progress of the Job was 102.37% and the financial progress was
90.97%.
Similarly, RAE of Job No. 516/190 (Fmn & pmt works between km 57.00 to km 68.175) on Dharasu-Gangotri
road sanctioned for Rs. 2396.65 Lakhs vide HQ Svk No. 20000/AA/45/E2 Estg dt 21 Dec 2018 and RTS issued
for Rs.2492.579 Lakhs vide HQ Shivalik letter No. 21003/36TF/TS/Vol-25/06/E2 Wks dt 08 Jan 2019. The
Physical progress of Job was 82.80% and Financial progress was 65.87% i.e. there was. 16.93% or Rs. 405.75
Lakhs less expenditure with respect to physical progress of the Job. The Job No. 94(34)-UR-BRO- 2014-15-100
(RAE) (Widening/impvt of road to NHDL spec from km 14.00 to km 18.00 of Rishikesh-Dharasu road
sanctioned vide HQ Svk letter No. 20000/AA/29/E2 Estg dated 13 Nov 2018 and the physical progress as on 28
Feb 2020 was 84.90% and financial progress was Rs. 68.73% i.e. there was 16.13% or Rs. 504.84 Lakhs less
expenditure with respect to physical progress of the job. Therefore, Rs. 900.00 Lakh were proposed to transfer
to above three jobs.
The case was vetted by AO 36 BRTF vide their letter A0/36TF/531/Budg dated 19 Mar 2020 and the transfer
entry of excess expenditure for Rs. 900.00 lakhs from job No. 94(34)UR-BRO-2014-15-101 (MH-5054) was
proposed under following jobs:-
(a) Job No. 108(34)UR-BRO-2014-15-67 - Rs. 643.73 Lakhs (MH-5054)
(b) Job No. 516/190 - Rs. 100.00 Lakhs (MH-5054)
(c) Job No. 94(34)UR-BRO-2014-15-100 - Rs. 156.27 Lakhs (MH-5054)
Total - Rs. 900.00 Lakhs
It can be seen from the same that the AO office has allowed to book the expenditure from one job to another job.
Reasons for allowing expenditure to be booked to the jobs to which it does not pertain may be furnished to
audit.
Reply :
Reference on observation raised vide letter under reference is as under:-
(i) A self-explanatory SOC is here with submitted for your consideration.
(ii) Construction account for job No. 516/271, 516/262, 516/291, 516/409 as also
enclosed herewith for your consideration please.
Case VI : Non-initiation of CR Pt-A and Pt –B in time (Stat-27)
As per Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highway BRDB New Delhi Letter no.
BRDB/04/67/2007/BEA dt. 19/04/2007, Part ‘A’ of the report will be initiated by the Task Force commander as
soon as work is physically completed but not later than 3 months from the date of completion of work and
transmitted in duplicate to the Accountant who will after verification and check, forward the original to the
Chief Engineer concerned and Part ‘B’ of the report will be completedas soon as the accounts of the work have
been closed but not later than twelve months from the date of completion of work.
However, a scrutiny of the records of E2 Section of CE (P) Shivalik revealed that there was a delay of
more than 03 months and 12 months in the initiation of CR Pt-A and Pt-B, respectively, from the date of
completion of work. The delay is as high as 31 years 6 months in one of the jobs.
Delay Period CR Part A CR Part B
Greater than 3 & up to 12 months 69 -
Greater than 12 months & up to 3 years 47 47
Greater than 3 years & up to 6 years 40 40
Greater than 25 years 1 1
Audit is of the view that the delay in initiation of the completion report Pt-A and Pt-B is in contravention to the
Para Border Road Regulation and order issued by govt.and, would require justification along with furnishing the
specific reasons attributable to delay in initiation of the CR ptAand CRpt B reports.
Reply :
It is intimated that once physical and financial progress of job reaches in range of 10 percent difference, then CR
part ‘A’ & ‘B’ jobs initiated for closure. For better management of running jobs aim of the project and TFs are
to close the jobs as much as possible .In certain jobs physical achievement on ground are in the range of 90
percent and some liabilities are pending to be paid in that jobs, in that situation initiation of CR par ‘A’ & ‘B’
are delayed.In some jobs financial booking are more than permissible limit, in that situation RAEs are prepared,
got it sanction by CFA, then CR par ‘A’ & ‘B’ are initiated. In recent past many jobs have been finally
closed ..However many jobs are still in operation; Ground executives are trying to close it.
If less number of jobs are in operation, then financially and physically it is well managed by ground
executives.So our aims are to close as many jobs as possible. However point raised by test audit team is noted
for compliance.
Audit Objective 4: Whether the manpower is adequate and is effectively deployed to meet the laid down
targets.
Audit Sub-objective 4.1: Whether the BRO is utilizing its Manpower optimally to achieve its targets.
Case I : Irregular attachment of Pioneers
Pioneers are recruited in GREF to carry out unskilled work, manual or otherwise involved in road construction
and maintenance activities.
It was seen in audit that pioneers has been deployed in other than above mentioned activities also, details
regarding their deployment is as under (as on 09/07/2020).
HQ CE(P) Shivalik 21 TF 531 1058 1651 PNR WBW Total

SS&TC Wksp Coy
24 52 20 13 03 02 114
Audit comments:
A. Deployment of pioneers other than their task needs justification along with authority for
doing the same.
B. Pioneers have direct impact on the cost of the works as pioneer CPL ratio is provided in
the sanctions based on SSR. Therefore, increase in cost of the works being executed under
21 BRTF due to less deployment of Pioneers cannot be ruled out. Please elucidate.
For better appreciation of the case following details may be furnished to audit:
(i) The per capita adjustment of pioneer per day in the cost of the work.
(ii) Since when Pioneers are attached to the locations shown above.
(iii) Particular reasons for attachment of Pioneers at locations mentioned above.
Audit Objective 5: Whether the procurement of plant and machinery ensures the efficient use of budgetary
allocation and within reasonable time-frame?
Audit Sub-objective 5.1: Whether the procurement of plant and machinery is made within reasonable
timeframe and at an optimal cost?
Case I : Under utilization of plants/eqpts. (State-32)
Dte. General Border Roads New Delhi vide their letter No. 22056/CCC/Eqpt-Norms/DGBR/161/TP
(Res) dt. 18.10.19 circulated the revised norms of utilization of veh/eqpt/plants among all the projects of BRO
and the recommended annual utilization level of equipment on original work are as under:-
Sl No V/E/Ps Revised Annual utilization

HA HAA Plain
Avg hrs Avg hrs run Avg Hrs run
run
1 Dozer all type 1000 700 1000
2 Excavator (JCB/Tata JD/L&T) 1000 700 1000
3 Hyd Exc JS-80 (7-8 TonCap) 1000 700 1000
4 Hyd Exc JS 200/JS 1000 700 1000
80/BEML-220/L&T/TELCON/Tata-20(20 Ton Cap)
5 Hyd Exc BEML (30 Ton Cap) 1000 700 1000
6 Wheel Loader 1000 750 800
7 Motor Grader 500 500 500
8 Road Roller all Type/soil Compactor
(a) Asphaltic work 600 600 800
(b) Other than asphaltic work 700 700 800
9 Air Compr all type 500 400 500
10 Crawler Rock Drill 600 600 600
11 Stone Crusher all type/Sand Crusher 1200 900 1200
12 HMP 20-30/30-45/60/12B TPH 800 600 800
13 WMM Plant all Type 1100 800 1250
14 Paver Finisher all type 400 400 600
15 Concrete Mixer (All Type) 800 600 1000
16 Load Carrier/Tipper 20000 20000 20000
However a scrutiny of the records of E4 section of BRTFs under HQ CE Shivalik revealed the following:-
36 BRTF :-
Sl Name of V/E/P utilized during year Utilization rate as per norms Actual Utilization
N
o
18-19 19-20 20-21 18-19 19-20 20-21 18-19 19-20 20-21
1 E/Crane E/Crane E/Crane 1200 1200 1200 499.8 904.8 1195
2 Wheel Loader Wheel Wheel 5750 4950 4280.3 3132 3371 4623
Loader Loader
3 JCB/Tata JD JCB/Tata JCB/Tata 7400 6200 2254 4634 5755 2739
JD JD
4 Tracked Tracked Tracked 3650 2850 1744.3 1633 1355 2260
Excavator 7/8 Excavator Excavato 2
T 7/8 T r 7/8 T
5 Tracked Tracked Tracked 10510 8500 2906.9 2404 4355 3040.5
Excavators 20 Excavators Excavato 8
T 20 T rs 20 T
6 BD-50 BD-50 BD-50 3860 2700 1900.6 1649 840 1292
5
7 BD-80 BD-80 BD-80 2600 1800 283.33 1335 1112.5 525
8 Static Road Static Static 2680 1000 533.66 151 130 42
Roller Road Road
Roller Roller
9 TV RR TV RR TV RR 6200 6750 3237.6 4209 1577 621
4
1 Paver Finisher Air Air 250 7390 3874.0 3 2899 3009
0 Compresso Compres 2
r sor
1 Air Welding Welding 8400 3900 2750 371 1239 1734.3
1 Compressor Gen Sets Gen Sets
1 Welding Gen Lighting Lighting 5400 24300 13500 1028 12400 4220.3
2 Sets Gen Set Gen Set
1 Lighting Gen W/Pump W/Pump 22800 8400 8400 12183 0 0
3 Set
1 W/Pump Concrete Concrete 8400 21700 13144 268 1993 2424.7
4 Mixer Mixer
1 Concrete Cord Drill Cord 27040 1200 1200 5889 0 0
5 Mixer Machine Drill
Machine
1 Cord Drill 1200 0
6 Machine
1 HMP Apllo 1200 0
7 20/30 TPH
1 Stone Crusher 3600 0
8
1
9
21 BRTF: -
S. Name of V/E/P utilized during year Utilization rate as per Actual Utilization
N norms
o
18-19 19-20 20-21 18-19 19-20 20-21 18-19 19-20 20-21
Motor
1 Motor Cycle Cycle Motor Cycle 120000 100000 100000 37345 39314 38648
Maruti Maruti
2 Maruti Gypsy Gypsy Gypsy 280000 380000 260000 204293 195806 204357
Ambulance Ambulanc Ambulance
3 Gypsy e Gypsy Gypsy 60000 60000 60000 16102 21753 18190
4 Tata Safari - Tata Safari 40000 - 40000 35052 - 34550
1 Ton
407/207/Bolar
5 o Staff Car Staff Car 580000 20000 40000 510198 6583 16370
1 Ton 1 Ton
S/Mazada 407/207/B 407/207/Bol
6 Bus olaro aro 140000 620000 560000 128235 501159 490109
S/Mazada S/Mazada
7 Refuller Bus Bus 20000 140000 80000 44 125433 126322
8 Water Truck Refuller refuller 480000 20000 20000 314768 362 6942
Water
9 Load Carrier Truck Water Truck 600000 560000 540000 488996 314768 314768
Load
10 EXP Van Carrier Load Carrier 40000 580000 580000 4242 481318 481678
174000 114936
11 Tata/AL TPR EXP Van EXP Van 0 40000 40000 4 4242 7642
Tata/AL Tata/AL 180000 172000
12 Dumper TPR TPR 680000 0 0 362740 924729 913630
13 - Dumper Dumper - 680000 680000 - 435298 337511
Roller All AMW/ AMW/
type/ Soil TATA TATA
14 compactor Trailer Trailer 15400 40000 40000 13986 33048 38998
Roller All
type / Soil Roller All
15 Air Comp compactor type 15700 14700 11800 13725 7823 5458
Rock Drill all
16 type Air Comp Air Comp 3000 13400 12200 2078 5324 2824
Rock Drill Rock Drill
17 S/crusher all type all type 8700 3600 3600 2099 1548 1641
Hyd Exc Cum
loader /Back
18 Hoe Loader S/crusher S/crusher 16700 7500 6300 13392 854 491
Hyd Exc
Cum Hyd Exc
loader/Bac Cum
Hyd Exc 7 to k Hoe loader/Back
19 8 Ton Loader Hoe Loader 7600 12000 11200 5233 10902 8239
Hyd Exc 7 Hyd Exc 7 to
20 - to 8 Ton 8 Ton - 8500 6600 - 7094 3467
Hyd Exc 20
21 Wheel loader - Ton Cap 7700 - 16700 7445 - 16168
Wheel
22 Dozer BD-80 - loader 6600 - 7000 1911 - 5552
Dozer BD- Dozer BD-
23 Dozer BD-50 80 80 12700 5900 4500 7914 4227 2570
Dozer BD- Dozer BD- 29063.
24 G/set all type 50 50 40800 9000 6600 5 6268.5 5487
Welding Gen G/set all G/set all 25898.
25 set type type 10800 34800 33600 1118 26200 05
HMP 20/30 Welding Welding
26 TPH Gen set Gen set 2000 7200 7200 1746 1118 1118
HMP HMP 20/30
27 C/Mixer 20/30 TPH TPH 9200 1200 1200 2599 1197 536
28 Paver Finisher BPD WMM Plant 1800 2200 1100 1698 177 288
29 BPD C/Mixer C/Mixer 2200 4800 5400 192 343 1470
Water
30 Tractor Pump Water Pump 1200 6000 6000 185 295 1048
Paver Paver 100000 35469/
31 Recovery Finisher Finisher / 6000 1400 1400 734 1239 539
32 Crane hoest Tractor BPD 300 1200 2200 36.5 7 328
Fogging 100000 43046/
33 machine Recovery - 1200 / 6000 - 25.5 809 -
34 - Crane Recovery 300 100000 79 36760/
hoest / 6000 707
fogging
35 - machine Crane hoest 1200 1200 8.5 127/80
It can be seen from the above that most of the vehicles/equipment/plants were less utilized to the great
extent than the annual utilization rates laid down by the HQ DGBR vide their letter referred to above which
indicates that the equipment have not been utilized as per the norms and %age of less utilization of the vehicles
as compared to the utilization rate laid down is given below: -
36 BRTF: -
S.No Name of V/E/P utilized during year % of less Utilization

