1 of

t.Jo. 4q6·v PMGSY- -

GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF

RURAL WORKS: BHUBANESWAR

I Dtd. (f)$j on I

~ The Executive Engineer, ~W. Division, Angul/ Balasore-1/ Bargarh/ Padampur/ Bhadrak-11/ Bolangir/ Titilagarh/ Patnagarh/

e,uttack-1/ Cuttack-11/ Deogarh/ Gajapati/ Mohana/ Jagatsinghpur/ Jajpur-1/ Jharsuguda/ Bhawanipatna/ Dharmagarh/ Kesinga/ Kendrapara-1/ Keonjhar-1/ Keonjhar-11/ Koraput/ Sunabeda/ Malkangiri-1/ Malkangiri-11/ Karanjia/ Rairangpur/ Nowrangpur-1/ Nayagarh-1/ Nayagarh-11/ Nuapada/ Khariar/ Phulbani/ Baliguda/ Rayagada/ Sambalpur/ Sundargarh-1/ Sundargarh-11

Sub:- Scrutiny of sample DPRs under Batch-Ill (2016-17).

Ref:- This office letter No. 18330 dtd.17.09.2016, No.18930 dtd.26.09.16 & NRRDA E-mail letter dt. 26.09.2016.

Sir, It is to intimate that 26 nos. sample DPRs out of selected 61 no. of projects (48 no. of road & 13

nos. of Bridges) have been scrutinized by NRRDA. The list of package & their observations are

enclosed herewith.

The observation of sample DPRs are applicable for all DPRs prepared under your jurisdiction.

The DPRs may be verified & corrected in the light of observation made by NRRDA at your level & the

exercise is to be completed by 14.10.16 (except DPRs prepared for the LWE blocks where

population of the target habitation is 100 to 249). After correction of the DPRs the component wise

cost for each road is to be prepared & the same is to be submitted to this office, duly providing

relevant information in the format enclosed. For further scrutiny of all corrected DPRs, you are

requested to attend in the Conference Hall of R. W. Division, Bhubaneswar at 10.00 A.M. on

18.10.16 positively. Further, 2 to 3 such persons per Division who have prepared the DPRs may also

accompany you during scrutiny of corrected DPRs. The DPRs of LWE blocks will be corrected after

receipt of detailed guidelines from NRRDA & the same will be intimated to you in due course.

In the meantime, the MoRD, Gal has issued a Circular dtd.19.09.16 amending the para 8.5 (v)

regarding enhancement of the span of Long Span Bridges (LSB) for funding under PMGSY, a copy

which is enclosed which may please be followed scrupulously. This revised guidelines on LSB should

be taken while revising the DPRs of PMGSY works under Batch-II I (2016-17) & future DPRs also.

Please treat this letter as most urgent

Encl:- (i) NRRDA E-mail letter dtd. 26.09.2016. Yours faithfully, (ii) List of 48 no. of roads & 13 no. of bridges. Tu (iii) Circular No.P-17025/37/2013-RC, MoRD. ~

Chief Engine1f.1.~MGSY Memo No. r9Sf1 /Dt. OS 1c:, j...{ I

Copy submitted to All Superintending Engineers(Civil) under R.W. Organisation for information and necessary action. They are requested to ensure the submission of corrected DPRs of all the projects with relevant information duly filled up in prescribed format by the concerned EE within the targ~

ChiefEn~ Memo No. I °t~- }j~ /Dt. '1-~, .. ,:ft.. I

Copy submitted to the General Manager, NBCC ltd., A-16, Ashok Nagar, 151 Floor, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751009, E-mail- pmgsy.east@nbccindia.com for information and necessary action.~

ChiefE~

-

'!"'J/ i , J Name of the Road

Package No

SI No Items of Works

-1 2

1) CC Road

2) BT Road

3) Drain

4) HPC

5) Box Cell/ Slab Culvert

6) Protection wall

7) Retaining/ Toe wall ( Chainage)

8) Road Furniture

9) Others including DPR

10) Shifting of public utility

11) (like Electricpole /Telephone pole/

Misceleniousl

% reduction =

FORMAT- II Cost in Lakhs / Length in km

Earlier Provision Submitted Revised Provision for which cost is revised

Physical (Length/No) Cost (Rs. In

Physical (Length/No) lakhs) Cost

Remarks 3 4 5 6 7

r -.

, 1

Total Cost 0.00 Total Cost 0.00

Total Cost of project of Road Proper Considering 15%0HC & Contractors profit Rs. 0.00 0.00

0.00

Lakhs

Lakhs

Lakhs State share

Net MORD share

1\

\

11

ODISHA STATE DPR OBSERVATIONS

Date – (30 September- 1 October) 2016

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:

1. Photographs are not provided at 100m interval. It is mandatory to provide clear coloured photographs at every 100m interval of road along with the photographs of salient features like existing/new proposed CD and protection works locations for justification.

2. Transect walk report and photographs are not enclosed in DPRs. 3. Soil test results at least one at every 1km of road, indicating sieve

analysis, LL, PL, OMC, MDD and CBR are not attached in many DPRs. 4. Traffic seems to be overestimated in most of the DPRs. The photographs

attached do not show any vehicle even two wheelers or cars against the number reported in enclosed traffic surveys. Further, traffic count indicated different on different pages of DPRs.

5. For roads where traffic is less than 100 motorised vehicle per day the carriageway needs to be restricted to 3.0m width.

6. Roads proposed for habitations having population less than 250 (LWE area) only Stage-I construction is permitted.

7. Flexible pavement designed for two layers of WBM of 150mm with GSB (125-150mm) and PMC 20mm. As the cost of GSB is about Rs. 550/Cum. State may use para 6.2 of design chart given in the IRC SP-72-2015 and increase the sub base thickness by deleting one layer of WBM. Since the rate of GSB (₹ 500-700 per m3) is observed to be much less than WBM II rate (₹ 2000-2500 per m3), removing one layer of WBM II and providing equivalent GSB thickness would be economical.

8. Existing surface in many DPRs observed to be a good earthen road with adequate embankment height. In such roads provision of embankment and subgrade needs to be justified.

9. In cases where soil test results show CBR value marginally less than 5, the first effort has to be towards to increase the CBR by enhancing compaction standards.

10.Horizontal curve are very badly designed and not in accordance with SP:20 Rural Road Manual.

11.In many DPRs the road length is terminated beyond the Habitation end point. The length of roads needs revision. Further in cases where both the side of the proposed road ends with BT road, multi connectivity for the habitation is not permitted. State should ensure to give single connectivity to the eligible habitation and balance excess length proposed should be deleted from the proposal.

12.CC pavement should be provided only where the building line on either side of the road is abutting the roadway edges. Length of CC pavement should be judiciously decided only on the habitation area.

13.GSB proposed on both sides of WBM layer for Drainage needs to be deleted.

14.Provisions of hard shoulders and concrete shoulders need to be changed to earthen shoulders or the difference in cost should come as additional State share.

15.Closely spaced CDs proposed needs to be merged / integrated in order to achieve economy in construction. CD works are proposed without justification from L and X section drawings. The damaged CDs are replaced with new CDs without justification from photographs.

16.Boulder apron provided for pipe culverts and slab culverts is not necessary as there is no much scour.

17.Height of head wall provided in the DPR does not match with the levels indicated in the L/X section drawings. Headwall height needs to be rationalised according to the requirements. Further, the expert committee report on economy in rural road construction suggests construction of splayed wing walls instead of straight headwalls and boulder pitching with filter. This should be adopted to achieve the economy in cost.

18.Protection works (Retaining wall and toe wall) are provided without justification from photographs and cross section drawings. Provisions of protection works not justified included in DPR contributes to substantial increase in cost of construction should be deleted.

19.Sand soling provided in retaining wall, drain and culverts below PCC is not as per IRC SP-20.

20.Contractor profits and Overheads provided for 15% instead of 12.50%. Needs to be corrected or additional 2.50% should come from additional State share.

21.Provision of side drains inappropriately made in the DPRs. It should be made in habitation area only. Further the designs of drains are not as per SP:20 Rural Road Manual. The cost per m of drain in order of ₹ 2600-3000 is on higher side. Location of drain needs to be judiciously decided and the cross section should be provided as per actual needs of discharge flow with low depth at starting point. Invariable Drain has been proposed in all roads.

22.Cost of dressing and turfing included in DPR is not as per PMGSY norms, needs to be revised.

23.Essential data and reports with Bridge DPRs are not furnished such as photographs of the river site, calculation of bearing capacity of soil, bore hole log data, detailed structural design and drawings, , Joint inspection report of SE and STA, authenticated hydraulic particulars, toposheets (for calculation of catchment area) and CAD drawings in appropriate size.

The observations indicated above are based on random scrutiny of sample

DPRs provided by the State. Similar corrections may be required there in

remaining DPRs. Hence all DPRs be scrutinised at SRRDA level again and

corrected. Individual DPR wise observations are as follows.

District - Kendrapara Block - Mahakalpara Road Name - L027- Kharansi to Batighar Length - 12.98 km Cost - Rs. 1152.23 (Rs. 88.76 Lakh/km)

1. Horizontal curve are very badly designed and not in accordance with SP:20 Rural Road Manual.

2. L sections are very small in scale and no details of original ground level of either side of the road are available. The ground road level has been uniformly increased by about 650mm. It is perhaps for 300mm of stabilised soil and 300mm for sub base, base course. From soil analysis it is appear that 89% of soil passing 75 micron sieve is silt or clay. For this type of soil and lime stabilization is preferable.

3. CC pavement – Entire road length is to be further raised by 650mm and side slope on either side is available as per cross sectional drawings. Therefore there will be no problem for surface drainage of the road. So there is no need of CC pavement and it should be deleted.

