CHENNAI: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has found fault with the previous DMK regime on many counts in connection with the construction of the new Assembly-cum-Secretariat Complex in Omandurar Government Estate here. The CAG rap comes even as an inquiry commission headed by retired Judge of the Madras High Court S Thangaraj is probing into the alleged irregularities in the building construction. Violation of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act (TTTA) in awarding contract for architectural consultancy services, wasteful expenditure of `3.28 crore incurred for constructing temporary dome, overpayment and unauthorised financial benefit to the contractor are the shortcomings brought to light by the CAG report tabled in the State Assembly on Wednesday for the year ended March 31, 2011. Significantly, the CAG got replies from the DMK regime on these charges and rejected them as unacceptable on various grounds.The CAG report said the pre-qualification notice for selection of firms for the construction of the new Assembly-cum-Secretariat was issued in July 2007 and seven firms were shortlisted (September 2007) by an evaluation committee for the presentation of their design concepts. Later, the committee selected a German firm. The agreement for providing the consultancy services ended in February 2008 and the scale of charges payable to the consultant was five per cent of the actual project cost for all works, except interior works for which it was 7.5 per cent. The services of the consultant were later extended (October 2008) to Block B, the auditorium complex, the guest house and multilevel car parking on the same terms and conditions. The total payment made to the consultant for Block A up to June 2010 was `10.32 crore. For Block B, it was `3.10 crore till May 2010.The provisions of the TTTA were not complied with while procuring architectural consultancy services and the work was entrusted to the firm at five per cent of the project cost prescribed by the Council of Architecture (COA). Extension of services of the consultant for Block B and other buildings without inviting open tenders or architectural competition was in violation of the provisions of TTTA, the report said.The CAG report further said the government incurred a wasteful expenditure of `3.28 crore on the construction of a temporary dome atop the Block A building. The targeted date for completion of Block A was May 2010. The agreement provided for completion of structural civil works in all respects in 12 months (by November, 2009). The design for the dome, a main component, was completed by the consultant in August 2009 and the construction work for the dome was entrusted to another contractor in November 2009 for `17.80 crore.The agreement was signed in December 2009 only, due to delay in supply of detailed drawings of the dome by the consultant. Meanwhile, the government fixed March 12, 2010, as the date of inauguration of the building and the consultant advised the department to provide a prototype of the dome to study the dome profile and the finished effect and to have a better understanding of a construction of a temporary dome proposed to be constructed at a height of 100 feet. The work on temporary dome was entrusted to a firm in March 2010 without calling for tenders. The CAG report observed that the prototype dome had to be provided due to the failure of the department in providing permanent dome within the scheduled time. The CAG got a reply from the DMK government for this lacuna, but dismissed it as unacceptable as the consultant had not suggested any such prototype dome while furnishing the design.As per the technical specifications and nomenclature of the work provided in the original agreement, the length of piles was to be measured from the top of the piles shoe to the bottom of the pile cap for payment purposes. However, while changing the design of the pile foundation, the nomenclature of the work was changed in the supplementary agreement to effect payment for the length of the pile up to the natural ground level instead of up to the bottom of the pile cap. This resulted in the overpayment of `2.46 crore to the contractor.The CAG also noted that the bid documents and agreement concluded with the contractor had not provided for payment of secured advances for the materials brought to site. This was also confirmed to the bidders during the pre-bid meeting. However, during execution, the contractor requested (August 2009) for payment of advance on the value of materials brought to site. Their request was accepted in August 2009 by the then PWD secretary (S Ramasundaram) and the contractor was paid an advance amount of `3.37 crore by way of part payment against the material supplied in December 2009. An amount of `76.06 lakh remained unadjusted as of June 2010. The payment of advance in violation of agreement provision resulted in unauthorised financial benefit of `10.85 lakh to the contractor, the CAG report said.
Comments
0 comment