18-19 19-20 20-21 18-19 19-20 20-21
1 E/Crane E/Crane E/Crane 58 25 0
2 Wheel Loader Wheel Loader Wheel Loader 46 32 +8
3 JCB/Tata JD JCB/Tata JD JCB/Tata JD 37 7 +22
4 Tracked Excavator Tracked Tracked 55 52 +30
7/8 T Excavator 7/8 T Excavator 7/8 T
5 Tracked Excavators Tracked Tracked 77 49 +5
20 T Excavators 20 T Excavators 20 T
6 BD-50 BD-50 BD-50 57 69 32
7 BD-80 BD-80 BD-80 49 38 +85
8 Static Road Roller Static Road Roller Static Road 94 87 92
Roller
9 TV RR TV RR TV RR 32 77 81
10 Paver Finisher Air Compressor Air Compressor 99 61 22
11 Air Compressor Welding Gen Sets Welding Gen 96 68 37
Sets
12 Welding Gen Sets Lighting Gen Set Lighting Gen 81 49 69
Set
13 Lighting Gen Set W/Pump W/Pump 47 100 100
14 W/Pump Concrete Mixer Concrete Mixer 97 91 82
15 Concrete Mixer Cord Drill Cord Drill 78 100 100
Machine Machine
16 Cord Drill Machine 100 --- ---
17 HMP Apllo 20/30 100 --- ---
TPH
18 Stone Crusher 100 --- ---
19 --- --- ---
21 BRTF: -
S.N Name of V/E/P utilized during year % of less Utilization

o
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2018- 2019-20 2020-21
19
1 Motor Cycle Motor Cycle Motor Cycle 69% 61% 61%
2 Maruti Gypsy Maruti Gypsy Maruti Gypsy 27% 48% 21%
3 Ambulance Gypsy Ambulance Gypsy Ambulance Gypsy 73% 64% 70%
4 Tata Safari - Tata Safari 12% - 14%
5 1 Ton 407/207/Bolaro Staff Car Staff Car 12% 67% 59%
1 Ton 1 Ton
6 S/Mazada Bus 407/207/Bolaro 407/207/Bolaro 8% 19% 12%
7 Refuller S/Mazada Bus S/Mazada Bus 100% 10% -58%
8 Water Truck refuller refuller 34% 98% 65%
9 Load Carrier Water Truck Water Truck 19% 44% 42%
10 EXP Van Load Carrier Load Carrier 89% 17% 17%
11 Tata/AL TPR EXP Van EXP Van 34% 89% 81%
12 Dumper Tata/AL TPR Tata/AL TPR 47% 49% 47%
13 - Dumper Dumper - 36% 50%
Roller All type/ Soil AMW/TATA
14 compactor AMW/TATA Trailer Trailer 9% 17% 3%
Roller All type / Soil
15 Air Comp compactor Roller All type 13% 47% 54%
16 Rock Drill all type Air Comp Air Comp 31% 60% 77%
17 S/crusher Rock Drill all type Rock Drill all type 76% 57% 54%
Hyd Exc Cum
loader /Back Hoe
18 Loader S/crusher S/crusher 20% 89% 92%
Hyd Exc Cum Hyd Exc Cum
loader/Back Hoe loader/Back Hoe
19 Hyd Exc 7 to 8 Ton Loader Loader 31% 9% 26%
20 Hyd Exc 20 Ton Cap Hyd Exc 7 to 8 Ton Hyd Exc 7 to 8 Ton - 17% 47%
Hyd Exc 20 Ton
21 Wheel loader - Cap 3% - 3%
22 Dozer BD-80 - Wheel loader 71% - 21%
23 Dozer BD-50 Dozer BD-80 Dozer BD-80 38% 28% 43%
24 G/set all type Dozer BD-50 Dozer BD-50 29% 30% 17%
25 Welding Gen set G/set all type G/set all type 90% 25% 23%
26 HMP 20/30 TPH Welding Gen set Welding Gen set 13% 84% 84%
27 C/Mixer HMP 20/30 TPH HMP 20/30 TPH 72% 0% 55%
28 Paver Finisher BPD WMM Plant 6% 92% 74%
29 BPD C/Mixer C/Mixer 91% 93% 73%
30 Tractor Water Pump Water Pump 85% 95% 83%
65%/
31 Recovery Paver Finisher Paver Finisher 88% 12% 62%
32 Crane hoest Tractor BPD 88% 99% 85%
57%/
33 Fogging machine Recovery - 98% 87% -
63%/
34 - Crane hoest Recovery 74% 88%
35 - Fogging machine Crane hoest 99% 89%
Audit is of the view that the annual utilization norms/targets have been fixed/laid down wrt the
plants/equipment and vehicles made authorized to the BRTFs.
It is clear from above that the vehicles, plant & machinery and manpower have been held in excess
than the target fixed/ achieved during the year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.
Specific reasons as to why the utilization norms could not be complied with may be furnished.
Factual accuracy of the data/ figures given in the OL may please be ascertained/ verified and correct/
actual data/ figures be furnished.
Reply :
The reasons for low utilisation of VEPs are enumerated as under:
(a) most of the allotted works to this project are being executing through EPC mode and execution contracts.
(b) AOR falls under Hilly/HAA which affects the efficiency of VEPs.
(c) lot of VEPs already declared surplus and transferred out to other projects. Details enclosed as Annex.
(d) existing lot of held VEPs are eof old Vintage models and same are not efficient due to frequent break downs.
(e) some VEPs are being kept idle at slide points to meet the emergency for keeping road open round the clock
24 x 7 and are being utilised on requirement basis only.
However, we will strive to utilise these VEPs upto stipulated norms
Case II : Vehicles, Equipment and Plants lying off road.(State-33)

A scrutiny of the records of the E-4 section revealed that the 59 nos. of vehicles, equipment and plants
have been lying off road since the month/years shown there against in the statement given below:-
Srl Make & Type BA/EM No Date off Nature of defect

No. road
OFF ROAD VEH / EQPTs : 72 RCC (GREF)
1 BE 220 12Q-31872 11.05.20 Track chain Adjuster n/w, Fan pully coupling
w/o, Track rollers w/o , radiator & hyd hose
leaking , bucket jack leaking, Rock bkr hose
perished , Bucket link , pins w/o , Accelerator
cable bkn.
2 AL LC 1616 12E-60686 06.02.21 Clutch defect

3 Tata WT 1613 10ZE-69094 16.03.21 Starting troble, S/Starter defect, Alternator
bolt w/out.
4 Tata Tipper 1613 17E-73686 12.03.21 RH Front axle cracked
5 BD 80 05G-28403X 20.03.21 Track roller bkn, carrier roller w/o, bush w/o,
link w/o, diagonal seal/bush w/o,Alternator
not working , Hyd Jack bent LH , Hyd jack oil
leaking RH. Blade assy abdly worn out, reqd
complete repair.
6 Tata 407 (4X4) 13C-20487 04.04.21 Wheel Wobbling defect
7 BE 220 13Q-31933 06.04.21 Hyd Jack oil seal leakage , Bucket fitting bush
w/out , Hrsmeter n/w, Track roller 04 Nos w/o
and nut & bolts bkn.
8 Tata Star Bus 11C-20707 15.04.21 Brake defect
OFF ROAD VEH / EQPTs : 1442 BCC (GREF)
1 Force Axle 05C-20123 16.09.20 Brake defect, Fnt stub axle broken , gear box
noisy
2 Water Pump 02X-47568 18.09.20 Starting trouble
19 HP
3 M/G Amb 06B-14397 10.04.21 Starting trouble
4 M/Gypsy 18B-15769 09.04.21 Fuel motor defective , fuel filter chocked
OFF ROAD VEH / EQPTs : 36 TF, 1062 FW, 1020 (I) ESPL & 1577 PC (GREF)
1 Fogging Machine Pulsejet type 25.04.20 Starting trouble

make
Vighnharta
Corp
2 AL LC 1616 10E-60555 06.02.21 Clutch defect
3 Welding Gen-set 10Y-43629 15.03.21 Starting trouble , Current output nil
CLASS CSP VEH /EQPTs : 72 RCC,1442 BCC,36TF,1020(I)ESPL , 1577 Pnr Coy & 1062 FW (GREF)
1 Gen set 125 KVA NYA-39755 30.12.17 Engine block broken, connecting rod, piston
& Piston ring damaged
2 AL LC 1616 12E-60689 02.03.20 Engine oil consumption high, Engine blow
bye, PPW and Welding work.
3 M&M Dumper 15E-72714 17.06.20 Engine overheating, PPW
4 Dozer BD 50 16G-29680 08.09.20 Eng blow bye , oil consumption high defect
5 M&M Dumper 15E-72713 12.12.20 Engine overheating, PPW
6 Tata 207 11C-20389 01.12.20 Starting trouble
7 JCB 3DX Super 13Q-32030 19.2.21 Eng rear crank seal leaking , Metal pieces in
Oil sump
OFF ROAD VEP : 75 RCC

1 Tata A/L Load Not Provided 05/11/2017 Accidental Vehicle
Carriar
2 Tata Bus Not Provided 08/01/2021 DEE
3 Tata Tpr (2 Nos) Not Provided 02/08/2020 -do-

02/10/2020
4 A/L Tpr (2 Nos) Not Provided 06/05/2014 01 Accidental Vehicle
05/03/2018 01 DEE
5 A/L/DMPR/M&M Not Provided Not Given Poor Mechanical Condition
DMPR (2 Nos)
6 Con Mixer All Type Not Provided 02/05/2019 Accidental Vehicle
7 S/C all type Not Provided 04/07/2020 DEE
8 JS/Ex-200/BE-220/ Not Provided 01/05/2020 -do-

JS-80/Ex-70 (4 Nos) 07/02/2019
04/08/2020
01/02/2020
9 BD-80 Not Provided 06/01/2019 -do-
10 BD-50 (2 Nos) Not Provided 24/07/2007 Accidental Vehicle
11 JCB W/L/BEML Not Provided 07/02/2019 DEE

W/L
12 Tata JD315/JCB 3DX Not Provided 10/02/2020 -do-
(2 Nos) 26/11/2019
13 RR AJ/BM/TVRR (2 Not Provided 23/04/2020 -do-
Nos) 08/01/2019
OFF ROAD V/E/P : 123 RCC