4. Retaining wall and protection wall – Practically there is no need of retaining wall and protection walls. However, a length of about 50m may be provided in areas around 11/700 km and 11/900km.

5. CD- Out of 23 existing CDs, two are shown in good and 21 are shown damaged to be replaced, but no photographs for the CD or extent of damage has been shown. So these CDs cannot be considered for reconstruction.

6. It is worth mentioning that 10CDs are 600mm dia 7 are 300mm dia and 4 are 200mm dia. Actually these cannot be termed as CDs but as conduit pipes. When the road height is increased extra length is required for widening. So the proposal of widening of all conduits pipes should be provided in DPR.

7. As per guidelines, photo in every 100m interval to be included in DPR and extra photographs for salient points to be included.

8. STA vetted scoresheet not included in DPR.

District - Koraput Block - Boipariguda Road Name - L081- Godput to Mankidi Length - 6.0 km Cost - Rs. 365.3 (Rs. 60.88 Lakhs/km)

1. Para 2.4 road design in brief, it state that CC road will be at formation width 3.75m. This formation width is not allowed.

2. From 0/0 to 0/200 CC road is proposed. There is no habitation as per photographs shown CC road is not justified. Regarding 2200 to 2600 m

habitation at 2300m is visible, so CC road from 2250 to 2350m may be provided.

3. Transect walk summary shows existing land width from 5.8m to 8.5m is available. Additional land required is shown nil and no loss of property is shown. This land width is inadequate for construction of village road. If further land is not available the road should be dropped.

4. Cross drainage works – At ch 148, 277, 390, 422, 2035, 2100, 2150, 4150 as reported damaged in the DPR but in photographs apparently the CDs are not damaged show replacement is not required. Minor repairs can be taken up where necessary.

5. New provisions – As per L section and photographs provision of CD at ch 2835 and 3880 appears to be reasonable. But catchment area detail as per toposheet is not available so span of the CD needs to be reviewed. Between ch 4475 and 4950, 3 CDS are proposed but there is no appropriate justification from photographs or L sections. These should be reviewed. At chaiange 5300 and 5700, there may be apparent requirement of CD as proposed but proper justification is to be given. Instead of straight wing wall, splayed wing wall are to be provided.

6. Soil sample test- For gravel sand content more than about 55% (50 to 60%), OMC 11 – 12% and MDD 1.63 to 1.75 gm/cc, the CBR reported to be between 4.2 to 4.7 is a matter of wrong reporting. It should be more than and around 6 to 7%, the test should be redone.

7. Moisture content increase in subsequent readings is 5.96%, 15.033%, 11.45% and 13.22% shows absurdity, otherwise it should have been in gradual increasing order. This is the situation in all the 4 test. The 3rd reading is highest and exactly same as OMC and MDD required. Thus it indicates that the test results are totally fabricated. Action should be taken against the concerned test laboratory.

8. The gradation for GSB indicates 0.075mm passing material is 0%. It is apparent that wet analysis has not seen done while it is mandatory for testing any material below 4.75 mm.

9. Traffic survey has been done at chainage 1150m. Traffic is accessed for T4 category. The surface at the existing earthen road is quite smooth from 0/0 to 4500m and without any rots and potholes. This clearly indicates the either the traffic survey is wrong or the CBR reported is wrong. 89 photographs of the road do not show any four wheeler vehicle or any two wheeler. Thus it again indicates that the traffic survey is unrealistic.

10.Protection wall is proposed from chainage 3880 to 3990 ie. 20m, in summary sheet it is zero m but in detail of measurement it is taken as 80m. Detailed cross section shows a very low height of embankment and full slope of earth work so no protection work is required.

11.Estimation of HP culvert is very excessive at Rs. 4.18 lakhs per double buried 1000mm dia pipe.

12.The DPR provide CC pavement between 200 to 2600m while in this reach heavy earth filling is provided in the earthwork item. Apparently this is wrong.

District - Sundargarh Block - Kuarmunda Road Name - PWD road to Gopur Length - 3.6 km Cost - Rs. 178.72 Lakh (Rs. 53.90 Lakh/km)

1. Photographs are not provided at 100m interval. It is mandatory to provide clear coloured photographs at every 100m interval of road along with the photographs of existing/new proposed CD and protection works locations for justification.

2. Road safety checklist, community consultation checklists are left blank. 3. Page numbering is not done in DPR. 4. Photographs show good existing earthen surface with sufficient roadway

width available. Soil test report indicates CBR of unsoked soil as more than 9% and soaked CBR as more than 5%. Thus, the requirement of earthwork for embankment seems to be on higher side (14372 m3), needs to be rationalised.

5. CC road proposed between Ch 2/190 to 2/560 and 3/330 to 3/600. However, between ch. 2/190 to 2/560 no habitations seen in photographs also between Ch 3/300 to 3/600 both sides habitations are not seen in photographs. Thus the provision of CC pavement needs to be reduced and should only be provided in habitation area as per PMGSY guidelines.

6. Both sides Toe walls proposed between ch 0/050 to 0/175 costing 15.45 Lac. From photographs the requirement of toe wall is not justified since sufficient roadway width is available. Provision of toe wall needs to be deleted.

7. 100m side drain is provided between ch. 3/600 to 3/700. Road is of 3.6 km. Drain beyond road length without habitation is not justified. Also the design of drain is not as per SP20 Rural Road Manual. Further, cost per m of drain Rs 2647 is on higher side. Provision of drain needs to be deleted (Cost 2.64 Lac).

8. Cost of dressing and turfing included in DPR for cost of Rs. 2.04 Lakhs is not as per PMGSY norms, needs to be deleted.

9. Road is designed for T4 traffic category. However, no vehicles are seen on attached photographs against reported traffic. Pavement may be re-designed as per revised traffic survey.

10.Flexible pavement is designed for two layers of WBM 150mm with GSB 150mm and PMC 20mm. As per SP:72-2015, for low volume roads, , one layer of WBM III may be provided with equivalent increase in GSB layer thickness. Since the rate of GSB (Rs. 505.11 per m3) is much less than WBM II rate (Rs. 2072.32 per m3), removing one layer of WBM II and providing equivalent GSB thickness would be economical.

11.CDs are closely spaced at ch. 260, 357, 440, 503 and ch. 3045, 3107, 3140 needs to be merged. CD at ch. 1575 is at good condition, only repairing may be sufficient. Provision of CDs needs to be revised.

District - Gajapati Block - Mohana Package No. - OR-10-298 Road Name - (Ramagiri to Putupad) T02-R Bhaliasahi to Udyagiri Road Length - 3.50 km (NC) Cost - Rs. 185.64 Lakhs Average cost per Km - Rs. 53.04 Lakhs/Km

1. Habitation is observed at Ch. 2650 and 3340. At the end point only there is a habitation. Both the side of the proposed road ends with BT road. From the photographs it seems that multi connectivity is proposed for the habitation. State should ensure to give single connectivity to the eligible habitation and balance excess length (0/0-2/65) proposed should be deleted from the proposal.

2. GSB proposed on both sides of WBM layer for Drainage needs to be deleted.

3. Boulder apron provided for pipe culverts and slab culverts is not necessary as there is no much scour.

4. Height of head wall provided in the DPR does not match with the levels indicated in the L/X section drawings. Headwall height needs to be rationalised according to the requirements.

5. Sand soling provided in retaining wall, drain and culverts below PCC is not as per IRC SP-20.

6. Cost of GSB is around Rs. 550/Cum. State may go table 4 of IRC SP-72-2015 and increase the sub base thickness by deleting one layer of WBM.

7. Contractor profits and Overheads provided for 15% instead of 12.50%. Needs to be corrected or additional 2.50% should come from additional State share.

District - Angul Block - Angul Package No. - OR-01-132 Road Name - L063 - PWD Road to Guranga road Road Length - 2.20 km (NC) Cost - Rs. 107.98 Lakhs Average cost per Km - Rs. 49.08 Lakhs/Km

1. Habitation ends at Ch 1500-1600 and beyond that, there is no habitation seen in the photographs and strip plan as well. The length proposed beyond Ch 1700 needs to be ensured the necessity.

2. Hard shoulders have been proposed in DPRs for BT roads and CC roads. This need to be changed to earthen shoulder or the difference in cost should come as additional State share.

3. Traffic sign boards provided seems to be on higher side, requires revision. 4. Boulder apron provided for pipe culverts and slab culverts is not necessary

as there is no much scour.

5. Cost of GSB is about Rs. 550/Cum. State may use para 6.2 of design chart given in the IRC SP-72-2015 and increase the sub base thickness by deleting one layer of WBM.

6. Sand soling provided in retaining wall, drain and culverts below PCC is not as per IRC SP-20.

7. Height of head wall provided in the DPR does not match with the levels indicated in the L/X section drawings. Headwall may be provided up to top level of pipe and above 0.60 m parapet wall is sufficient. Proving more height of head wall unnecessarily adding the cost.

8. Necessity of retaining wall and toe wall needs to be justified with levels and clear photographs.

9. Conveyed earth cost is on higher side. 10.Contractor profits and Overheads provided for 15% instead of 12.50%.

Needs to be corrected or additional 2.50% should come from additional State share.

District - Kalahandi Block - Th. Rampur Package No. - OR-15-331 Road Name - L079-Tunapari to Bhatguda Road Length - 7.50 km (NC) Cost - Rs. 434.85 Lakhs Average cost per Km - Rs. 57.98 Lakhs/Km

1. Detailed test results indicating LL, PL, sieve analysis for GSB material is not attached. Needs to be tested and attached with the DPRs.