1 T/Xenon 15C-20698 12/12/2020 BEE
2 T/TPR 02E-66492X 04/01/2021 BEE
3 T/TPR 09E-71354 25/07/2020 BEE
4 T/TPR 09E-71459 10/09/2020 BEE
5 T/TPR 10E-71570 19/07/2019 CSP
6 BD-50 09G-29529X 07/03/2020 CSP
7 BD-50 06G-29481X 09/01/2020 BEE
8 BD-50 09G-29507 12/05/2020 CSP
9 BD-50 10G-29573 31/08/2020 CSP
10 T/JD 11Q-31700X 11/09/2020 BEE
11 T/JD 10Q-31388 16/11/2020 BEE
12 BEML BE75 12Q-31824 12/03/2020 CSP
13 A/COMP 01NB-40238 04/12/2017 CSP
14 A/COMP 11NC-40929 06/08/2019 CSP
15 TVRR 16M-42647 10/11/2020 BEE
16 C/MIX 12T-36390 15/06/2020 BEE
Audit is of the view that VEP lying off road/EOA within a range of one year to three and half years have
impacted the progress of the jobs/works under execution during the period and, thus, the designed
capacity/targets must have not been utilized/achieved at par. Pl clarify.
In this connection, the following information may kindly be furnished:
1 Specific reasons as to why the VEP lying off road for the last one year to three and half years could not
be put to work.
2 Whether the GREF work shop situated locally is not able to repair the VEP. If yes-reasons thereof. If
not, then reasons for delay in repairs.
3 Cost of the repair of the VEP.
4 Amount/quantum of the work to be done as per the designed capacity/ norms in the event of getting the
off road VEP repaired well in time.
5 Present position of the VEP.
Reply :
VEPs shown in report were out of action for 15 days or more but most of them have already been put on road
and their POR dates have now been indicated against each for your perusal please. Ref Annex III enclosed. It is
further added that delay in repair of off road VEPs is also happened due to lengthy procurement procedure
mainly through GeM and most of time spares either not available or GeM firms not supply in time due to
epidemic of COVID-19.
Case III: Non recovery of idling charge to the tune of Rs 55,90,808/- from firms.
HQ DGBR New Delhi placed under mentioned supply order for procurement of various type of
veh/eqpt/plant for BRTF as shown below.
S/ Supply order No & date Item Item cost Total amount
No of Supply
order
1. 51021- Proc2/18X Dozer size-W/GS Dozer size IV Rs 57,26,657 Rs 10,49,11,796
2013-14/DGBR/So-12/E3 E5 dt
22/11/2013
2. 51021-Pro/13X BD-50/GS BD Dozer Rs 50,65,632 Rs 6,58,53,216
2010-11/DGBR/So-1/E3 E5 dt
26/04/2010
3. 51022/e Proc/25X HMP20/30 Hot mix plant 20/30 Rs 51,83,850 Rs 12,95,96,250
TPH/GS/2016-17/So-24/DGBR/E3 E5 TPH
dt Oct 2016
4. 51009/e-Proc/10X Stone Stone Crusher 20 TPH Rs 62,01,562 Rs 6,20,15,625
Crusher/20TPH/GS-14-15/So-38/DGB
R dt 31/03/2015
5. 51039/e-Proc/36X Hyd Excavator 20 Hyd excavator 20 Ton Rs 48,06,843 Rs 17,30,46,375
Ton
6. GEMC-511687754109223 dt 09/10/19 Tata Tpr 18,52,307 22,41,29,147
As per condition of supply orders, in case of defects developing during the warranty period and if the
eqpt/plant is not back in running condition by seller within a period of maximum of 21 days from the date of
issue of notification, the seller shall be liable to be charged an idling cost.
It is seen from 21 BRTF letter No. 4029/Defect/185/E4 dt 14/07/2019 that under-mentioned new
eqpt/plants were off road and could not be repaired by firm in time as per supply order clause under warranty
period and idling charges of Rs 52,20,348/- could not be recovered from the firms as shown below and 2 cases
amounting to Rs 3,70,460 (185230 x 2) noticed in 1058 Wksp, totalling to Rs 55,90,808/-
S Make& Type EM No. Date of Date of Date of No. of days Amount Rs.
/ inductio off road on road applicable for (Idling
N n idling charges Charges as
o applicable)
1. BD-50 13G-29650 20/05/14 31/07/14 02/04/15 224 x Rs 10703 = Rs 23,97,472
23,97,472
2. BD-50 10G-29563 09/07/10 20/07/11 25/12/11 137 x Rs 9095 = Rs 12,46,015
12,46,015
3. Hyd Exc BE 220 13Q-31932 18/09/17 21/09/17 31/12/17 80 x Rs 5479 Rs 4,38,320
=4,38,320
4. S/Crushes 20 TPH 15L-38856 31/03/16 04/09/17 28/02/18 155 x Rs 6958 = Rs 6,20,156
Appollo 10,78,490 (10% capital
cost)
5. HMP 20/30 TPH 16R-47853 24/12/16 22/08/17 28/02/18 169 x Rs 5789 = Rs 5,18,385
Wilson 9,78,341 (10 % capital
cost)
6. Tata Tpr CH-15260 30/01/20 18/07/20 21/09/20 44 x Rs 556 = 1,85,230
24464 ( 10% capital
cost)
7. Tata Tpr CH- 15234 30/01/20 04/08/20 21/09/20 27 x Rs 556 = 1,85,230
15012 ( 10% capital
cost)
Total 5590808
It is seen from above that idling charges to the tune of Rs 55,90,808/- has not been recovered from the
firms. Reason for not initiating cases for recovery of idling charges may please be intimated to audit.
A review may be carried out in which idling charges were not worked out for vehicles off road during
warranty period etc and results be intimated to audit.
Reply: A detailed advisory has been issued to both Task Force for forwarding detailed case for recovery of
idling charges. The case is under progress and will be pursued with HQ DGBR for recovery.
Case IV : Non-bookingof usage amountfor the idle period of equipment to the tune of Rs. 7.72 crores.
Usage rates on account of Vehicles, Equipment, Plants & Machineries are fixed by DGBR in consultation with
BRDB and the Min of Defence (Finance) for each type of machinery; vehicle and other equipment. For the
purpose of booking in financial accounts as well as in construction accounts a return showing the details of
Vehicle, Equipment and Plant used against various Job(s) during a particular month based on the abstract of
MPR prepared by OC RCC/BCC is sent by the executives duly calculating the usage rates(s) for each V/E/P
based on the Usage rate(s) prescribed by DGBR for each category of V/E/P to the Accounts Office.
Also, Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide their letter no. BWB/02/257/2006/works (Part)/D (BR-1)
dt. 15 March 2018 revised guidelines for calculation and levy of usage rates: -
(a) Capital cost of each equipment should form the basis for working out its usage rate.
(b) "residual value of vehicle/equipment would be taken @20% of the capital cost of the
equipment for the purpose of calculation of its usage rate.
(c) Usage rate should be levied on works on which they are used on hourly basis for the
period of actual use.
(d) Usage rates at l/8th of the 'Normal Rate' should be charged for the idle period of the
equipment i.e. norm for annual utilization less the period of actual utilization.
(e) For equipment which have completed their prescribed life but are still in use, usage rates
may be levied at 5% of the normal rate.
During scrutiny of reports for the year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21,it is observed that a sum of Rs. 7.72
Crores (as per table below) has not been booked by BRTFs under CE, Project Shivalik against jobs on account
of idle period of the equipment as per MoD policy dt. 15 March 2018 and no action has been taken by the Chief
Engineer, Project Shivalik. Reasons/ circumstances under which action could not be taken for not booking usage
charges for the idle period of the equipment may please be furnished to audit.
Year 1/8th cost against unutilized V/E/P Remarks

2018-19 4,27,00,750/- Appx A
2019-20 2,94,15,626/- Appx B
2020-21 51,32,011/- Appx C
Total Amount 7,72,48,387/-
It is also noticed from the usage expenditure return that same usage amount has been calculated for same type of
V/E/P received during different timeframe. It is requested that usage rate of each V/E/P calculated by DGBR
and further applicable as stipulated in MoD policy dt. 15 March 2018 may be worked out and results be
intimated to audit along with details.
Reply:
36 BRTF:
As per the utilisation report of 36 TF, during 2018-19 to 2020-21, 1/8 th cost of usage amount against non-
utilisation of VEPs has been calculated as Rs. 1.27 Crores (Appx attached)
The reason for non-utilisation of VEPs are enumerated as under please:
(a) Most of the allotted works to this Task Force are being executing through EPC mode and execution
contracts.
(b) Due to non-availability of specific work and execution of Chardham Project under EPC mode, 69 nos VEPs
have been decalred surplus and transferred out to the other units/Project during 2018-19 to 2020-21. Details
enclosed as Appx.
(c) Most of the existing lot held VEP were of old vintage models and same were not efficient due to frequently
break downs. Accordingly 87 nos VEPs was downgraded to class ‘DEE’ and sold out in auction during laste
three FYs. Details enclosed as Appx.
(d) moreover some equipment viz, Concrete Mixer, Con vibrator, Air Compressors, Road Rollers, Crane,
Recovery vehicle etc. are being utilised as per ground requirement and specific work.
However, this TF will strive to utilise VEPs up to stipulated norms.
21 BRTF:
(a) Board Proceddings of CL-DEE VEPs take 8 to 9 months and for that period these VEPS reman in holding
strength and reduce the average utilisation of other holding VEPs
(b) C of I of accident VEPs takes 2/3 years and for that period these VEPs remain in holding strength and affect
utilisation of other VEPs.
(c) Most of the VEPs run over and above their stipulated life and this over run compensates the usage charges of
idle of VEPs also.
(d) Class CSP state VEPs lying off road for want of engine assy and affects utilisation of other working VEPs
(e) Maximum VEPs are of old vintage and poor mechanical condition so unable to achieve 100% efficiency
(f) Some VEPs are being kept idle at slide points to meet the emergency for keeping road open round the clock
24 x 7 and are being utilised on requirement basis only.
(g) 75% of the sector lying in HAA sector, during winter season all VEPs kept idle during winters as work is
closed due to snow bound areas and extreme climatic condition though all efforts are made to utilities these in
plain area i.e. 66 RCC AOR.
(h) Due to shortage of drivers/operators, VEPs are under utilisation. However, surplus VEPs are being
transferred to other needy units.
Inspite of procedural constraints, all efforts are being made to utilise the VEPS to their maximum extents.
Appx- A
Total utilisation of 2nd line TPT and major EQPT for the Year 2018-19
S/No Nomenclature No of Present Total Desired Unutilised Percentage Cost of 1/8th Usage 1/8th cost
V/E/P Usage Hrs/Kms utilisation in Hrs/ Utilisation as rate usage amount
held rate run level Km (6-5) Utilisation per actual (column 4 against
of V/E/Ps during (Hrs/ (5 x 100/6) Run (in Rs.) divided by unutilised (in
(in Rs.) 2018-19 Km) (4 x 5) 8) Rs.) (7 x 10)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 AL/Tipper 35 12.43 326137 615834 289697 52.959 4053882.91 1.554 450116.71
2 Tata/AMW Trailer 5 24.61 58697 87500 28803 67.082 1444533.17 3.076 88605.23
3 Tata Tipper 156 13.55 1374983 2673413 1298430 51.432 18631019.65 1.694 2199215.81
4 Dumper 56 11.67 353982 1050500 696518 33.697 4130969.94 1.459 1016045.63
5 HMT Tractor 1 23.63 192 1200 1008 16.000 4536.96 2.954 2977.38
6 BPD 1 10.54 0 1200 1200 0.000 0 1.318 1581.00
7 Skid steer loader 1 386.82 0 1200 1200 0.000 0 48.353 58023.00
8 Paver finisher 5 1174.73 1541 6000 4459 25.683 1810258.93 146.841 654765.13
9 Dozer BD-80 19 2202.56 3245 16000 12755 20.281 7147307.2 275.320 3511706.60
10 Dozer BD-50 31 1216.28 9427 32410 22983 29.087 11465871.56 152.035 3494220.41
11 JCB/BEML Wheel loader 22 518.03 12694 25410 12716 49.957 6575872.82 64.754 823408.69
12 Hyd Excav 7-10 Ton 15 491.1 7743 14550 6807 53.216 3802587.3 61.388 417864.71
13 Hyd Excav 20-30 Ton 15 868.62 1510 4560 3050 33.114 1311616.2 108.578 331161.38
14 JCB JS-200 11 750.38 4564.5 13200 8635.5 34.580 3425109.51 93.798 809988.31
15 BEML BE-220 13 912.23 9351 15600 6249 59.942 8530262.73 114.029 712565.66
16 Tata Hitachi 20Ton/200LC 15 867.44 6782 18000 11218 37.678 5882978.08 108.430 1216367.74
17 Tata JD 315/Excv cum
28 417.46 12998.5 33600 38.686 5426353.81 52.183
loader 20601.5 1075037.77
18 Road Roller (all type) 34 161.17 7306 20100 12794 36.348 1177508.02 20.146 257751.12
19 TVRR 19 339.56 8316 30000 21684 27.720 2823780.96 42.445 920377.38
20 Compactor Bomag 1 284.86 0 200 200 0 35.608 7121.50
21 Soil Compactor 1 411.23 0 3600 3600 0.000 0 51.404 185053.50
22 Stone Crusher 17 1270.46 2094 20400 18306 10.265 2660343.24 158.808 2907130.10
23 Air Comp (all type) 50 139.08 13990 28800 14810 48.576 1945729.2 17.385 257471.85
24 HMP 20/30 TPH 3 1091.5 1510 43200 41690 3.495 1648165 136.438 5688079.38
25 Gen Set 125 KVA 2 247.54 1087 2400 1313 45.292 269075.98 30.943 40627.50
26 Gen Set 160 KVA 1 266.77 1037.5 1200 162.5 86.458 276773.875 33.346 5418.77
27 Water Pump (all type) 12 30.06 0 47400 47400 0.000 0 3.758 178105.50
28 Snow Cutter 0 4130.12 0 16800 16800 0.000 0 516.265 8673252.00
29 Concrete Mixer 40 19.48 6919 55270 48351 12.519 134782.12 2.435 117734.69
30 C/Vibrator 41 28.6 604 42000 41396 1.438 17274.4 3.575 147990.70
31 Hyd Rock & Cont Spliter 1 386.82 0 1200 1200 0.000 0 48.353 58023.00
32 Crawler rock drill machine 0 787.38 0 13200 13200 0.000 0 98.423 1299177.00
33 SPM Rock drill Sandvik 4 1795.2 1362 15600 14238 8.731 2445062.4 224.400 3195007.20
34 Refueller 1 20.95 0 360000 360000 0.000 0 2.619 942750.00
35 Tata Hyd Plateform 1 10.81 0 672000 672000 0.000 0 1.351 908040.00
36 Tata Explosive van 2 9.77 706 40000 39294 1.765 6897.62 1.221 47987.80
Total 1/8th usage cost against unutilised V/E/P 42700750.14
Appx- B
S/No Nomenclature No of Present Total Desired Unutilised Percentage Cost of 1/8th Usage 1/8th cost
V/E/P Usage Hrs/Kms utilisation in Hrs/ Km Utilisation as rate usage amount
held rate run level (6-5) Utilisation per actual (column 4 against
of V/E/Ps during (Hrs/ (5 x 100/6) Run (in Rs.) divided by unutilised (in
(in Rs.) 2019-20 Km) (4 x 5) 8) Rs.) (7 x 10)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 AL/Tpr 27 12.6 264618 432168 167550 61.23 3334186.8 1.575 263891.25
2 Tata AMW Tlr 4 40.6 64957 80000 15043 81.20 2637254.2 5.075 76343.23
3 Tata Tpr 116 11.2 1105054 2076471 971417 53.22 12376604.8 1.4 1359983.80
4 Dumper 50 12.2 420373 852498 432125 49.31 5128550.6 1.525 658990.63
5 HMT Tractor 1 23.63 0 1200 1200 0.00 0 2.95375 3544.50
6 BPD 2 10.54 177 2400 2223 7.38 1865.58 1.3175 2928.80
7 Paver Finisher 4 1174.73 1002.5 4800 3797.5 20.89 1177666.825 146.84125 557629.65
8 Tata Water Truck 42 12 300872 667486 366614 45.08 3610464 1.5 549921.00
9 Dozer BD-80 14 2202.56 5339 9396 4057 56.82 11759467.84 275.32 1116973.24
10 Dozer BD-50 22 800.14 7109 16553 9444 42.95 5688195.26 100.0175 944565.27
11 JCB/BEML whell loader 15 490.03 9584.5 32150 22565.5 29.81 4696692.535 61.25375 1382221.50
12 Hyd Exc 8-10 Ton 13 490.08 8888.5 13650 4761.5 65.12 4356076.08 61.26 291689.49
13 Hyd Exc 20-30 Ton 11 868.62 3687 3700 13 99.65 3202601.94 108.5775 1411.51
14 JCB JS-200 2 750.38 2269 2400 131 94.54 1702612.22 93.7975 12287.47
15 BEML BE-220 10 912.23 10698 12000 1302 89.15 9759036.54 114.02875 148465.43
Tata Hitachi 20 Ton/200
7 867.44 7488.5 8400 89.15 6495824.44 108.43
16 LC 911.5 98833.95
Tata JD 315/Exc cum
11 417.46 7523 13200 56.99 3140551.58 52.1825
17 loader 5677 296240.05
18 Road Roller static 19 225.25 3177 12070 8893 26.32 715619.25 28.15625 250393.53
19 TVRR 15 339.56 6141.5 12525 6383.5 49.03 2085407.74 42.445 270947.66
20 Soil Compactor 2 438.46 860 1800 940 47.78 377075.6 54.8075 51519.05
21 Stone Crusher 6/10 TPH 5 96.74 0 5000 5000 0.00 0 12.0925 60462.50
22 Stone Crusher 20 TPH 3 1412.85 854 3000 2146 28.47 1206573.9 176.60625 378997.01
23 A/Comp (All type) 43 139.08 8122.5 1103707.3 1095584.8 0.74 1129677.3 17.385 19046741.75
24 HMP 20/30 TPH 2 1091.5 965 2400 1435 40.21 1053297.5 136.4375 195787.81
25 Gen Set 160 KVA 1 266.77 160 500 340 32.00 42683.2 33.34625 11337.73
26 Water Pump 5/10 APH 12 130.63 295 6000 5705 4.92 38535.85 16.32875 93155.52
27 Snow Cutter 1 4130.12 40 700 660 5.71 165204.8 516.265 340734.90
28 Concrete Mixer 31 19.48 3733 20400 16667 18.30 72718.84 2.435 40584.15
29 Concrete Vib 43 20.03 1823 22500 20677 8.10 36514.69 2.50375 51770.04
30 Crawler rock drill machine 1 787.38 34 1200 1166 2.83 26770.92 98.4225 114760.64
32 Refueller 1 20.95 2358 20000 17642 11.79 49400.1 2.61875 46199.99
33 Tata Hyd Platerform 1 0 24000 24000 0.00 0 0 0.00
Appx-C
S/ Nomenclature No of Present Total Desired Unutilised Percentag Cost of 1/8th Usage 1/8th cost
No V/E/P Usage Hrs/Kms utilisation in Hrs/ e Utilisation as rate usage amount
held rate run level (Hrs/ Km (6-5) Utilisation per actual (column 4 against
of V/E/Ps during Km) (5 x 100/6) Run (in Rs.) divided by unutilised (in
(in Rs.) 2020-21 (4 x 5) 8) Rs.) (7 x 10)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 AL/Tpr 14 12.6 87271 244996 157725 35.62 1099614.6 1.575 248416.88
2 Tata AMW Tlr 3 40.6 63459 73333 9874 86.54 2576435.4 5.075 50110.55
3 Tata Tpr 141 11.2 1087211 2019753 932542 53.83 12176763.2 1.4 1305558.80
4 Dumper 43 12.2 542087 663331 121244 81.72 6613461.4 1.525 184897.10
5 Farm Tractor 1 23.63 90 1200 1110 7.50 2126.7 2.95375 3278.66
6 BPD 2 10.54 1136 40000 38864 2.84 11973.44 1.3175 51203.32
7 Paver Finisher 3 1174.73 540 3100 2560 17.42 634354.2 146.84125 375913.60
8 Tata Water Truck 41 12 278784 621664 342880 44.84 3345408 1.5 514320.00
9 Dozer BD-80 14 2202.56 2505 4367.56 1862.56 57.35 5517412.8 275.32 512800.02
10 Dozer BD-50 18 800.14 6250.5 9102.59 2852.09 68.67 5001275.07 100.0175 285258.91
11 JCB/BEML whell loader 23 490.03 8795 9626.56 831.56 91.36 4309813.85 61.25375 50936.17
Tata JD 315/Excv cum
10 350.45 6331.5 6783 93.34 2218874.175 43.80625
12 loader 451.5 19778.52
13 Hyd Exc 8-10 Ton 11 490.08 6237 7033.92 796.92 88.67 3056628.96 61.26 48819.32
14 Hyd Exc 20-30 Ton 11 868.62 1549 2299.6 750.6 67.36 1345492.38 108.5775 81498.27
15 Tata Hitachi 20 Ton/200 LC 6 867.44 5678 5875 197 96.65 4925324.32 108.43 21360.71
16 Road Roller static 15 225.25 920 3933.65 3013.65 23.39 207230 28.15625 84853.08
17 TVRR 15 339.56 1258 7583 6325 16.59 427166.48 42.445 268464.63
18 Soil Compactor 2 438.46 187 1400 1213 13.36 81992.02 54.8075 66481.50
19 Stone Crusher 6/10 TPH 5 96.74 0 3675 3675 0.00 0 12.0925 44439.94
20 Stone Crusher 20 TPH 3 1412.85 491 2100 1609 23.38 693709.35 176.60625 284159.46
21 A/Comp (All type) 40 139.08 4650 11756.35 7106.35 39.55 646722 17.385 123543.89
22 HMP 20/30 TPH 2 1091.5 738 1150 412 64.17 805527 136.4375 56212.25
23 Gen Set 125 KVA 2 247.54 660.6 1000 339.4 66.06 163524.924 30.9425 10501.88
24 Gen Set 160 KVA 1 266.77 0 500 500 0.00 0 33.34625 16673.13
25 Water Pump 5/10 APH 12 130.63 1048 5725 4677 18.31 136900.24 16.32875 76369.56
26 Snow Cutter 1 4130.12 9 225 216 4.00 37171.08 516.265 111513.24
27 Concrete Mixer 32 19.48 1985 11966 9981 16.59 38667.8 2.435 24303.74
S/ Nomenclature No of Present Total Desired Unutilised Percentag Cost of 1/8th Usage 1/8th cost
No V/E/P Usage Hrs/Kms utilisation in Hrs/ e Utilisation as rate usage amount
held rate run level (Hrs/ Km (6-5) Utilisation per actual (column 4 against
of V/E/Ps during Km) (5 x 100/6) Run (in Rs.) divided by unutilised (in
(in Rs.) 2020-21 (4 x 5) 8) Rs.) (7 x 10)
28 Concrete Vib 41 20.03 1899 22800 20901 8.33 38036.97 2.50375 52330.88
29 Crawler rock drill machine 1 787.38 0 100 100 0.00 0 98.4225 9842.25
31 Refueller 1 20.95 7942 20000 12058 39.71 166384.9 2.61875 31576.89
32 Tata Hyd Platerform 1 0 24000 24000 0.00 0 0 0.00
Audit Objective 6 : Whether the system of internal control and quality control is effective.
Audit Sub-objective 6.1 : Whether users are satisfied with the quality of work?
Case I : Provision of Quality Control Cell
Quality Control is essential in case of any Highway, Building, Bridge, Airfield or any project with which BRO
is closely associated. In fact, it is an essential part of any production process. With the recent developments in
the technological fields and various cost-effective construction techniques and expectation level of the users,
quality control assumes an important role. Quality Control, besides leading to improved quality, uniformity
and ensuring a more economical use of materials, also affords a significant reduction in user costs in terms of
vehicle operation, transportation and maintenance.
Provision of 1% expenditure for Quality Control is to be made in the contracts. Testing of material
should be carried out strictly as per relevant para of section 900 of MORT&H specification (Fifth Revision)
April 2013. Further, MORT&H specification (Fifth Revision) provides details regarding the type of test for
each kind of work and frequency of test therein (the same is attached herewith).
However, it is observed that there is no Quality Control Cell in HQ Chief Engineer to carry out the
requisite test as per MoRT&H specification. Therefore, not carrying out material testing raises concern about
the quality of works/jobs and would require elucidation in audit.
Also, following qty of QCC equip were found not working.
S.No. RCC Total QCC Equip Total unserviceable/not working out of total
held held
1 66 98 38
2 75 54 15
For better appreciation of the case following details may be furnished to audit:
(i) Details of testing labs held under AOR of CE (P) Shivalik
(ii) Details of Tests carried out in r/o departmental & contractual works carried out under the
AOR of CE(P) Shivalik.
(iii) Details of equipment held for required testing as mentioned in MoRTH specification (Fifth
Revision).
(iv) Frequency of test carried out as per MoRTH.
(v) Details of the quality checks carried out during the last three FYs and their results and the
details of stores/materials not found at par with the laid down parameters of quality.
(vi) Expenditure incurred against the Quality Control in r/o jobs sanctioned during last three
FYs.
Reply:
(i) Quality control Cell is functional at this HQ and regular repoerts/test results are being monitored
forwarded by the following QC labs under the AoR of Project Shivalik :-
(a) 21 BRTF QC Lab (e) 36 BRTF QC Lab
(b) 123 RCC QC Lab (f) 1442 RCC QC Lab

(c) 75 RC QC Lab (g) 75 RCC QC Lab
(d) 66 RCC QC Lab
(ii) Details of the testing carried out in respect of Departmental and contractual work under the AoR of Project
Shivalik are enclosed at appx-'A'.
(iii) Details of eqpt held in quality control labs required for quality control tests are enclosed at appx-'B'.
(iv) All the quality control tests have been carried out at the prescribed frequency as per MoRTH.
(v) Details of the quality checks carried out during the last three FY and their results are enclosed. There is no
stores/materials which is not found at par with the laid down parameters of the quality.
(vi) Details of the expenditure incurred against the quality control in respect of job sanctioned during last three
years are as under:-
2018-19
S/ Job No. Name of work AA Amount QCC Expenditure

No. amoount incurred
provisioned
in AA
---Nil---
2019-20
S/ Job No. Name of work AA Amount QCC Expenditure

No. amoount incurred
provisioned
in AA
---Nil---
2020-21
S/ Job No. Name of work AA Amount (Rs in Lakhs) QCC Expenditure

No. amount incurred (Rs)
provisioned
in AA (RS)
a) 502/176 Widening/Impvt of Road 3053.56 1187507 239937

Joshimath-Malari from Cl-9
specifications to NHDL
specifications between Km 55.675
to Km 62.669
Audit Sub-objective 6.2 : Whether the Internal Control System is effective and adequate?
Case I : Less booking of usage amount/departmental charges etc.