2. Cross section drawings not attached with DPR and earthwork cannot be verified but provision of 5267 Cum/Km has been made which is on higher side. Every cross section is very excessive and needs to be rechecked.

3. Pipe culverts proposed at closer intervals. It may be integrated. 4. Box culvert cost mentioned in proforma C does not match with the cost in

the detailed estimate. CD works cost is on higher side. Needs to be rationalised.

5. Boulder apron provided for pipe culverts and slab culverts is not necessary as there is no much scour.

6. Sand soling provided in retaining wall, drain and culverts below PCC is not as per IRC SP-20.

7. Utility shifting cost should be proposed as additional State share. 8. Hard Shoulders proposed with unit cost of Rs. 665.35/Cum which is not as

per specifications. The amount should come from additional State share. 9. Concrete shoulder proposed on both sides of CC pavements needs to be

deleted and earthen shoulder should be proposed. 10.Dressing and turfing is not required for this state as sufficient rainfall and

natural vegetation is there and it should be justified. 11.Contractor profits and Overheads provided for 15% instead of 12.50%.

Needs to be corrected or additional 2.50% should come from additional State share.

District - Balangir Block - Gudvella Package No. - OR-05-276 Road Name - L024-Jamut to Sandangargaon road

Road Length - 2.50 km (NC) Cost - Rs. 144.79 Lakhs Average cost per Km - Rs. 57.91 Lakhs/Km

1. Habitation ends at Ch 1600-1700 and beyond that, there is no habitation seen in the photographs and strip plan as well. The length proposed beyond Ch 1700 necessity should be ensured.

2. Quantities of earthwork are seems to be on higher side and it needs to be rationalised.

3. Terrazyme has been used for stabilization of sub base and base with 100 mm thickness each. However, WBM Gr III has been proposed. For stabilised base and sub base, WBM layer may not be required. Design needs to be verified with soil test results.

4. Two layers of WBM with 150 mm thickness has been proposed below M30 concrete which is not as per IRC SP:62-2014. One layer of WBM over 100 mm GSB is sufficient.

5. 2 spans of 8 m span box culvert have been proposed. Hydraulic particulars with level details need to be attached.

6. Boulder apron provided for pipe culverts and slab culverts is not necessary as there is no much scour.

7. Sand soling provided in retaining wall, drain and culverts below PCC is not as per IRC SP-20.

8. Dressing and turfing is not required for this state as sufficient rainfall and natural vegetation is there and it should be justified.

9. Contractor profits and Overheads provided for 15% instead of 12.50%. Needs to be corrected or additional 2.50% should come from additional State share.

District - Deogarh Block - Tileibani Package No. - OR-08-99 Road Name - L061-Chheplipali to Ginahaja Road Length - 2.80 km (NC) Cost - Rs. 167.39 Lakhs Average cost per Km - Rs. 59.78 Lakhs/Km

1. There is no track found in the photographs and it clears that no traffic on the road. However, road designed for T4 category which is unrealistic.

2. Hard shoulders have been proposed in DPRs for BT roads and CC roads. This need to be changed to earthen shoulder or the difference in cost should come as additional State share.

3. Dressing and turfing is not required for this state as sufficient rainfall and natural vegetation is there and it should be justified.

4. Boulder apron provided for pipe culverts and slab culverts is not necessary as there is no much scour.

5. Sand /gravel soling provided for retaining wall, drain and culverts below PCC is not as per IRC SP-20.

6. Length of pucca drain provided in the DPRs does not match with the photographs provided in the sample DPRs. State has made pucca side drain provision for all roads and the design is not as per SP-20-2002. Provisions needs to be rationalised and Pucca drain provided in open areas needs to be deleted.

7. Amount and length does not match with OMMAS data. Needs to be verified.

Type of construction : New construction Name of the road : ODR (PWD) road to Fasipada District : Nayagarh Block :Nayagarh Package No : OR-23-195 Route No. : L-059 Estimate amount : Rs 156.436 Lakhs Length : 1.998 km (0.95 km CC road & 1.048 km BT road) Cost / Km : Rs. 78.3 Lakhs/Km

1. Road name and length in proforma C and Introduction page are different. In proforma C no. of CD construction proposed is vary with place to place.

2. Transact walk photograph are not attach. 3. Habitation is ending at chainage 900 m than why it is extending upto

1998 m. Justify it. 4. Provision of dressing and turfing is not as per PMGSY norms. 5. Provision of sand layer in subgrade included in DPR. AS the reported CBR

is more than 4% in DPR, minimum 5% CBR of subgrade could be achieved using heavy compaction. Thus provision of sand layer may be deleted.

6. Design of culvert, protection work and drainage are not attached. 7. Protection work location photographs must be attached in DPR. 8. Slab culvert location photograph must be attached in DPR. 9. In CC pavement design un-reinforced concrete only will provide at

widening portion i.e. (820*0.075*0.180) it should not be on the existing portion.

10.For intersection and junction, concrete material estimated @ 10% is on higher side.

11.Citizen information board (14509.43) is on higher side. 12.Utility cost should be shift into state share.

Type of construction : New construction Name of the road : project road (T-0901) to karlichuan District : Nabrangpur Block : tentulikhunti Package No : OR-22-165/XIII Route No. : L-025 Estimate amount : Rs 116.37Lakhs Length : 2.5 km (0.1 km CC road & 2.4 km BT road) Cost / Km : Rs. 46.55 Lakhs/Km

1. Traffic estimate in performa C is different from traffic estimate done in DPR other page.

2. Based on photograph, existing road has sufficient embankment, earth work quantities are on higher side.

3. Based on photograph at chainage 1010 to 1195 m as sufficient road width available. Provision of protection wall is not justified.

4. At chainage 1820 m only single row HPC culvert is sufficient based on existing culvert condition.

5. In habitation area (at chainage 50 m and 1200 m) provision of new road construction is not justified as existing CC pavement is in good condition.

6. Protection work, road side drain and culvert are proposed in this project but design drawings are not attached with DPR.

Type of construction : New construction Name of the road : PWD road to sirigida District : Sundergarh Block : Gurundia Estimate amount : Rs Lakhs Length : 24.056 km (2.4 km CC road & 21.656 km BT road) Cost / Km : Rs. 46.9 Lakhs/Km

1. Blank score sheet enclosed has no relevance. 2. Only 30 photographs attached against the requisite numbers of 240.

Same photograph with CD attached with different chainage 2216 and 3590 m require explanation.

3. Chapter 6, all the existing CDs number declared poor without any sound reason/ point, so it is not acceptable; re examination required.

4. Transact walk minutes and photograph not attached in DPR. 5. Traffic count mentioned in DPR is not tallying, what mentioned in ‘C’ form

necessary corrections to be made. 6. Crust design reveals the requirement of 150 mm GSB , 2 layer WBM 75

mm each but DPR include the additional cost under head –WBM-II using L D slag costing 71.08 that should be detected or account for only new technology length (length of new technology nowhere mentioned in DPR).

7. Provision of Rs. 6.81 lakh for turfing and Rs. 3.18 lakh for fine dressing and turfing should be deleted become it is not as per the PMGSY guidelines.

8. Annexure 7.3, blank enclosed with DPR has no meaning. STA has not signed it.

9. 20,000/- km DPR preparation cost changed in DPR against the norms of 10,000/- km, it should be corrected.

10.No cross section attached in DPR to assess the proposed requirement of CD”s and protection so it should be rationalised or proper evidence shall be enclosed in DPR.

11.C form -1*2*2 RCC slab culvert 15 number mentioned against the 20 CDs chainages were mentioned.

12.Photo attach for 15100 RD with caption minor bridge in good condition in good condition against this 15220 m HPC proposed seem to be not justified so it should be reviewed. In another photo 15220, a photo is

shown with 1 R HPC, but in another photo a minor bridge shown at 15.1 that clearly indicate the state of affair for DPR preparation.

A.K. Singhai

Type of construction : New construction Name of the road : dalki to kumardubi District : Mayurbhanj Block : Bijatala Estimate amount : Rs Lakhs Length : 1.38 km Cost / Km : Rs. 53.55 Lakhs/Km

1. Black and white, poor quality photograph attached in DPR, nothing can be extracted from it.

2. Reported unrealistic traffic, show 97 motorised vehicle i.e. < 100 but carriage way width taken in DPR, 3.75 m is not as per the guide line. The proposal should be for 3 m carriage way width.

3. Provision of 100 m long protection at RD 280 – 380 RHS is not justified in cross section as well as in photos, so it should reviewed C C pavement also proposed at same RD’s so, it should be deleted.

4. The proposed road is in fill area so provision of compacting of existing ground costing 0.67 lakh seems to be unreasonable surface dressing turfing of 0.489 lakh should be detected.

5. Provision of earth work costing0.61 lakh below the CC length is not justified.

6. CC pavement width also restricted to 3 m as per point no. 2. 7. GSB shoulder provided along the CC road is not as per the guide line of

PMGSY, so review is required. 8. DPR preparation cost should be 10,000/- km against the provision of

20,000/ km. A.K. Singhai

Type of construction : New construction Name of the road : Bijapur to surulu District : Rayagada Block : Chandrapur Estimate amount : Rs. 1435.93 Lakh Length : 24 km Cost / Km : Rs. 59.22 Lakhs/Km

1. Only limited photograph attach in DPR against norms. 12 additional photos attach after the target habitation showing different chainage between 5.22 to 23.00 km, without any purpose or purpose better known to PIV. Classification required in this point.

2. CBR at RD 4000 reported 4.8%, looking to photo ground reveal a quality of GSB, the soil properties result for CBR should be re examined in the laboratory. Same observation for few other chainage also observed.