Usage rates on account of Vehicles, Equipment, Plants & Machineries are fixed by DGBR in consultation with
BRDB and the Min of Defence (Finance) for each type of machinery; vehicle and other equipment. For the
purpose of booking in financial accounts as well as in construction accounts a return showing the details of
Vehicle, Equipment and Plant used against various Job(s) during a particular month based on the abstract of
MPR prepared by OC RCC/BCC is sent by the executives duly calculating the usage rates(s) for each V/E/P
based on the Usage rate(s) prescribed by DGBR for each category of V/E/P to the Accounts Office.
In all other cases financial adjustment is carried out by debiting the amount concerned job by contra minus
debit to 00/069/17& 00/069/18 (Major Head5054). The amount to be adjusted against the Project/Job in which
the machinery, vehicle etc. are utilized will be worked out hourly/run for the period of actual use on the basis
of the usage rates, from the date of receipt of the machinery etc. by the Task Force.
Further, as per Para 10.1 & 10.2 of Technical Instruction no. 22, provision in the Technical sanction for
various items will form the limit for financial booking for any job under operation.
Also, Government of India, Ministry of Defnece vide their letter no. BRDB/02/257/2006/works (Part)/D (BR-
1) dt. 15 March 2018 revised guidelines for calculation and levy of usage rates:
a) Capital cost of each equipment should form the basis for working out its usage rate.
b) “residual value of vehicle/equipment would be taken @20% of the capital cost of the
equipment for the purpose of calculation of its usage rate.
c) Each equipment will be taken for levy of usage rates and the addition of 2% of the capital
coast would be made in the capital cost of the equipment, towards the ‘reserve element’.
This would be subject to review after two years.
d) Usage rate should be levied on works on which they are used on hourly basis for the period
of actual use.
e) Usage rates at 1/8th of the ‘Normal Rate’ should be charged for the idle period of the
equipment i.e. norm for annual utilization less the period of actual utilization.
f) For equipment which have completed their prescribed life but are still in use, usage rates
may be levied at 5% of the normal rates.
It is observedin audit that above guidelines are not being followed in calculating Usage Amount and
further there is a wide difference in booking of Expenditure in Jobs as shown below by 21 BRTF:
FY Total Usage Usage Amount Amount

Amount as per Booked in Less(+ve)/Excess
Annual Census Jobs (-ve) Booked
Report as per booking (In Rs.)
(In Rs.) of proforma
charge
(In Rs.)
2018-19 10,06,04,659.43 11,90,17,900.00 -1,84,13,240.57
2019-20 9,46,06,486.69 10,01,27,972.00 -55,21,485.31
2020-21 11,84,28,036.00 7,54,76,381.00 4,29,51,655.00
It is also seen from records maintained by 36 BRTF that following usage amount was worked out on the basis
of utilization of vehicle/Plant/Machinate during the year 2020-21but only Rs. 1,58,89,539/- was booked
against 2,16,07,961/- It is further seen that departmental charges were also less booked to the tune of
Rs.6,61,135/- and capitation rate of Rs. 52,38,490/-, Ration debit Voucher of Rs. 55,69,740/- TA/DA, Transfer
grant of Rs. 7,66,641/- and Ration money of Rs. 6,74,184/- were not booked at the end of financial year Mar
2021.
Usage Amount 2020-21
Month Amount as per Usage Book

rate Amount
(In Rs.) (In Rs.)
Apr-20 785461/- 785461/-
May- 2458082/- 2368032/-

20
Jun - 2680205/- 2716861/-

20
Jul-20 2392464/- 4652256/-
Aug- 2296443/-
20
Sep-20 2476810/- 2476810/-
Oct-20 3140757/- 2890119/-
Nov- 1698651/-
20
Dec- 1229954/-
20
Jan-21 901438/-
Feb-21 1547696/-
Total 2,16,07,961/- 1,58,89,539/-
Less booked =Rs. 57,18,422/-
Year 2020-21
Departmental Departmental Less Booked

Charges as per Charges Booked
calculation
Rs.1,85,55,665/ Rs. 1,78,94,530/- Rs. 6,61,135/-
Reasons/circumstances under which the full usage amount could not be booked as per the ibid guidelines may
please be intimated to audit.
For better appreciation of the case following information may be furnished to audit:
i. Month wise usage amount in r/o VEP utilized in jobs, booked in MER and report submitted
by E4 section (as per ME return) for last three FYs 2018-19 to 2020-21.
ii. Departmental charges in r/o deposit/agency works.
iii. Year wise cost of works executed in r/o deposit work/Agency work and departmental
charges booked in MER for last three FYs.
iv. Whether Usage rates at 1/8th of the ‘Normal Rate’ charged for the idle period of the
equipment i.e. norm for annual utilization less the period of actual utilization? If yes, details
thereof.
v. Whether usage rates levied at 5% of the normal rates for equipment which have completed
their prescribed life but are still in use. If yes, details thereof.
vi. Reason for concluding contracts other than EPC works as eqpt/plant held with BRTFs are
lying idle. Justification may be furnished.
Reply :
Booking of usage a,mount by TFs for FYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 is given below:
21 TF
FY Usage Amount booked in detailed MER (In Rs.)
2018-19 119071900.00
2019-20 103542262.00
2020-21 75476381.00
Usage rates have been booked/being booked based on physical progress of jobs reference to TS provision under
the Jobs. Booking of usage rates being done in quarterly basis.
Some VEPs are being kept idle at slide points to meet the emergency requirement to road open round the clock
24 x 7 and are being utilized on requirement basis.
Audit Objective (Chapter II of Audit Guidelines – Work Planning): Whether the road has been executed
with proper geometrics and specifications?
Case I : Improper Reconnaissance Survey and Trace cut resulting into loss of Rs. 16.21 crore to the state.
For analyzing alternative routes, and selection of proper alignment of the route so as to provide for the least
cost of construction and its periodic maintenance, instructions have been given in Technical Instruction no. 9.
As per these instructions: -
3. Stages for Route Determination and Fixing the Alignment
3.1 The operations for conduct of Survey and investigation for the route determination and marking on the
ground is termed as Reece Survey and Trace Cut (RSTC) with the objective to collect sufficient data to
determine road location and to prepare the Project Documents and Approximate Project Estimate. RSTC is
done in the following stages:-
(a) Reconnaissance.
(b) Survey,
(c) Trace cut.
3.2 Reconnaissance or reconnaissance study will essentially be a general over-all look of the entire area for
alternative routes and for comparison of topographic features and the cost of the various possible alternatives,
and thereby to determine most suitable route for further more detailed development. Occasions may arise
where the expected adverse impact on the environment of the different alternatives may warrant the detailed
survey and investigation of more than one alignment. This exercise will be done under this stage of
Reconnaissance or reconnaissance studies for the purpose of determining the most feasible and suitable route
for detailed studies under the next stage Survey.
3.3 The Survey stage will include large scale instrument survey conducted for the purpose of running the base-
line along the route previously selected on the basis of the reconnaissance and for collecting necessary
physical information. With the data collected ,it should be possible to prepare Approximate Project Estimate
within reasonably close limits for obtaining the Administrative Approval.
3.4 The survey stage will be followed by trace cut or marking reference points corresponding to the route
alignment, and also to facilitate access to the area for inspection and subsequent studies.
4. Reconnaissance Survey
4.1 Operations:
The Reconnaissance Survey and Studies will be conducted in thefollowing sequence:-
(a) Study of Existing Data (maps, photographs & reports).
(b) Aerial Reconnaissance.
(c) Ground Reconnaissance.
(d) Reconnaissance in detail of inaccessible and difficult Spots.
(e) Reconnaissance Report-preparation.
4.2 Study of Existing Data:
4.2. l The quality of reconnaissance study will vary directly with the amount of knowledge and information
collected with reference to the area to be traversed by the road/route. All out efforts will be made to collect
available wealth of data including but not limiting to the list of documents for Map study given in Appendix
'B'.
4.2.2 The map-study is an exercise for conceptualisation of general direction for tentative proposals of
alternative alignments of the proposed road projects and to mark the same on the topographical sheets. This
will be done at the Project or at the HQ Task Force, if so instructed by the Chief Engineer of the
Project .While no hard and fast rules can be laid down, this T I gives the following general methodology,
sequence of operations and guidelines:-
(f) The physical features and the Control Points (Control Adopt Pts and Control Avoid Pts) falling on the
tentative route lines will be studied in detail. If necessary, data will be again extracted from other maps and
reports and superimposed on topo sheet. The tentative route lines involving major problems of physical
features affecting the stability of the road will be deleted. For the remaining alternatives, the locations and
levels of the Control Adopt Points like crossings, passes, saddles, etc will be carefully extracted and marked
on the topo sheet.
4.3 Aerial Reconnaissance
4.4 Ground Reconnaissance
4.4.1 The various alternative routes found feasible, as a result of study of maps, aerial photographs and aerial
reconnaissance, will be further examined physically in the field by ground reconnaissance (by walking on the
routes) for data collection and also to have a comparative study of the select routes.
4.4.6 Points on which information will be collected during ground reconnaissance are listed in Appendix 'E'-
Data to be collected during Ground Reconnaissance. The Data sheet will be maintained for each alternative
alignment separately. The data sheets will be condensed and tabulated in comparative study format as given in
Appendix 'F'-Summary of Data Survey of Alternative Routes.
Appendix 'E' to T. I. No. 9
DATA TO BE COLLECTED DURINGGROUND RECONNAISSANCE ROUTE ALIGNMENT
7. Terrain and Soil Conditions
a) Geology of the Area, Unstable Areas and Land-Slide Prone Areas.
b) Nature of the Soil, Hill Slope and Drainage Conditions.
c) Cliffs and Gorges.
d) Area susceptible to flooding.
e) General elevation of the road indicating maximum and minimum heights negotiated by main ascents and
descents in hill section.
f) Total number of ascents and descents in Hill section with length of rocky stretches.
g) Disposition and location of Sand dunes, if any.
h) Vegetation-extent and type.
i) Marshy and Water-Logged Areas.
j) Details of Land-Slides, Avalanches and Snow-Drifts etc.
4.5 Final Reconnaissance of Inaccessible And Difficult Stretches
4.6 Reconnaissance Report
4. 7 Key Decision - Final Route Selection
4.7.1 On the basis of the Reconnaissance Report, one alignment will be selected and decided for development
by further survey and studies.
4.7.2 The Officer Commanding, Road Construction Coy will walk over the proposed alignment and
recommend the alignment due to reasons of stability and suitability. The entire alignment or atleast
problematic areas should be inspected by TF Commander and CE.
4.7.3 The Task Force Commander will record his approval of the proposed alignment.
4.7.4 The acceptance of the route alignment by the Civil and Military authorities will be obtained.
4.7.5 The acceptance of the route alignment by the Chief Engineer will be accorded.
5. Survey of Road Alignment
5.1 General
5.1.1 The HQ Project/task Force will issue administrative orders for the conduct of the survey with clear
points of reference and the composition of the team.
5.1.2 The survey of the road alignment consists of pegging the route previously selected on the basis of the
reconnaissance survey, running an accurate base-line along it for the purpose of taking longitudinal and cross-
sections and collecting general information in detail.
5.1.3 The Reece Officer (preferably the same officer who was associated with the initial recce) will be briefed
at Project/TF Headquarters on the proposed road project and the various possible alternative alignments
considered at the Reconnaissance Report, the topo sheet and the maps wherein the tentative routes have been
marked and other reports, maps, documents, etc. collected at their connaissance stage.
5.2. Survey Procedure
5.2.1 Starting point will be fixed by the Reece Team near the first obligatory point, preferably at a higher
ground from the surrounding area from. where one can see the next obligatory and/or some-nearby control
points. A cement concrete block of dimension 30 cm x 30 cm x 60 cm with 20 cm projecting above the ground
will be erected on which the Bench Mark/ Altitude, chainage, etc. will be marked.
5.2.5 Cross-sections will be taken by Abney-level at the points of change of the hill slope and also the places
having change of soil classification. In normal circumstances, the cross-sections at 30m apart are taken.
5.2.6 The soil classification (Ordinary Soil, Soil mixed with boulders, Soft rock and Hard rock) for each cross-
section is recorded. In the case of mixed soil classification, the percentage of the composition will be
mentioned.
5.2.7 Ground details will be collected and recorded In the Field-book for salient features including but not
limiting to the followings:-
(a) Bad patches and Land-slide areas.