3. Amount change in DPR for CD’s is as follows:

1 R HPC – 2.73 lakh – against average cost 1.8 lakh 2*2 slab - 7.91 lakh – against average cost 4.5 lakh 3*3 slab - 12.14 lakh – against average cost 7.0 lakh

4. Protection work estimated @ 5.8 lakh/100 RM length seems to be on higher side, so throughout revision suggested.

5. In absence of cross section, provision of CD’s and protection work checking could not be possible.

6. Following provisions are not as per guidelines therefore shall be separate out -Turfing 7.77 lakh

7. According to photograph & traffic depict in it is suggested to provide shoulder width 1.12 m wide both side and carriageway width also restricted to 3 m wide only.

8. No soil (certified) test results are enclosed I DPR for CBR and other test. 9. Transact walk photos and certificate not enclosed in DPR. 10.No score sheet enclosed in photograph. 11.For the proposed CD’s costing 155.351, no hydraulic level drawing,

discharge data etc. were available in DPR. A.K. Singhai

Name of the Project :- PWD Road to Kutribahal(via Charichhak) District -Nuapada Block -Komna Package No -OR-24-163 Cost -Rs 75.28 Lakh Length -1.5 km

1. Photographs are not uploaded in OMMAS. 2. Cost of CD works is more than 20 % of the total cost. Hence, it is on

higher side. To be reduced. 3. Length of Toe wall considered is 30m.It seems to be high comparing the

length of the road. Please recheck. 4. It is a new connectivity proposal. But in DPR, in summary sheet, it is

mentioned as upgradation proposal. To be corrected.

Name of the Work -Podana via Garia to Katijanga District -Jagatsingpur Block - Balikuda Package No -OR-12-109 Cost -Rs.317.70 Lakhs Length - Rs. 4.5 Km

1. Photographs are not uploaded in OMMAS. To be uploaded. 2. Per Km cost of the road is very high. 3. As per CNCPL, length of the road is 3.0 Km. But as per DPR, length of the

road is 4.5 Km. Please explain. 4. As per DPR, cost of WBM-II is more than that of WBM-III. Thickness of

WBM-II and WBM-III layers are 75mm. 5. 14 nos. Of CDs are provided. No. of CDs can be reduced.

6. 50m length of Toe wall has been considered. It is very high. From the photographs and the sections, it is clear that so much length of Toe wall is not required.

STATE - ODISHA DISTRICT - Malkangiri BLOCK - Mathili ROAD NAME - L082-Mundaguda to Chirkopa Length - 2.94km OMMAS cost - 167.38lakhs (rate/km 56.93 lac) PACKAGE NO: - OR20290

1. As per IRC:SP -72-2015. Guide lines for the design of flexible pavements for low volume rural roads for traffic T3 and S3 a sub base of 75mm WBM Gr II & 75mm WBM Gr III is provided over GSB of 125mm thicknesses.

2. Details of photographs are not uploaded in OMMAS. 3. In the rate analysis it is seen the 15% over heads has been given instead

of 12.5%. Additional cost to be borne by the state in the State share. 4. Earth work in embankment is for 11007.95 cubic meter. Earth work

quantity seems to be on higher side. DISTRICT - Balasore BLOCK - Nilagiri ROAD NAME - L028-PWD Road To Kalipada San road Length - 1.3km OMMAS cost - 75.47lakhs (rate/km 58.05 lac) PACKAGE NO: - OR02356

1. As per IRC:SP -72-2015. Guide lines for the design of flexible pavements for low volume rural roads for traffic T3 and S3 a sub base of 75mm WBM Gr II & 75mm WBM Gr III is provided over GSB of 125mm thicknesses.

2. Details of carriage width are wrongly uploaded as 3.00m instead of 3.75m in OMMAS.

3. On viewing the photographs it is clearly seen that a BT road is already available in a partially damaged condition and the proposal under new connectivity is questionable.

4. Technology adopted is cell filled concrete. 5. In the rate analysis it is seen the 15% over heads has been given instead

of 12.5%. Additional cost to be borne by the state in the State share. 6. Earth work in embankment is for 3246.43 cubic meter. Earth work

quantity seems to be on higher side. 7. Traffic details are not included in proforma C. 8. No contents or numbering of pages done in the DPR.

DISTRICT - Cuttack BLOCK - Salipur ROAD NAME - L058-Sauri Rameswara R D Road Durgapur to Sabijpur Length - 2.2km OMMAS cost - 136.23lakhs (rate/km 61.92 lac) PACKAGE NO: - OR07261

1. As per IRC:SP -72-2015. Guide lines for the design of flexible pavements

for low volume rural roads for traffic T4 and S3 a sub base of 75mm WBM Gr II & 75mm WBM Gr III is provided over GSB of 150mm thicknesses.

2. Earth work in embankment is for 11156.02 cubic meters. Earth work quantity seems to be on higher side.

3. In the rate analysis it is seen the 15% over heads has been given instead of 12.5%. Additional cost to be borne by the state in the State share.

4. No contents or numbering of pages done in the DPR 5. LS drawing are not clear. Provision for CD works is not justified.

DISTRICT - Bargarh BLOCK - Barpali ROAD NAME - L051-NH Road at Bahiapadar to Banjipali Length - 2.11km OMMAS cost - 133.65lakhs (rate/km 63.34 lac) PACKAGE NO: - OR03176

1. In the rate analysis it is seen the 15% over heads has been given instead of 12.5%. Additional cost to be borne by the state in the State share.

2. No contents or numbering of pages done in the DPR 3. LS drawing are not clear. Provision for CD works is not justified. 4. Sub base has been stabilized using 200mm terrazyme. 20mm thick grit

layer provided. 5. WBM gr2 need not be provided below CC pavement.

DISTRICT - Jharsuguda BLOCK - Lakhanpur ROAD NAME - L099-RD Road to Sukalpali Length - 1.94km OMMAS cost - 90.19lakhs (rate/km 46.49 lac) PACKAGE NO: - OR1440

1. Details of carriage width are wrongly uploaded as 3.00m instead of 3.75m in OMMAS.

2. Details of photographs are not uploaded in OMMAS. 3. LS drawing are not clear. Provision for CD works is not justified. 4. No contents or numbering of pages done in the DPR. 5. As per IRC:SP -72-2015. Guide lines for the design of flexible pavements

for low volume rural roads for traffic T4 and S3 a sub base of 75mm WBM Gr II & 75mm WBM Gr III is provided over GSB of 150mm thicknesses.

6. In the rate analysis it is seen the 15% over heads has been given instead of 12.5%. Additional cost to be borne by the state in the State share.

DISTRICT - Keonjhar BLOCK - Bansapal ROAD NAME - L071-L70 Barbil to Chandposi Length - 1.53km OMMAS cost - 88.75lakhs (rate/km 58 lac) PACKAGE NO: - OR17477

1. On verifying the DPR it seen that in Keonjhar district Banspal is an LWE habitation and hence with the population of 138 the road has been selected.

2. As per guidelines only the formation work with CD works may be proposed in Stage 1 construction.

3. Of the total length of 1530m only 60m rigid pavement is provided with panelled concrete.

4. Numbers of CD works are on higher side. Closely spaced CDs needs to be merged. Eight pipe culverts provided within one km is to be redesigned. One slab culvert provided at chainage 270m, as per level sheet the difference in level is 1.00m and hence 3.00m height of abutment is questionable.

District - Deogarh Block - Tileibani Package No. - OR-08-99 Bridge Name - Construction of Bridge over Matuali nalla at 1st

Km on Chheplipali to Badachhapal road Bridge length - 6 spans of 10.77 m – 65.25 m Cost - Rs. 556.52 Lakhs Average cost per Km - Rs. 8.53 Lakhs/Km

1. Authenticated hydraulic particulars not attached with the DPR. 2. No topo sheet enclosed to check the catchment area 117 Sq Km. 3. No geo technical investigation/ Soil exploration test results attached with

the DPR. 4. Detailed structural design and drawings are not enclosed with the DPR. 5. Open foundation has been proposed for about 2.50 m. However, the

foundation cost indicated in the DPR is Rs. 356.62 Lakhs which is not realistic.

6. Cost of sub structure (Rs. 356.61 lakhs) and super structure (Rs. 85.70 Lakhs) as a variation of about 4.16 times. Thus, it appears that proper attention has not been paid towards design.

7. Provision has been made for protective works for approach road is Rs. 94.51 Lakhs. Detailed estimate attached with the DPR is for Rs. 30.69 Lakhs for a length of 185m. This needs to be justified with levels.

8. Height of abutment provided in the DPR is 11.41m which is not realistic based on photographs attached with the DPR.

9. Average cost /m is seems to be on higher side. Type of construction : Bridge Name of the bridge : lathipada to Damrula monohi District : Nayagarh Block : Nayagarh Cost / m : Rs. 6.01 Lakhs/m Width of bridge – 7.5 m Catchment area 245 sq km Total span 61.99 m RTL 104.625 2 span 30.63 m NBL 97.35 2 clear span 25.53 m Foundation level 71.68

Depth of foundatom- (97.35-71.68 = 25.6 m )

1. No photograph of STA visit to site date 29.6.16 enclosed with DPR. 2. No toposheet enclosed to check the catchment area 245 km2. 3. No map is attached to assess the terrain of area and to conclude velocity

of flow reported velocity is 5.41 m/s. 4. No geotechnical investigation data / bore lg attach with DPR so placement

of foundation below 25.6 m (from existing ground) require re examination(for well foundation).

5. No design, reinforcement drawing, cross section of drain at 3 locations, longitudinal sections are attached in DPR. so comprehensive checking of DPR is not possible.

6. Cost of substructure and super structure as a variation of about 3.66 times. Thus it appears that proper attention has not been paid towards design.

7. Hydraulic design is also missing in DPR.

A.K. Singhai

Name of the work -Construction of Bridge over river Barha at 14th Km on Semikhal to Malatipadar road(PMGSY) in the district of Kalahandi.

District -Kalahandi Block -Th.Rampur Cost -Rs.487.62 Lakhs Package No. -OR-15-LB-37

1. Photographs of the river site are not attached with the DPR. In OMMAS also photographs are not uploaded. Please attach photographs with DPR and upload the photographs in OMMAS.

2. Bore Hole Log Data not present in the DPR. 3. Design of the bridge is not given in the DPR. 4. In OMMAS, it has been uploaded that the bearing capacity of the soil at

the foundation level is 29 t/sq m. No calculation and documents are furnished in favour of that.

5. C-Proforma has not been given in the DPR and has not been uploaded in OMMAS.

6. Name of the river is mentioned as Nagavali in some places and Barha in some places in the DPR. Please justify.

7. Carriageway width of the road Semikhal to Malatipadar, as verified from OMMAS is 3.0m.Bridge width is 7.5m.But no approach road has been considered. Please justify.

8. The road Semikhal to Malatipadar is also proposed in this batch. Please ensure that the related data of the bridge are matching with the data of the road.

9. Even without considering the approach road, cost of the bridge is 6.35Lak/m. This is on higher side. To be reduced.

10.As the bridge length is over 75m, please check MoRD circular no. P-17025/37/2013-RC, dated 19.09.2016 for amendment of Cl.8.5(v) of

PMGSY Guidelines, regarding the funding of LSB and accordingly calculate the MoRD Share and State Share.

11.Joint inspection reprt of SE and STA not submitted. 12.Five year routine maintenance cost not calculated and uploaded.

Name of the Work - Construction of H.L. Bridge Over Bansadhar at 0.2 Km on rd road to

Madapadar District -Rayagada Block -Chandrapur Package No -OR-27-LB-19 Cost -Rs.594.98 Lakhs

1. Length of the bridge is 122.52m.For calculating MoRD Share and State Share check the MoRD Circular no. p-17025/37/2013-RC, Dated 19.09.2016 on amendment of Cl 8.5(v) of PMGSY Guidelines.

2. Joint inspection report of SE and STA has not been submitted. 3. C-Proforma has not been uploaded in OMMAS. In DPR ,C-Proforma is not

attached. 4. As per DPR, the proposed bridge is on the sanctioned road named RD road

to Madapadar and the road is sanctioned under PMGSY in earlier Phase. Please provide the details of the road on which the bridge is proposed.

5. Design of bridge and calculation of bearing capacity of soil not present in the DPR.

6. Photographs of site not uploaded in OMMAS. 7. Five years routine maintenance to provide in DPR and to be uploaded in

OMMAS.

Component wise cost 1

"' ~

Length in Km Cost of pavement (Rs in Lakhs .... Stage

1 Package L Route/T Carriageway N/U

I/Stage Name of road cc District Block

No route No width in m 11/Complet Total

Earth Sub Surfacin no cc BT Base paveme e work base g nt cost -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .

Note : All earth work cost for pavement including cutting, filling, scarifying, earthwork for earthen drain, shoulder earthwork.

Sub Base - GSB or gravel soling for pavement

Base - WBM Gr 11, Ill and WMM

Surfacing - Prime coat, Tack coat, PC with SC

If more than 6 m span slab culvert/ box culvert, details of such CDs (no and cost) may be provided in the remarks column

~··· -~. ~ ~ Cost in Lakhs

~ / ,/ ' Pucca drain CD works

Minor bridges Protection work Hume pipe Slab culvert

Road Other Total Traffic

Remar furnitures

Total Cost per catego CBR T

I Cost per Length C Sp~nin Lenth in s ks

ota . ost Nos Cost Nos Cost Cost Cost Km ry Km mM m M

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

-p

,,

.

I of I

>

https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=8n9fkapsf347b#3273819073

Subject: Odisha State - 2016-17 (Batch - Ill)- Sample DPRs - Observations - regarding

From:

To:

Cc:

Date:

Sir,

P.Mohanasundaram JointDirector(Technical) (p.mohan@gov.in)

cerw_bbsr@yahoo.com; or-itno@pmgsy.nic.in; or-itno@pmgsy.nic.in;

ik.pateriya@nic.in; shalini.das@gov.in; sujatha.thangam@gov.in; raunakmishr@gmail.com; devesh.civil1989@yahoo.com;

Monday, 3 October 2016 6:14 PM

This has reference to the letter no. 17671 /PMGSY dated 09.09.2016 received from Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government ofOdisha forwarding therewith a list of proposed 696 roads covering a length of2764.35 Km and 123 bridges with an estimated cost of Rs. 1780.65 Cr for sanction as under PMGSY- 1 2016-17 (Batch - III).

26 sample DPRs received from the State on 30.09.2016 have been scrutinised at NRRDA on 30.09.2016 and 01.10.2016 and observations are attached. These observations are made based on the scrutiny of sample DPRs and same kind of observations may be there in remaining DPRs. It is requested to correct all the DPRs based on the observations and send the road wise component wise cost prior to scrutiny and after cost corrections made based on the observations of NRRDA. Once the statement is received, random verification of corrected DPRs will be done at NRRDA.

Yours faithfully,

P. Mohanasundaram

JD (Tech)

Attachments

• DPR observations - 03 .1 O}O 16.docx ( 46.84 KB)

03-10-201618:4(

No.P-17025/37 /2013-RC Government oflndia

Ministry of Rural Development

CIRCULAR

Krishi Ubawan, New Delhi Dated: 19.9.2016

Subject: Amendment to Para 8.5 (v) of Programme Guidelines regarding enhancing the span of Long Span Bridges (LSBs) for funding under PMGSY.

The mandate of PMGSY is to provide single all-weather road connectivity to lhe unconnected habitations in the Core Network with adequate cross drninage structures such as Culverts, Minor Bridges and Causeways. In this regard, kind reforence is invited to para 8.5 (v) of PMGSY Guidelines regarding funding for construction of Long Span Bridges (LSBs) on PMGSY roads. In view of the mandate of the scheme and higher involvement of the State in terms of matching State share under the Scheme the Ministry has decided to enhance the span of Long Sp,m Bridges (LSBs) for funding under PMGSY as per the following details:

i) In respect of Left Wing Extremist (LWE) districts (as identified by MHA) and Special Category States (8 North Eastern States and 3 Himalayan States viz. Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Jammu & Kashmir). the funding of Government of India for span of

bridges is enha11ced from 75 m to I 00 m, as per the existing funding pattern (90: I 0 between Centre and the States for Special Category States and 60:40 for other States). However, the pro-rata cost beyond 100 m and agency charges, if any, will be fully borne by the State Governments.

ii) In respect of all other States/districts (other than mentioned at (i) above) the fonding of Go ernmcnt of India for span or bridges is enhanced from 50 m to 75 m as per the c i ting funding pattern (60:40 between Centre and the States). However, the pro-rata cost beyond 75 m and agency charges, if any, will be fully borne by the State Governments.

2. The para 8.5 (v) of the programme Guidelines is, therefore, amended accordingly. J\11 the State Governments arc requested to take note of the above dispensation while preparing the DPRs under PMGSY.

3. This issues · with the approval of the Competent Authority . in the Ministry of Rural Development.

(I'. Manoj ~atfq/11 Director (RC)

To 1. 2. " ., . 4. 5. 6. 7.

The Principal Secretary of all States (In-charge of PMGSY) Member-Secretary, SRRDA (All States) Enginecr-i n-ChietrCh icf Engineer(SRRDAs A 11 States) Advisor (Transport), NIT! Aayog, New Delhi. Joint Secretary, Department of Border Management, Ml-IA Joint Secretary, Mio DONER J\11 Directors in the RC Division, Ministry or RD/All Directors in NRRDA, New Delhi.

Copy for information to: PS to MRD/PS to MOS(RD)/PPS to Scci-etary (RD)/PPS to SS &PNPPS to JS(RC)/PPS to all Joint Sccrcrnrics in the MoR.D.

l of

GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF

RURAL WORKS: BHUBANESWAR

No. J. 3j 3D I

To

PMGSY-T-

The Executive Engineer, R.W. Division, Angul/ Balasore-1/ Bargarh/ Padampur/ Bhadrak-11/ Bolangir/ Titilagarh/ Patnagarh/ Cuttack-1/ Cuttack-11/ Deogarh/ Gajapati/ Mohana/ Jagatsinghpur/ Jajpur-1/ Jharsuguda/ Bhawanipa1na/ Dharmagarh/ Kesinga/ Kendrapara-1/ Keonjhar- !/ Keonjhar- 11/ KorapuU Sunabeda/ Malkangiri-1/ Malk3ngiri-ll/ Karanjia/ Rairangpur/ Nowrangpur-1/ Nayagarh-1/ Nayagarh-11/ Nuapada/ Khariar/ Phulbani/ Baliguda/ Rayagada/ Sambalpur/ Sundargarh-1/ Sundargarh-11

Sub:- Scrutiny of sample DPRs under Batch-Ill (2016-17).

Ref:- This office letter No. 18330 dtd.17.09.2016 & NRRDA E-mail letter dt. 26.09.2016.

Sir, I am directed to intimate you that NRRDA has desired for verification of 48 nos. of road projects

and 13 nos. of Bridge Projects (list of projects is enclosed) for scrutiny on sample basis (both in hard &

soft copy) on 30.09.2016.

In this connection, you are required to submit DPRs in complete shape including cross

section/LS/Photographs etc. with due signature of concerned officials after due verifi :;ation at your level.