(b) Drainage condition.
(c) River Crossings.
(d) Camp Sites.
(e) Landing Grounds, Helipads & Dropping Zones.
(f) Availability of construction materials.
(g) Availability of Labourers.
5.2.8 The Reece Officer will ensure regular checks on the accuracy of survey instruments and data recording.
5.2.9 Weekly Progress Report incorporating the details of various items of works on the progress of ground
reconnaissance & survey, will be prepared by the Reece Officer and forwarded to the Road Construction Coy
and this procedure is to be followed till the survey is completed.
During scrutiny of HQ 21 BRTF letter no. 2000/M-M rd/km 2.90-km 5.800/realign/11/E2 dt 10 Jun 2021, it is
seen that Approx. Estimate for Re-Alignment of Road on Mana-Musapani Road from Km 5.8 (New Chainage
from Km 2.9 to Km 4.8 Net Length 1.9 Km) to NH Double lane specifications under Project Shivalik in
Uttarakhand State was forwarded by 21 BRTFto CE Project Shivalik amounting to Rs. 1621.64 lakhs.
Further scrutiny of HQ CE Project Shivalik letter no. 20000/AE CORR/ /E2 Estg dt 28 Jun 2021, revealed that
CE Project observed that the alignment proposed vide Job No 509/159 was shown as stable in para 10 SOC of
original estimate sanctioned for NHDL specification of Mana-Musapani road where as in present SOC the
same has been shown as unstable.
Audit is of view that earlier road was not constructed on stable alignment and the Technical Instructions
mentioned above have not been followed properly during RSTC. The data acquired during RSTC for the said
road were not available in the file. In absence of which it could not be ascertained in audit whether the data
required as per TI/rules was followed or not. If available, the copies of the same may please be furnished to
audit.
1. Whether detailed surveys was carried out on Mana-Musapani alignment earlier as per Technical
Instruction – 9. If yes, the Survey report/ RSTC report duly incorporating all the requisite details.
2. Details of other Jobs under AOR in which Road Alignment has been changed/ proposed to be
changed in last five years.
3. Whether detailed surveys were carried out on these alignment roads earlier as per Technical
Instruction – 9. If yes, then the copies of the same.
4. The Estimates prepared for change in alignment/ proposed to be changed and expenditure already
incurred/ proposed to be incurred on construction in this regard during last five years along with Job
no.
Reply :
1 Road Mana-Musapani was included in the BRDB programme for construction of CI-9 road as Priority-
I vide HQ DGBR letter No. 12453/3 Year /Mana-Masapani/DGBR/Plg dated 16 Dec 1986 and construction of
CI-9 road was done by Project Deepak in Sep 1998 under Job No. 509/201, 509/152 and 509/154. RSTC report
is not available being the old case. Due to the weathering process a huge rocky portion got destabilized and slid
down at Km 2.95 of Mana-Musapani road which made the road stretch prone to frequent from landslides from
Km 2.950 to Km 4.000. To overcome the situation and to avoid number of zigs the realignment of Road Mana-
Musapani has been proposed being strategic requirement. The same has not yet approved/sanctioned.
2 Detail of the Job under the AOR of this Project in which realignment has been proposed in last five
years is as under:-
S/No Job No Name of Road Name of work
a S-4502/04 Ghastoli-Rattakona Constr of Road Ghastoli-Rattakona
between Km 0.000 to Km 17.950 to CI-9
specification.
3 Since the realignment of the Road Ghastoli-Rattakona was found inescapable during the execution of
work due to the ground conditions arose by re-siting of the bridges due to change in the flow pattern of Chamrao
Nallah, the same was sanctioned through RAE.
4 The cost of the re-alignment proposed under Job No. S-4502/04 is Rs. 10.29 Cr.
Audit Objective (Chapter II of Audit Guidelines – Work Planning): Whether the Plans are technically
sound?
Case II: Avoidable expenditure of Rs.10.27 Crore on realignment of road
Approval in Principle for construction of Ghastoli Rattakona Road (km 5.910 to km7.425) road as ITBP was
accorded by BRDB vide their letter No. BRDB/05/’118/DPK/1999/Wks dated 21 Jul 2006 and a work for
construction to Cl-9 surfaced specifications was sanctioned vide HQ DGBR letter No.
23025/ITBP/DGBR/17/ITBP-S dated 24 Dec 2008 for Rs. 4506.56 lacs through MHGA. The work
commenced on 21 May 2009 2009 and connectivity to Rattakona was achieved on 06 Aug 2011. However,
mean while when the balance works were ongoing, the specifications were enhanced to NHDL and Go-ahead
sanction for work was accorded through GS fund vide HQ DGBR letter No. 47005/Impvt/Km
0-19.06/GR/Svlk/DGBR/West Dte dated 22 Nov 2016. The sanction was later cancelled. Therefore the job
sanctioned under MoHA funding was foreclosed.
Dte Mo4 again reprioritized and advised to keep specification as CL-9 only vide their A/40034/MO4
dated 19 May 2017. Therefore an AE for construction of road Ghastoli Rattakona to Cl-9 specifications was
initiated and sanctioned under Job No S-4502/04 vide HQ CE (P) Shivalik letter No. 2000/AA/68/E2 Estg
dated 06 Jul 2018. Under this Job, one contract was concluded for supply of admixture and cementations
works departmentally after obtaining permission from HQ DGBR vide their letter No.
47009/Policy/UKD/DGBR/07/West Dte dated 06 Jul 2018.
As per directions of ADG (NW) and Chief Engineer, Project Shivalik the scope and specification of
surfacing works has been changed as per site conditions. As per the new scope CTSB, CTB, SAMI and BC
layers has to be done till Km 8.2 and GSB, WBM, DBM and BC has been considered from chainage km 8.2 to
km 17.950. Also in order to tackle Chamrao nallah and to keep the important road open for traffic, the re-
alignment of the existing road to the far bank of the Saraswati River was proposed. RAE for work was
processed and same has been sanctioned by DG (NW) vide their letter No. 22009/ADGNW/svlk-230/277/E2
Estg dated 30 Apr 2020 for Rs. 5666.97 Lakh.
The balance works in the portion of the existing road from km 5.910 to km 7.425 was not considered
in the RAE. However, considering the importance of the only strategic road towards Mana pass it was
proposed that the balance surfacing works in this portion might be carried considering that the work for
realignment at Chamrao nallah was under progress and that the existing road would be used as an alternative
in case of any exigencies.
It was proposed that the balance surfacing works (CTB 200, Sami Layer, tack coat, BC 40 mm and
road Marking) from km 5.910 to km 7.425 might be carried out considering the importance of the only
strategic road towards Mana pass. The existing road shall be used for movement to forward areas till the
realignment works at Chamrao nallah was completed and subsequently it could be used as an alternate and
faster route when the water flow in the nallah is low.
Realignment of Km 3.25 (km 5.910 to km 9.16) has been provisioned extra which will cost extra Rs.
10.27 Crore (5666.97/17.97 = Rs. 3.16 Crore per km). This shows that proper planning/survey was not carried
out properly resulting into avoidable expenditure of Rs. 10.27 Crore on a/c of realignment of road and both
roads will be used. Reasons for not selecting proper road alignment prior to sanction of job may please be
furnished to audit.
Reply :
Chamrao Nallah at chainage Km 7.5 to Km 8.50 is a wide spread Nallah which flows in full speed with
boulders during summer and monsoon season affecting the movement on this Road. Many attempts have been
made in the past to tackle the Nallah by launching of Bailey Bridge and also diverting water through Hume
Pipes. These attempts have been failed due to the terrain conditions and also due to the unpredictable nature of
flow of water along with boulders in the glacier which changes its course frequently. Such tendency of
Chamrao Nallah were difficult to ascertain at the time of initial survey to finalize the alignment.
In order to overcome this problem , resiting of the bailey bridge to the right bank of the Sarwati river has been
proposed. Accordingly realignment from km 5.910 to 9.16 of road has been included in the RAE as per ground
requirement. being only one way to resolve the problem caused by Chamrao Nallah. Due to realignment cost
of RAE has been increased. Since, realignment of the stretch was unavoidable; therefore RAE has been
framed seeing the ground condition. As such there are no 10.27 Crore loss to Govt.
Case III : Improper planning for jobs
Annual Works Plan (AWP) is the basic plan document containing details of works to be executed during the
year with regard to resources and units held under Projects. Targets for works to be executed by BRO are
reflected in the AWP approved by the Ministry which is carved out of the Long-Term Plan of the Army and
the perspective plan of the client organization. AWP is required to be prepared in advance on realistic
planning of works with respect to available resources and not based on the Annual Procurement Plan (APP).
Demands for grants and budgetary allocations are to be made based on the AWP. AWP is prepared by the
DGBR between Dec to Jan each year and to be approved by the BRDB (now Ministry of Defence (B/R))
before the commencement of the financial year.
During scrutiny of report return it was observed in audit that Chief Engineer had changed Mode of execution
of 20 Jobs (List Enclosed) from Exec Contract to Department and subsequently Deptt to Exec Contract during
the last three FYs.
This shows that no proper planning was done by this office in preparation of BE before forwarding Annual
Works Plan and, as a result, it had to change the mode of execution of Jobs regularly. Reasons for frequent
change in mode of execution after sanction of Annual Works Plan may please be intimated to audit.
Reply:
Point for AWP prepared by the DGBR b/w Dec to Jan each year and to be approved by the BRDB (Now
Ministry of Defence (BR) before commencement of the financial year should be taken up with HQ DGBR.
It is submitted that the changes in mode of execution are proposed by the Project through executive channel
after proper analysis of site conditions, availability of resources and PDCs of the jobs. But the changes thus
proposed came into effect after getting amendment approval of CAP from HQ DGBR. The specific reasons for
change of mode of execution contract to departmental & subsequently Deptt to execution contract during last
three years given in remarks column and the same are being vetted through IFA concerned.
Audit Objective (Chapter III of Audit Guidelines – Work Execution)
Case I : Non-Execution of full formation width on ground
Scrutiny of admin approval register and its connected documents revealed in thematic audit that
HQ DGBR vide their letter no. 30204/DGBR/SVLK/15154/ WPDte dt 05.07.2012 accorded admin
approval for improvement/ widening of Simli-Gwaldam road from Km 140.00 to Km 149.00 to NH double
lane specifications for a sum of Rs. 4182.59 lakhs and the same was revised by HQ Chief Engineer (P)
Shivalik letter No. 20000/AA/53/E2 (Plg) Dt 28.06.2019 for a sum of Rs. 4902.43 lakhs as per details given
below:
a) cost of work (departmentally) = Rs 3711.78 Lakhs
b) cost of work (Execution Contract)
= Rs 1190.65 Lakhs
Total = Rs. 4902.43 lakhs
The work has been assigned job number 510/582 (RAE). formation work as per admin approval/
revised admin approval and work done as per MPR(Sep 2020) is as under:
Qty as per
Qty as per Qty actually
S. Revised
Name of work A/U Admin done as per
N. Admin
Approval MPR
Approval
Rough excavation in soil/ Soil mixed
1 with small boulders etc. Cum 108116.01 138954.6 140689.68
2 Rough excavation in hard rock Cum 226511.6 241876.9 239697
Total 334627.6 380831.5 380386.68
Per Km Qty (Total Qty/9) Cum 37180.84 42314.61 42265.18667
3 Muck Disposal 94256.61 111552.54 112837.29