In case of high 1cost DPRs, proper justification need to be indicated in the report prefacing of the

estimate.

The observations pointed out by NRRDA have already been communicated to you vide letter

under reference for necessary action.

In view of above, you are hereby instructed to submit sample DPRs (48 nos. of roads & 13 nos.

of bridges) both in hard ·& soft copy & remaining DP Rs in soft copies through special messenger who is

well conversan with the DPRs by 28.09.2016 at 10 AM without fail so that the DPRs will be submitted

to NRRDA, MoRD, Gol for verification.

Encl:- (i) NRRDA E-mail letter dtd. 26.09.2016.

(ii) List of 48 no. of roads & 13 no. of bridges.

Please treat th is letter as most urgent

Memo No. 1 9 '1 3 .L /Dt. 21:. f) J . :20 U I

Yours faithfully,

£0'y--.. MA bl A" L ---:T' Executive Engin~;r:~y"\ · '"'

Copy submitted to All Superintending Engineers(Civil) under R.W. Organisation for information and necessary action. They are requested to ensure the submission of desired information by concerned Executive Engineers to this office by due date. ...--A ~

- v i/\~ . ~ . 1(,

l , D n J /"' Executive Engineer. P GSY

Memo No. 9-, '] 2> ~ /Dt. ~.t" . - I . 2.-P .1.-l, I Copy submitted to the General Manager, NBCC ltd ., A-16, Ashok Nagar. 1st Floor.

Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751009, E-mail- pmgsy.east@nbccindia.com for information a'nd necessary action. ·

/().,['-

of t

https ://mg.mail. yahoo .com/neo/launch? .rand= Iv 3 fmsd f 4c6n 7#427 8873 5 3 5

Subject: Component details for the 631 no. of road projects under Batch-111-206-17 - Odisha

From:

To:

Date:

Sir,

Sir,

MOHANASUNDARAM. PERIYASAMY (mohanp_aerd@yahoo.co .in)

cerw_bbsr@yahoo.com; or-itno@pmgsy.nic.in;

Monday, 26 September 2016 12:51 PM

This has reference to the letter no. 17671/PMGSY dated 09.09.2016 received from Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Wori<s Department, Government of Odisha forwarding therewith a list of proposed 696 roads covering a length of 2764.35 Km and 123 bridges with an estimated cost of Rs. 1780.65 Cr for sanction as under PMGSY- I 2016-17 (Batch - Ill) . On verifying OMMAS on 26.09.2016, the STA has scrutinised 625 roads covering a length of 2463.68 Kms and 116 bridges at an estimated cost of Rs. 1613.85 Crores. One road in Core Network should be entered as one road in the proposal module. However, it may be split up at a latter date for smaller size of packages. Necessary provision is also available on OM MAS in PIU login. It was observed that, certain works were split and entered on OMMAS. It needs to be corrected on OMMAS.

In this regard an e mail has been sent on 14.09.2016 requesting sample DPRs for verification at NRRDA. Sample DPRs Scrutiny for Odisha State has been scheduled on 30.09.2016 & 01 .10.2016 at NRRDA. It is requested to depute one/two Engineers from SRRDA to NRRDA along with hard copies of DPRs of roads/Bridges indicated in the annexure including Proforma C, Drawing folders and soft copy of remaining DPRs on 30.09.2016 at 10 AM ,positively.

Once the requisite details and sample DPRs are received from your end as per the above said advisory, the date of Pre EC will be taken from the competent authority after scrutiny of sample DPRs. Yours faithfully, P. Mohanasundaram JD (Tech)

Attachments

• Odicha - Sample DPR~ on 30.09.2016.xlsx (32.90 KB)

26-09-2016 12:52

SI no District

2

Angul

2 Balasore 1.

Bargarh

(""'""{~ 4 I Bolangir

\ c,jJi ,v 1{.--?J. ...,, 5 Bolangir

6

7

/ Bolangir

Cuttack ,.>--

Angul

Nilagiri

Barpali

Belpara

Belpara

Gudvella

Salipur

Package No

4

OR01132

OR02356

OR03176

OR05291

OR05290

OR5276

OR07261

Carrla

L Route/T lgeway route No width

inm

6

3.75

L028

L051 3.75

LOSS 3

TOG 3.75

l024 3.75

LOSS 3.75

N/U

1

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Stage I/Stage

II/Complete ~ I

8

' Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Name of road

9

L063-PWD Road Guranga Road

L028-PWD Road To

Kalip_ada San road

L051-NH Road at Bahiapadar to Banjipali

LOSS-PSroad to

Ainlapali road

·06-Ghagurli to

Thudibahal road

L024-Jamut to

Sandan~aon road

LOSS·Sauri Rameswara

RD Road Durgapur to

Sabi_ip_ur

cc

10

0.46

0.3

0.48

0.1

0.75

0.2

0.1

Length ln Km

BT I Total Earth

work

11 12 13

1.74 2.2 28.24

1.3 9.81

1.63 2.11 24.8

1.04 1.14 11.05

- 8.45 9.2 89.03

2.3 2.5 14.97

2.1 . 2.2 33.53

I Sub base I

14

6.284

7.48

18.68

3.44

36.49

17.68

25.52

DPRs req uired for Scrutiny on 30.09.2016

Cost of pavement (Rs ln Lakhs)

Base

15

29.453

14.82

5.27

5.64

89.43

14.56

37.34

cc Surfacing I pavement

cost 16 17

14.37 11.367

8.38 14.58

14.5 17.82

6.93 3.66

68 .87 79.38

24.63 9.61

18.74 I 3.13

Pucca drain

Total I Costper Length In

Cost Km M

18 19 20 21 I"

89.713 40.77864 80 l.149

55.07 I 42.36154 120 l.94

81.07 38.42 so 1.021646

30.72 I 26.94737 200 4.73

363.2 1 39.47826 1700 38.21

81.45 32.58 so 0.61

118.27 53.76 0 .00 I 0

78409 200

I I 22 I 23 I I I 4 5.569

I 5 I 10.29

6 4.767138

4.437

8 14.282

4 10.35

I 6 4.46

I 3.345106 I 7 I .,,- I I I L061-Chheplipali to 1

I 8 Deogarh · Tileibani OR0899 L061 3.75 N Complete . . 0.2 2.435 2.635 19.12 8.141078 29.68 20.85 5.96 83 75108 1 31

""''"' I I I I __j 37.88867 I 13.22955 I so.20216 I 21.22909 I 15.22563 i 143.7751 ! 41 0786 soo j 9 .90556 s 1 9.01492 . T02 Nuagada OR10298 3.75 ·1~ .,..,,, ....

Gaj~ati N Complete T02-R Bhaliasahi to

RUdyagiri 0.35 3.15 3.5

I

r r'"'!

10 I la,;:atsinghpur

[~ !harsuguda

· , 11':{7'i~andi

Balikuda

Lakhanpur

Lanjigarh

OR12109 L024 3.75 tJ

OR1440 L099 N

OR15358 l022 3 N

Complete

Complete

Complete

L024-Podana via Garia

to Kat1janga L099-RD Road to

Suk~ L022-Mahinal to

Merdikup_a

2.58 1.92 ---~~~+- 1.7

0.85 I 7.5

4.5 I ~·"" I """" I a, ""' I nsam I "'"'l "'·"oo <aM~• r--o ~ --~ -~ ~~"

1.94 J 15.59944 1.036ss 15.21445 11.24677 11.n 60.22154 31.04512 210 I 5.32 1 14.11

8.35 J 55.99544, 30.0311 71.65633 43.85479 ! 44 .70972 246.2474 J 29.4907 100 l 1.360955 21 1 30 45

l. I 13 Kalahandi Th.Rampur OR15331 L079 I ~ N 0.78 ,;77 ~-7~ I 1.s 53.15786 36.25675 81.95307 40.9911 ! 46.80961 259 .1684 34.55579 100 I 1.574311 Complete 19 I 27.71 ! ---

i-~: -1-

1.47

, 1

1 I : t L037-Sem1khal to

/ ,, · 14 _ Kalahandi . , Th.Rampur _j ____ OR15334···· _ L037 3 N Complete Malatipadar _ ··- 1.2 __ _

~ ' L027-Kharanasi to ~ 5 Kendrapara ~ ahakalapara J OR16221 L027 :. .75 N Complete . 7.58 , l..j III

Bat1ghar . · 'j. - - ----jl --. , L071-L70 Barbi! to ·• --<----+

16 KeonJhar ~ Bansapal OR17477 L071 , 3 N Complet~ . 0.06 · , Chandpos, .

~-'- 56.35

30 146 88658 __ ! ___ _

8 i 1s s;

! 5.4

..,- LCSl-Gadput to ! I I I I I I I .Koraput· Boipanguda ! OR19NBCC11 L081 >.7~ I N Complet~ Mankidi 0.6

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 63.2 8

I I ~

~ 4 ! Malkang,ri j} L040

4 6.55()577 l. 'i~;'. j , ,,:, I ! I · T05 Laxm,purto ' ·1 I I I I ; · ~~ '' 'foraput Laxmipur OR19434 T05

1.~~--~- Complete Ph,_,;joba 0.1 J ~ -~-- .. 18.86784 0.229107 6.620086 10 33313 i 3.13652 39.1~568 ! 32. 65=~7 ! 200 · 4.393812

1;!.J, , ' L045-RD Road to T II I ' ---r-\ J ,~19 -Koraput· Nandapur OR19NBCC03 1.045 3.7, , N Complete 1.05 I 3.95 5 35.43 35.27 55.93 40.47 57 .12 224.32 , 44 .864 I 10!

. ~ DAbba Bagraguda i ·, . i I I ; I

·' · 20 -Koraput Nandapur OR19NBCC02 L082 I 3.: ~ 1 t,j Comp1ete L082·PS Road to Bila put 1 i 5.2 6.2 I

; ~ r-. " ' . • 1 -'1--·,.-- · L037-PWD Road to i r~1 21 Koraput Nandapur ~ OR19217 L037 3.75 N Complete k'kd ' 0.4 I 5.4 I 5.8 . I San , , .

l ~ I L02<; nandabadi to ~ ; I 2~2 Koraput Narayanpatna I OR19231 10: 6 5. ~ , N Complete O 1.2 1.2 1

• Kanchanpadu r . -.I, I I I I I L071-NAD Road to '· 23 Koraput Semiliguda OR19272 L071 I 3.75 I r, Complete d

1 . d 0.2 3.1 3.3

Po apa am Via Bal a

I I IL040-Kurmanur to , I I j I j · ' -+- -.o N Complete jDendapu_t _ ___J 0.35 3.85 4. __!_ Kalimela OR2027l(B)

30.16 I 37.16

I 40.08031 I 20.24872

I

7.084807 5.328941

20.6567 10.88681

2 30.62 25.18

;o

I 21.07 13 I li 93

I ' 5 ! 39.[,8871 40C I 7.85 12 I 32.04 .. I

' I 17.41981 141.434 89 06 I 34.3432 800 16

' --i-·· 0 I 0 5 8.165703 36 I 33.73113

- 1---- ~ I

j 4.320601 j 31.01414 200 9 49.1002

I -' I 1 I 35.7619 700 19.38 1 I 33 .56

--

we: i -0 ------- -- ~ - ;, --- -- --- - '

··,~ • f, ;'.,I Carria Length In Km Cost of pavement (Rs In Lakhs) Pucca drain I L Route/f geway Stage I/Stage Hume pip•

SI no District Block Package No N/U Name of road cc I vj route No width II/Complete ~3fth Cost per Length in cc BT Total Sub base Base Surfacing pavement Total Cost Nos

1n m work Km M cost I t

l 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 r_}l_ 25 Malkangiri1 Khairput OR20301 L023 3.75 N Complete

L023-Godhiguda to 0.36 0.84 1.2 12.91 3.16 13 6.42 15.62 51.11 42 .59167 1 2.0,1

Kandha•uda

26 Malkangiri J_ Mathili OR20290 L082 3.75 N Complete L082-Mundaguda to

0.805 2.135 2.94 24.88 9.66 33.96 15.46 • 45.9 129.86 44.17007 80 0 .83 7 18.71 Chirkoca

Malkangiri_]j" L049-PWD Road to

17.24 8.85 j

27 Podia. OR20283 B L049 3.75 N Complete 0.39 2.11 2.5 27.33 16.69 21.2 91.31 36.524 3 4 .84 j Kamalapuram

~,.~ ' 2S:· · ''-Mayurbhanj Bijatola OR21602 L061 3.75 N Complete L061-Dalki to Badbil 0.28 1.1 1.38 12.3 4.63 16.16 9.82 10.98 53.89 39.05072 100 2.58 5 9.03 I 29 Nawarangpur J Tentulikhunti OR22165 L025 3 N Complete L025-Project road to

0.1 2.4 2.5 22.51 6.71 26.05 16.64 2.18 74.09 29 .636 180 5.38 8 15.46 Karlichuan

30 Nayagarh I Nayagarh OR23195 L059 3.75 N Complete L059-0DR to Fasipada 1.0S 0.95 2 23.74 4.65 16.09 9.57 48.8 102.85 51.425 50 1.84 3 5.47

31 Nayagarh I Raripur OR23236 L057 3.75 N Complete L057-MDR 76 to

Kusapalla 1.375 6.515 7.89 67.49 19.07 97.38 59.12 70.04 313.1 39.68314 300 11.43 10 20.48

·-,, L068-PWD Road to

32 Nuapara Kamna OR24163 LOGS 3.75 N Complete Kutribahal via 0.15 1.35 1.5 12.07861 4.652677 17.55085 9.266716 4.456963 48 .00582 32 .00388 0 0 4 8.597659

Chariohhak /

Phulbani(Kandh 33 Chakapad OR25170 L046

amal) 3 N Complete

L046-PWD road to

Kadupadar 0.98 6:02 7 42.37 14.26 88.5 40.51 22.653 208 .293 29.75614 0 0 16 62 .7

-· /

I 34

Phulbani(Kandh Phiringia OR25144 L062 3 N Complete

L062-Bradiguda Jn to 0 .255 3.855 4.11 35.46 22.5 18.05 34.91 6.56 117.48 28.58394 100 3.06 13 32.79

amal) Raighara I

Phulbani(Kandh L044-Mandasaru to I

3S Raikia OR25176 L044 3 N Complete 0.43 4.32 4.75 35.22 11.91 50.87 36.3 20.21 -15451~~~-

50 1.55 12 24.25 amal) Padasi road

f- ----/"

36 Rayagada Chandrapur OR27369 L024 3.75 N Complete L024-Bijapur to Surulu 1 23 24 467.91 109.823 375.553 212.612 44.137 1210.035 1 50.41813 260 4.714 26 51.39

! I 37 Rayagadi

L057-K Singupur to i

Kalyansinghpur OR27434 L057 3.75 N Complete 0.65 10.45 11.1 174.701 112.963 73.45 106.039 23.025 490.178 44.16018 126 1.964 25 52.623 Kangasari

38 ,-

Rayagada Kashipur OR27299 TC2 3.75 N Complete T02-Godiba li to

Sankarada 0.2 1.6 1.8 13.929 6.994 18.595 13.154 6.837 59.509 33.06056 3 4.28

Rayagada.,.- Complete L067-PWD Road to

14.25 110.208 60.73349 128.3035 140.6043 60.H596 35.09236 220 12.941417 59.05 I 33 Muniguda OR27421 L067 3.75 N Utachakapadu

1.19 13.06 500.0662 41

1~: ·-

":Li' ' ----t----

r L078-RD Road to . I I P.ayagada Rayagada OR27404A Complete 0.08 0.52 0.6 9.51 2.355 6.953 4.451 I 2.639 J 25.908 I 43.18 so 0.77 0 0

I Sanabaleswar

~ I ·-- 1· • I 41

,, I L059-RD road MKata

Sambalpur Rairakhole OR28243

"" I 'ft Complete 0.68 13.11 13.79 161.2 49.35 140.16 86.24 I 3,.4; I 4oR.5~ I 53.96574 0 0 19 30.67 Jhamkari

! A2 I LO~O 13.75 I JII LOSO-RD road to I · i I 12.7681

I Sundargarh JL Gurundia OR30233 Complete

Madalei 3 18.5 .21.5 128.5135 84.36777 259.0141

,.,..,,, 1 m,,,~ "'·"" ! " m: 445 44 j 126.6674 i I i ! ! I-

I I -

' ' I

t~3 Sundargarh,Jt L066-PWD road to ! ' I

Gurundia OR30NBCC32 l06:_j_ 3 I N Complete 2.4 21.66 24.06 245.56 58.76 283.04 144.48 j 116.04 I 64 7.88 1 35.24023 2400 28 .88 23 35 .<2

Sirigida J _ _ J___ . I I I 44

I Sundargarh) / TOl I ; ,75 I TOl·Bhanjapali to Koira

81.67257134.11576 i 320.7807 , 53.45345 Ko1ra OR30408 N Complete 0.6 5.4 6 37.864 52 .8035 114.3245 150 4.275386 13 32 .38749 via Patmunda

Sundargarh JI L03~ , 3.7~ I N_ CompletP L035-PS road to

0.11 3.4 3.51 27.17 32.6 67.3 73.98 I 5.36 206.41 58.80627 100 3.27 9 25.48 45 Koira OR30389 Kalamanga

L0;~- 3-r-~ --·

~ ·-

Sundargarh]) Complete L071-PWD road to

3.316 26.75 8.54 25.83 18.77 2.65 26.52 46 Kuanramunda OR30434 Gopur road

0.64 2.676 110.88 33.43788 100 12

47 Sundargarh]J Nuagaon OR30448 L0:4 13,75 N Complete L084-Kundrurugutu to

0.25 1.25 Pahadtoli road

1.5 11.96 4 .01 13.52 10.5 11.38 51.37 34.24667 0 0 3 8 .08

-I 48 Sundargarh ,I Rajgangpur OR30464 L029 3 I N Complete

L029·Rajgangpur tc;, 1.61

Rengalbeda 9.79 11.4 95.74 26.84 93.89 73 .32 ~07 346.86 30.42632 300 8.41 15 37.752

1orks Ill ! Minor bridges Protection work Slab culvert • Road Total Cost Traffic

Others Total CBR Remarks Lenth In furnitures per Km category

Nos Cost Span In m Cost M

Cost

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

1 5.542 105 4.298 1.38 0.33 107.98 49.08 T4 5.1

220 7.04 0.93 0.2 75.47 58.05 T3 3.29 .. 2 14.90115 ! 1 18.98 150 11.71363 0.881995 0 .315 133.65· 63.34 TS 5 . ' '

0.000 to 1.000

1 7.03 0 0 100 3.27 0.73 0 .17 51.09 44.81 T3 .. (5 .600,5.670) 0.000 to 1.000 >

3 20.12 0 0 745 22.96 3.59 1.38 463.74 . 50.41 · T4 . (5.590,5.790)

1 46.65 0 0 110 4.28 0.76 0.68 144.78 57.91 ' T4 5.1

1 10.50 100 1.16 1.51 0 .33 136.24 61.93 T4 5.3

2 43.58 235 10.95 1.42 1.06 156.00 59.20 T4 S-5.4 ,5.1,5.2

(1) Due to provision of lno RCC

1 7.96691 280 12.55139 1.887087 0 .525 185.63 53.04 T4 0.05 culvert like (lx2x2) which cost is