Qty as per Admin Approval = 334627.57/9 Km = 37180.84 Cum per Km Approx
Qty as per revised A/Approval = 380831.49/9 Km= 42314.61 CumCum per Km
Qty as per work done in MPR (Sep 20) = 380386.68/9 Km = 42265.18 Cum per Km
After completion of formation work Chief Engineer (P) Shivalik vide their letter No. 80260/P&
L/21TF/Km 140-150/S-G/11-12/151/E8 dated 28.03.13. Concluded contract agreement No. CE (P) SVK/01/12-
13 with M/s Mathiyan Construction Pvt Ltd Mazafarnagar, Uttar Pardesh for providing laying and compaction
of WMM 100 MM, WMM 150 MM, BM 75 MM,SDBC 25 MM thick and centre line marking by thermoplastic
painting as per MoRT&H specifications between Km 140 to Km 150 on road Simli-Gwaldam in 21 BRTF for a
sum of Rs. 13,32,09,865/-. HQ Chief Engineer Shivalik vide letter No. 80260/P&L/21TF/Km140-150/S-G/11-
12/103/E8 dated 16.09.15 cancelled the contract. Again Chief Engineer (P) Shivalik vide letter No.
80260/P&L/21TF/Km 140-150/S-G/R&C/72/E8 dt 3.5.16 concluded contract No. CE (P) SVK/03/16-17 with
M/S New Age Contractor and supplier, Muzafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh for carrying out balance work for sum of
Rs. 12,56,95,237.80.
Further a board of officer assembled from 30 Aug 19 to 2 Sep 2019 to ascertain the actual work
executed under CA No. CE (P)/SVK/03/16-17 for risk and cost work for providing and compaction of WMM
100 MM , WMM 150 MM, BM 75 MM, SDBC 25 MM thick and centre line marking by thermoplastic painting
as per MoRT&H specification between 140 Km to 150 Km on road Simli-Gwaldam.
(a) Items wise quantities of surfacing V/s actual works executed on ground as on date of inspection .
Table ‘A’
S/ Item of work A/U Qty as per CA Phase-I & II Executed on Variation

No ground.
Phase-I Phase-II TOTAL

Providing laying
01
WMM 100 mm thick Sqm 27198.50 30738.00 57936.50 28893.51 (-) 29042.99
Providing laying
02
WMM 150 mm thick Sqm 38489.50 43969.50 82459.00 79026.13 (-)3432.87
Prime Coat with
03
bitumen emulsion Sqm 40223.40 43969.50 84192.90 80137.58 (-)4056.32
Providing laying BM
04
75 mm thick Sqm 42603.90 46350.00 88953.90 80137.58 (-)8816.32
Providing laying
05
SDBC 25 mm thick Sqm 46350.00 46350.00 92700.00 83480.38 (-)9219.62
06 Road Marking Sqm Sqm 276.80 276.00 553.60 3448.50 (+)2894.90
thermoplastic paint
(b) The surfacing works have been completed on ground as per space/width available. No surfacing works
can be executed further as per prevailing ground condition the date of inspection.
(c) Variations in items wise quantities required to be reduced/increased are given in Table ‘A’ above. All
feasible works under this CA have been completed. No further works feasible.
(d) Cost variation due to reduction/increase in item wise quantities after physical completion of this CA is
tabulated as under : -
S/ Item of work A/U Qty as Rate Amount of Qty Amount of Variation in

No per CA as work as per executed work amount in Rs
Phase-I & per CA in Rs on executed on Col (H-F)
II CA ground ground in
in Rs. Rs.
A B C D E F G H J
Providing laying
290.0
1 WMM 100 mm Sqm 57936.50 16801585.00 28893.51 8379117.90 -8422467.10
0
thick
Providing laying
440.0
2 WMM 150 mm Sqm 82459.00 36281960.00 79026.13 34771497.20 -1510462.80
0
thick
Prime Coat with
3 bitumen Sqm 84192.90 27.00 2273208.00 80137.58 2163714.66 -109493.64
emulsion
Providing laying 565.0
4 Sqm 88953.90 50258954.00 80137.58 45277732.70 -4981220.80
BM 75 mm thick 0
Providing laying
237.0
5 SDBC 25 mm Sqm 92700.00 21969900.00 83480.38 19784850.06 -2185049.94
0
thick
Road Marking
Sqm 400.0
6 Sqm 553.6 221440.00 3448.50 1379400.00 1157960.00
thermoplastic 0
paint
127807046.8 111756312.5
Total -16050734.28
0 2
Variation In %age In respect to cost of CA and cost of

=( -( 16050734.28 )/127807046.80)x1 00 = (-) 12.55%
work executed as on around
It is noticed from MPR (Sep 20) and road graph of this road Simli –Gwaldam that formation of 12
meter has been carried out except few stretches was less made as shown below : -
S No. Road Length Width of road

1 144.36 Km to 144.04 10 Mtr
2 141.42 to 141.34 7 Mtr
3 141.34 to 141.26 6 Mtr
4 141.26 to 141.02 10 Mtr
5 141.02 to 140.44 10 Mtr
And following qty of formation work was booked in MPR Sep 20: -
S Name of work Qty Amt

No.
1 Jungle clearance including cutting down trees not exceeding 30 cm girth measured
at 1 meter above ground level and clearing away shrubs brushwood undergrowth 1232.64 288707
and grubbing up roots in areas having annual rainfall more than 200 cm.(10 Sqm)
2 Rough excavation in soil/soil mixed with small boulders, getting out and disposing
all excavated material lead up to 3 m and up to 1.5 m deep (75% machine and 25% 140689.68 13766548
by manual labour) (Cum)
3 Rough excavation in soft rock requiring blasting up to 50% of quantities and getting
out with lead up to 3 m and up to 1.5 m deep (75% machine and 25% by manual 239697 54264372
labour)( Cum)
4 Rough excavation in hard rock by drilling with compressor, blasting and getting out
including stacking of serviceable material & disposal of unserviceable material lead 4471 984968
up to 3 m and up to 1.5 m deep (75% machine and 25% by manual labour) (Mtr)
5 Unlined drain of any shape in HR cut to required gradient average sectional area of
0.50 cum including disposing surplus soil within a lead of 10 m and dressing 112837.29 11253158
shoulder. (Cum)
Total 8,05,57,753/-
It can be seen from the above that formation width of 12 Mtrs has been carried out on road and same
was booked in MPR and shown in road graph whereas board of officers found that BT works of 10 Mtr width
was not executed on ground due to less formation width. This shows that formation width of 12 meter was not
executed/carried out on ground but shown as full qty executed in monthly progress report (MPR) Sep 20 and
amount of Rs. 8,05,57,753/- was booked. This has resulted into amendment to contract from Rs. 12,780,7046.80
to Rs 11,17,56,312.52 i.e minus Rs. 1,60,50,734.24/- due to less surfacing works.
Reason/circumstances under which full formation width of 12 weeks could not be achieved on ground
but same was booked in MPR. If formation width 12 Mtrs except few locations mentioned above why the
surfacing work not executed as per sanction provided.
A review of similar cases may please be carried out and results be intimated to audit.
Reply :
As for the formation cutting concerned, formation work has been completed as per sanction accorded. To
ascertain actual quantities of WMM on ground a BOO was ordered. As per BOO less quantity required on
ground, accordingly deviation was carried out. Minus deviation doesn’t mean that less formation width has been
achieved on ground.
Case II: Irregularities in Road Markings.
Road markings are defined as lines, patterns, words except road signs which are applied or attached to
the carriageway or kerbs or to objects within or adjacent to the carriageway for controlling, warning, guiding
and informing the road users.Road markings are a psychological barrier and an important component of a
highway, which function in guiding and controlling the traffic. It also channelizes the pedestrians and cyclists
movement into a safe location ensuring smooth and orderly flow of traffic and for promoting road safety.
As per Indian Road Congress - 35 – 2015, various line markings such as center line, warning line, edge
line, no overtaking line are provided and typically applied to various situations like undivided road, divided
carriageway roads, and one-way street/ramp/slip roads. IRC norms for longitudinal markings for undivided two
lane roads are as under:
As per section 4.6.1 of IRC 35, the centre line markings of 3 m Mark + 6 m Gap of 100 mm/150 mm are used
for normal sections. (i.e. LM01/LM02).Table 4.3 along with figs. 4.4 to 4.6 presents asummary of line
markingsfor undivided Two-lane roads.
Table4.3 LongitudinalMarkingforUndividedroads
description normalsection Warningsection noovertakingsection reference
RoadCategory Traffic Carriage Centre edgeLi Traffic Centre edgeLi Traffic Centre edgeL Traffic
Movement Way Line ne LaneLi Line ne LaneLi Line ine LaneLi
ne ne ne
Single/ Twoway <5.5m NA LM23 NA NA LM23 NA NA LM23 NA
Intermediate
LaneRoad
TwoLaneRoad Twoway 5.5 LM01 LM23 NA LM04 LM23 NA LM23 LM23 NA Fig.4.5
mto7m
TwoLaneRoadwi Twoway >7m LM02 LM24 NA LM05 LM24 NA LM23 LM24 NA Fig.4.6
th PavedShoulder
Three LaneRoad Twoway >11m HM10/ LM24 LM02 HM10/ LM24 LM12 HM12/ LM24 LM23
HM11 HM11 HM13
Four LaneRoad Twoway >14m HM10/ LM24 LM02 HM10/ LM24 LM12 HM12/ LM24 LM23
HM11 HM11 HM13
Fig.4.5Two Lane Bi-Directional Road
Fig.4.6TwoLane Bi-Directional Roadwith PavedShoulder

Marking Length of Line
Type Length of Gap (mm) Width (mm)
Abbreviation Segment (mm)
LM 01 Broken 3000 6000 100
LM 02 Broken 3000 6000 150
LM 04 Broken 6000 3000 100
LM 05 Broken 6000 3000 150
LM 23 Continuous NA NA 100
LM 24 Continuous NA NA 150
Case- I
During scrutiny of Technical Board of Officers held from 30.08.2019 to 02.09.2019 for Simli-
Gwaldam Road between Km 140.00 to 150.00 (as per HQ 21 BRTF, vide convening order No. 218/2019 Dt
30.08.2019) it is observed that centre line marking in straight portion of road has been taken as 3 m Mark + 3 m
Gap against markings of 3 m Mark + 6 m Gap.As a result of thisfollowing discrepancy has been observed:
 Total Length of Road (A) = 8750.00 Mtr
 Road length considered as curves (B) = 1450.00 Mtr
 Road length considered as straight (C) = 7300.00 Mtr
 Centre Line length as per TBOO (D) {C/2 +B} = 5100.00 Mtr
 Centre Line length as per IRC (E) {C/3 +B} = 3883.33 Mtr
 Difference (F) {D-E} = 1216.67 Mtr
It can be seen from the above that Centre line length has not been considered as per IRC – 35 norms. It was also
noticed from the work done statement attached with CE CA No. CE (P) SVK/ 05/2019-20 that edge line
markings for M-G-D road and J-M road has been executed with 100mm width as against the norm of 150mm as
per IRC-35. Reasons for not following the road marking norms may please be intimated to audit.
Case-II
During scrutiny of job wise consumption of Thermoplastic paint, a comparison was carried out as per DGBR
SSR-2016 norms/ MoRT&H norms and actual consumption on ground, which is as under:
DGBR Excess
Actual SSR/ paint used
Area for Quantity
Name of consumption MoRTH over and
S.N. Job No Thermoplastic as per TS
Road on ground & as Norms in above
paint in sqm in Kg
per BOO in Kg Kg (2.5 norms in
Kg/Sqm) Kg
1 Joshimath- 502/148 157.50 - 608.00 393.75 214.25
2 Malari 502/168 1780.00 4716.25 6784.00 4450.00 2334.00
3 502/175 140.50 653.25 542.00 351.25 190.75
4 502/176 1850.00 4808.50 7054.00 4625.00 2429.00
5 Maint J- 1358.70 - 5421.00 3396.75 2024.25
M 2018-
19 &
2019-20
6 Malari - 511/25 403.75 3397.50 1590.00 1009.38 580.63
7 Girthidobla 511/29 875.00 2699.25 3510.00 2187.50 1322.50
Maint K-
Kurkuti – G-N
8 Ghamshali- 2018-19 2981.00 - 11938.00 7452.50 4485.50
Niti & 2019-
20
Total 13580.88
It can be seen from the above that a qty of 13,580.88 kg of thermoplastic paint was issued over and above the
norms. This resulted into extra expenditure of Rs. 6,78,907.94/- (@ 49.99 per Kg) and it is also seen from above
that quantity of Thermoplastic Paint was not correctly calculated in Technical Sanction as compared to the
norms and as a result the quantity ranged from 2.60 Kg/Sqm to 8.41 Kg/ Sqm in ibid jobs as against the norm of
2.5 Kg/Sqm. The matter needs justification and reasons for not adhering to laid down norms in technical
sanction may please be intimated to audit. It may also be intimated whether Govt. approval has been obtained
for using thermoplastic paint over and above norms.
1. Details of Jobs in which Thermoplastic paint has been sanctioned during last three years i.e.
2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-2021 in respect of 21/36 BRTF.
2. The quantity catered for/ consumption of Thermoplastic paint/ glass beads/ LPG as per
format-1 enclosed.
3. The details of roads on which road markings (Centre Line/ Edge Line) have been carried out
during last three years as per enclosed format -2.
4. Whether revised technical sanction has been obtained for over and above consumption of
thermoplastic paint.
5. In case II, thermoplastic paint, glass beads and LPG has been catered for and was to be
issued by department but no LPG was held on charge for last 2 years (123 RCC). In absence
of the same how the work was carried out may also be intimated to audit.
Reply:
Thermoplastic paint used after completion of surfacing work. Work was executed on ground by hired
equipment for laying the thermoplastic paint. Quantity of thermoplastic paint booked in work diaries as per
DGBR SSR 2016 norms but actual consumption on ground was more than SSR norms. Therefore a Tech Board
of officers was ordered vide 21 BRTF convening order no. 218/2019 dated 30/08/2019. Based on
recommendation of TBOO and approval, quantities of thermoplastic paint were booked which has been
reflected in work diaries.
Technical sanction taken from competent authority before execution on ground.
Qty booked as per AAA sanction & TS issued by competent authority no excess use of thermoplastic paint in
road marking
Case III : Irregular sanction of jobs
As per HQ Chief Engineer, Shivalik letter No 22005/RRNH/25/E2 wks dt 23.03.21, following roads
were transferred to State PWD/NHIDL
S No. NH Name of road Length of MoRT&H notification

road
1 NH 107/109 Rudraprayag-Gourikund 0 to 76 MoRT&H L/no 12037/17/2013-Misc/NH-
76 Kms 11 dt 30.12.14
2 NH 34 Rishikesh-Dharasu
3 NH 58/07 Rishikesh-Joshimath- 228.54 to MoRT&H L/No 12037/17/2013/Misc NH-
Mana 527.60 11 dt 30.12.14
=299.06 Gazette Notification No. 2181 dt 04.08.17
MoRT&H L/no. 12014/001/2014-UR/Nh-
11 dt 27.03.15
It was further noticed from Approval register and its connected files following jobs were sanctioned
after handing over roads to State PWD/NHIDL
S.No Job No. Name of road Amt of Job

Name of work Date of sanctioned
1 510/422(RAE) Rishikesh-Joshimath-Mana Rs 634.88 lakh
Work done RAE for provision of surfacing works from 28.09.18
km 148.325 to 159.675 (new loc km 352.325-363.675)
2. UR-BRO- Rishikesh-Joshimath-Mana Rs 790.13 lakh
2009-14 Workdone RAE for improvement of riding quality from 28.09.18
Km 300 to 317.500
3 58 UR-BRO Rishikesh-Joshimath-Mana Rs 199.94 lakh
2008-01 Wrokdone RAE for improvement of riding quality from 30.11.18
(RAE) Km 363.675 km to 367.200 (Rudraprayag town)
4 510/48 (RAE) Rudraprayag-Gaurikund workdone RAE for IRMD during Rs 6.21 lakh
Year 2013-14 for slide clearance at Narrow location 20.10.18
between Km 13.00-68.100 on R-D road
5 510/627 Workdone IRMD during 2013-14 between km 36.150 to Rs 52.67 lakh
(RAE) km 36.45 29.10.18
6. 510/632 Rudraprayag-Gaurikund Rs61.67 lakh
(RAE) Workdone IRMD during year 2013-14 at km 23.750 km 29.10.18
to 24.500 and km 25.900 to 26.470
7 510/39 (RAE) Rudraprayag-Gaurikund Rs. 5.42 lakh
Workdone IRMD during year 2013-14 at km 55.10 on 15.11.18
road on R-D road
8 109-UR-BRO Rudraprayag-Gaurikund Rs. 494.57 lakh
2009-10 Workdone RAE for improvement of riding quality from 15.11.18
km 19.00 to km 26.00 km 28 to 31 and km 31 to 35 on
NH 109
Reason/Circumstances under which above works/jobs were sanctioned when the roads were already
handed over to State PWD/NHIDL else.
The physical/financial progress of ibid jobs and action taken to recovery the amt from State PWD/other
agencies involved.
Reply:
The physical and financial progress and reasons for issue revise sanction after handing over roads in r/o Jobs
given in audit observation is furnished as under:-
S/No Name of work % Phy % Fin Reasons for RAE

Progress Progress
1 WD RAE for provision of surfacing work bet 116 108 Revise sanction issued due to
Km 148.325 to Km 159.675 on R-J-M road. Job revision of scope, SSR and being
No :510/422 costed progress more than
AA+10% limit so as to close the
work done Job.
2 WD RAE for improvement of riding quality bet 91.80 70 On handing over the roads, all
Km 300 to Km 317 on R-J-M road. Job No: open Jobs were required to close
UR-BRO-2009-14 with their present status. Since
3 WD RAE for improvement of riding quality bet 90.98 105 the variation in physical
Km 363.675 to Km 367.20 on R-J-M road Job achievement and incurred
No:58-UR-BRO-2008-01 expenditure was more than 10%,
4 WD RAE for IRMD during 2013-14 for slide 62.01 82.14 therefore RAEs were sanctioned
clearance bet Km 13.00 to Km 68.10 on to regularize expenditure and
Rdraprayag-Gaurikund road Job No:510/48 close the Jobs.
5 WD RAE for IRMD during 2013-14 bet Km 56.77 72.30
36.150 to Km 36.45 on Rdraprayag-Gaurikund
road Job No:510/627
6 WD RAE for IRMD during 2013-14 bet Km 46.57 62.84
23.75 to Km 26.47 on Rdraprayag-Gaurikund
road Job No:510/632
7 WD RAE for IRMD during 2013-14 at Km 90.98 105
55.10 on Rdraprayag-Gaurikund road Job
No:510/39
8 WD RAE for improvement of riding quality bet 101.21 55.5
Km 26 to Km 35 on Rdraprayag-Gaurikund
road. Job No: 109-UR-BRO-2009-09
Audit Objective : Internal Control and Management of resources
Case I: Relocation of units to Execution sites
As per HQ Chief Engineer, Shivalik letter No 22005/RRNH/25/E2 wks dt 23.03.21, following roads have
already been transferred to State PWD/NHIDCL: -
S No. NH Name of road Length of road MoRT&H notification
1 NH Rudraprayag-Gourikund 0 to 76 MoRT&H L/no 12037/17/2013-
107/109 76 Kms Misc/NH-II dt 30.12.14
2 NH 34 Rishikesh-Dharasu 0 to 143.35 Km
3 NH Rishikesh-Joshimath- 228.54 to MoRT&H L/No 12037/17/2013- Misc
58/07 Mana 527.60 =299.06 NH-II dt 30.12.14
Gazette Notification No. 2181 dt
04.08.17
MoRT&H L/no. 12014/001/2014-
UR/NH-II dt 27.03.15
It was further noticed that various units under CE (P) Shivalik are located on Rishikesh-Joshimath-
Mana road which has been handed over to State PWD/NHIDCL vide MoRT&H L/No.
12037/17/2013-misc/NH-II dated 30 Dec 2014, Gazette Notification No. 2181 dt 04.08.17&MoRT&H L/no.
12014/001/2014-UR/NH-II dt 27.03.15and now those are functioning far away from road sites. Details of the
units are as under:
S.N. Unit Name Unit Location
1. 1058 Fd Wksp (Field Workshop) Shivpuri
2. 531 SS&TC (Store Supply & Transport Company) Rishikesh
3. 1020 IESPL (Independent Engg Store Platoon) Rishikesh
4. 66 RCC (Road Construction Company) Gaucher
5. 832 AMIR (Additional MI Room) Gaucher
6. 75 RCC (Road Construction Company) Pipalkoti
It could be seen from the above that manpower and vehicles are deployed far from the locations/ Road sites,
which would affect proper supervision of work and extra expenditure will be incurred on account of extra
running of vehicles/ POL. Supply units i.e. 531 SS&TC and 1020 IESPL may also be relocated near executing
units as no stores are being received through goods train for which reason the same were initially located in
Rishikesh. No action has been taken to shift these units on Road sites so that proper supervision can be ensured,
extra expenditure can be saved and work can be carried out as per IRC/ MoRT&H. This needs justification.
1. Action taken/ proposed to be taken to shift these units to road sites.
2. Details of works sanctioned/ executed for improvement of these units after handing over the roads.
3. Extra expenditure incurred on a/c of POL consumption, transportation of stores/manpower for last
3 years i.e. 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21.
Reply :
Unit wise details are as tabulated below:
S/No. Name of Unit Unit Location Present Status/Justification

1 1058 Fd Wksp Shivpuri Plan for relocation of the unit to Joshimath near
HQ 21 BRTF is under progress.
2 1020 (I) ESPL & 531 SSTC Rishikesh Most of supply coys are located at Rail head for
further supply of store like cement, steel,
explosive and dry ration in bulk qty including
GS reserve, monsoon stock etc. to respective
TF/Units
Bidders for auction of condemned stores are

available in plain area and near rail head. Hence
these unit are located at Rishikesh.
3 66 RCC Gauchar RCC is located at Gauchar for supervising the
improvement of Road Simli-Gwaldam and
constr of 03 roads at Lansdowne as well as
accommodation for HQ CE(P) Shivalik at
Majrigrant.
4 832 AMIR Gauchar This MI room is for troops of 66 RCC and
platoons deployed in the AOR of 66 RCC.
5 75 RCC Pipalkoti Proposal for re-location of the unit at Mana is
under process.
The following works have been planned /executed for improvement of these units after handing over the sector
from Rishikesh-Joshimath and Rudraprayag Gaurikund and Part of Rishikesh-Dharasu (up to Agrakhal (km
28.400) except Narendra Nagar by pass) :
S.No. Job No. Name of Work AA Amount

1 40/277 Provn of surf wks on internal roads of 531 23.64 Lakhs
SS&TC
2 40/266 Internal Roads 1058 FW 30.31 Lakhs
In view of above facts there has been no extra/infructuous expenditure taken place for any kind of
transportation.

Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Audit Objective 1: Whether sound system of planning for designing, preparing estimate is in place and being

followed to achieve the efficiency of operation.

Case I : Unrealistic preparation of Annual Works Programme.

Approved Targets Final Achievement

Year Date of forwarding Date of approval by DGBR

AWP (BE) 2018-19 10 Sep 2017 15 May 2018

AWP (BE) 2019-20 02 Jul 2019 13 Feb 2019

AWP (BE) 2020-21 30 Apr 2019 29 Jan 2020

Approved Targets vs Final achievement for the year 2018-19

Items of work Approved Targets Total Final achievements Total

Pmt works 8.4

Maj bridges 64.7

*LA/FC payment -Nil

Fmn (eqvt 75.0

Surf (eqvt 22.9 20.0

Pmt works 105.

Approved Targets vs Final achievement for the year 2019-20

Items of work Approved Targets Total Final achievements Total

*incl LA/FC payment of Rs 31.35 Cr

Surf (eqvt 2.2

Pmt works 55 251.

Tunnel - - - - - - 212.16 212.16

Approved Targets vs Final achievement for the year 2020-21

Items of work Approved Targets Total Final achievements Total

Fmn (eqvt 36.4

Surf (eqvt 4.0

Supply Order No. and Make Date of

3 GEMC- Tata 19E-73990 75 RCC

7 CH-2753306 123 RCC

8 GEMC- CH-2753307 66 RCC

10 CH-2753309 123 RCC

Veh / Project demand Demand accepted by Dte Item Received by Unit

Case III: Non-achievement of the targets (State-24)

Target Achievement year 18-19

Chardham Other than Chardham Other than Chardham Other than

Chardham Other than Chardham Other than Chardham Other than

Chardham Other than Chardham Other than Chardham Other than

Following comments are offered in audit:

In this connection following information may please be furnished to audit: -

FY Type of work Target Achievement % Diff in

F Typ Target Achievement % Diff in Achievement

Para (i) of State-24 Shortfall in achievement is due to following reasons.

FY Budget required as per Actual Budget Percentage Difference

Year Date of forwarding Date of approval by DGBR

AWP (BE) 2018-19 10 Sep 2017 15 May 2018

AWP (BE) 2019-20 02 Jul 2019 13 Feb 2019

AWP (BE) 2020-21 30 Apr 2019 29 Jan 2020

Approved Targets vs Final achievement for the year 2018-19

Items of work Approved Targets Total Final achievements Total

Tunnel - - - - - - 212.16 212.1

Case I: Non-acquisition of land/Forest Clearance prior to the sanction/execution of work. (Stat-4)

S.No. Name Stretch (Km) Area of Land Date of Initiation

Case II: Jobs sanctioned without land acquisition

Case III: Non-mutation of land

S.No. Name of Road Survey/Khasra Area (In Date of Amt Deposited

In this connection the following information may kindly be furnished:-

Case I: Abnormal delay in execution of roads/bridges. (Stat-11)

S.No. Delay Period No. of Works

1 6 months to less than 1 year 08 01

2 1 year to less than 2 years 15 02