Rs 7.97 lakhs. (2) C.C road- 350 mtr ~. ·- •L

0 0 0 0 50 5.204182 1.814309 0.9 317.70 70.60 T4 0.0518

0 0 0 0 200 8.65 1.42 0 .39 90.18 46.48 T6 6

0 0 12 176.66 300 13.97901 1.93166 1.7525 472.38 56.57 T4 5.3

0 0 12 125.76 325 17.0829 1.93436 1.625 434.85 57.98 T4 5.3

0 0 6 & 12 185.86 100 6.298314 3.18723 2.98 766.61 50.43 T4 5.4

0 0 2060 162.9351 2.72506 1.947 1150.33 88.62 T4 5.1

I 1 20.76 0 0 240 9.83 1.34 I 0.52 88.75 58.00 T3 5.4

r 1 23.58 0 0 80 4.24 4 .81 0.72 365.30 60.88 T4 0.0529

! 0 0 0 0 250 22.os934 I o.608905 . 0.24 73.CS 60.87 T4 0.0591

' -e- I

I 0.000 to 1.500

5 83.7 0 0 750 41.08 5.:19 0.6 394.15 78.83 T3

I (3.460,3.880)

6 113.86 0 0 250 13.4 8.712 0.74 418.95 67.57 T3 3.62

0 0 2 137.8046 500 34.26501 ,.193008 1.45 433.76 74.79 T4 0 .0525

0 0 1 52.01074 0 0 0.735783 0.3 101.69 84.74 T4 0.0535

1 13.39426 0 0 330 20.52797 1.369367 0.825 191.88 58.15 T4 0.055

580 22.06 1 .. 95 9.32 236.47 56.30 T3 5.35 - .

•orks ~tor bridges Protection work

Slab culvert Road Total Cost Traffic

~ furnitures Others Total CBR Remarks

Lenth In per Km category Nos Cost Span In m Cost Cost

M

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

1 7.3 0.79 0.48 61.72 51.43 T2 5.78

110 13.73 1.25 2.99 167.37 56.93 T3 5.16

3 23.06 - 110 3.89 1.42 4.57 129.09 51.64 T3 5.54

0 0 0 0 150 6.42 1.61 0.37 73.90 53.55 T3 5.9

1 12.33 185 6.01 0.84 2.26 116.37 46.55 T4 5.65

2 26.32 150 18.03 1.18 0.75 156.44 78.22 T4 5.54

2 18:81 10 39.63 200 21.79 2.56 1.92 4i9.72 54.46 - T4 5.38 ~

I 2 14.68999 0 0 30 2.929148 0.755286 0.3 75.28 50.19 T3 0.0522 ,,

0.000 to 0.500

1 18.59 0 0 700 32.06 3.12 8.064 332.83 47.55 T4

(5.100,5,400)

0.000 to 1.000 2 42.59 2x22.35 3.97 0.72 0.82 201.43 49.01 T4

(5.100,5.500)

1 46.58 0 0 100 2.83 1.01 0.91 231.64 48.77 T4 5.2

O.OOOto

I 11 103.96 1080 58.474 3.757 3.6 1435.93 59.83 T4 24.000 -

I (5.000,5.000)

~ 0.000 to

139.169 680 32.088 2.147 1.665 719.83 64.85 T4 11.100-(5.200,5.200)

[1

0.000 to 1.800 38.264 45 2.029 1.214 0.27 105.57 58.65 T4

(5.000,5.000)

' ,,., . .,, . ,_,,.. I ,..,,, j 2 6 m & 12m 89.82 410 674.24 47.32 T4 5

I I· 2.35 J :.59B I 0.12

0.000 to 0.600

I 0 0 50 30.75 51.24 T4

(5.450,5.450)

I s I 175.34 320 16.58 ,3.7.J 2.07 707.80 51.33 T4 5.34

I-I I i 0.000 to 3.000

I 4 41.79124 9 185.9665 1168 46.51825 7.2~~5271 4.3 1173.43 54.58 T4 (5.100,5.510)

I 0.000 to 1.000

C 135.89 0 0 1420 f3.2 12.:s 4.e1 1129.27 46.89 T4

(5.000,6.000}

9.021012 0 0 200 11.34658 2.518335 1.2 381.53 63.~9 T4 0.0513

1 13.2 0 0 150 8 .69 2.19 0.702 259.94 74.06 T4&

0.056 4MSA

2 21.02 250 15.46 1.47 0.72 178.72 53.90 T4 5.05 5.42

3 Spans of 30.63 mtr. HL Bridge 5.26 5.07 -

1 16.18 50 0.98 1.33 0.23 78.19 52.13 T3 5.6 5.45 Sub Base (Using L.D. Slag)

from 0.250 to 1.500 Km ! L: 35.06 12.0(2nos) 57.06 900 43.75 U6 2.28 539.43 47.32 T4 5.7 Minor bridges(6X3X2) 2nos

I • LSB Proposals

SI No I District I Block I Package I Year I Road Name I LSB Name LSB

I MoRD

I State

!Total Cost Number Length Cost Share

I Deogaon I I L063-PWD road to Constrction of Bridge over Sonegarh

1 I Bolangir OR5285 2016 - 2017 lchhatapipal road river on PWD road to Chhatapipal

122.52 I 167.54 I 454.49 I 622.03

2 I Deogarh I Tileibani I OR0899 I 2016 - 2017 I L061-Chheplipa li to

Ginahaja

Construction Bridge over Motual i at 1st I km on Chheplipali to Badachhapal

65.25 I 239.12 I 317.4 I 556.52

. L064-Bjlasahi to Kusunpur · .

I ,....

I Binjharpur I OR13218 I . · Constn. of H.L. Bridge over Gadagad1

I I I 3 Jajpur J_ 2016 - 2017 via Mukteswar Mahadev · 11

h ~ k .1

h" K I 39.43 117.82 156.43 274.25 . (VR

64) Na a at 1st m on 81 a sa 1 - usunpur

4 Jharsuguda Lakhanpur OR1439 2016 - 2017 Lll3-NH200 to Pikol !Ghudadiha Brige 2 I 54.48 I 104.95 I 154.93 I 259.88

.! ,. /.-,.,J,, / · L032-Panimunda to Surat Bridge over River Sandul at 2 nd km on I

5 Kalahandi Lanj igarh OR15LB-27 2016 - 2017 chhak via Lakta Kha man

61.99 I 186.46 I 237.31 I 423.77 Panimunda to Surat chhak

--~J J, c;r.J.v , Kalahandi Th.Rampur

L037-Semikhal to Bridge over Burha nallah at 14th km on I I I I 487.62 6 OR15LB-37 2016 - 2017

Malatipadar 76.78 214.55 273.07

Semikhal to Maltipadar Road

7 I KeonjharJ_ I Bansapal I ORl 7 450(A) I 2016 - 2017 I L061-Singhpur Kha to Bridge Over Boinga Nallah at l.50Km

I 44.48 I 96.78 I 130.8 I 227.57 on Singhpur Kadakala Road

I Kadadiha

Co c,>+ ' ),{< J •<' YI r,\ 1sandhugaol OR19LB25 L046-P Silabadi to HL Bridge over River Jhanjabati I 123.25 I I I Koraput 2016 - 2017 233.71 415.47 649.18

n Ambavalsa

Nayagarh'j_ I Nayagarh I OR23LB -07 ! 2016 - 2017 LOSl-Lathipada to Deuli

Construction of H.L. Bridge over river

Arnrutamonahi Kusumi on Lathipada D.Amrutamanohi 61.99 254.17 i .~09.44 I 423 .61

Road +---y----/ OR24LB122 2016 - 2017

L070-Bhella to Jandramunda Nallah 92.62 252.34 I 321.17 J 573 .Sl Nuapara Kamna

Jandrarnunda

Phulbani(!(and Tikabali OR25LB187 2016 - 2017

L041-Kainjhar to Giroti Kainjhar to Giroti road Nallah 22.17 - a o • 1- -;:-:- I 161 67

hamal) road v.., ._, ; , •. , I •

/' L048-RD Road to Hayagada Chandrapur OR27l.B1S 7.016 - 2017

Modapadar Bansadhara Bridge I 122.52 I 262.49 I 320.82 I 583.32

ITOl-Bhanjapal i to Koira Bridge overlocal Nallah at.050 Km on

13 I Sundargarhl j Koira I OR30408 I 2016 - 2017 Bhanjapali to Koida Via-Patamunda I 22 .17 I 59.65 I 75.91 I 135.56 via Patmunda

Road in the Dist Sundargarh

I <

1 of 1

https: //mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=05q5hejirrqob#2290890873

Subject: Road Maintenance Inspection Reports

From:

To:

Cc:

Date:

Sir,

Harish Bhardwaj (h.bhardwaj12@pmgsy.nic.in)

cerw_bbsr@yahoo.com;

mahesh.34@gov.in;

Tuesday, 20 September 2016 12:02 PM

The Road Maintenance Expert has conducted the inspection on the roads in the districts Balasore, Cuttack, Boudh, Kalahandi in the State of Odisha. The maintenance issues with the severity has been given alongwith the recommendations to address these issues in the reports attached. It is requested that action may be taken to address these issues.

Regards and Thanks

H.Bhardwaj Assistant Director Project-I National Rural Road Development Agency Ministry of Rural Development New Delhi Mobile no. 9899364495

Attachments

• 4. RMI-Ashish Sharma:-Orissa.zip (2.32 MB) • h.bhardwaj12.vcf (211 B)

20-09-2016 16:01