_J

OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(AUDIT),

ASSAM ::MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA:: GUWAHATI-29

.Eco-1.2/IR/37-01/2017-18/303 Dtd:To

The Chief Engineer(ARIASP& RIDF)-Cum 3 OCT 20t7Project Director,Assam State Road Project,Under World Bank Aided Project

ARR&TI Complex,App- Mayur Krishna Cinema Hall,

Fatasil Ambari, Guwahati-25

Sub: Inspection Report on the account of The Project Director, Assam State Road

Project (ASRP), Guwahati for the World Bank Aided Project IBRD Ln.No.-8136

IN for the year 2016-17.Sir,

I am to forward herewith the Inspection Report on the accounts of the Project

Director, Assam State Road Project (ASRP), Guwahati, Assam,for the World Bank Aided

Project IBRD Li. No.8136 for the year 2016-17. It is requested that the first reply to the

Inspection Report should be sent to this office with comments of the higher authority, within

I (one) month from the date of receipt of the same.

Yours faithfully,

Audit Officer/Eco-1.2

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

'Inspection Report on the accounts of the Chief Engineer, (ARIASP & RIDF) cumProject Director, Assam State Road Project under World Bank Aided Project in respectof IBRD Loan No. 8136-IN for the year 2016-17

PART-I

A. Introduction:

The Accounts of the Chief Engineer, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF) on World Bank AidedProject, Fatasil Ambari,Guwahati-25 for the year 2016-17 were test audited by an AuditParty from the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Assam, Beltola, Guwahati-29during the period from 11-09-2017 to 22-09-2017.

B. Incumbency:

The following officers held the charge of Chief Engineer, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF) AssamState Road Project,Guwahati, Assam and also discharged as Drawing and Disbursing Officer(DDO) during the entire period covered by audit.

Naine of the CE-cum-DDO Periodno0. From ToI Mr. Rajesh Kemprai, CE 01-04-2016 17-02-20172 Mr. Deepak Kr. Gogoi, CE 17-02-2017 31-03-2017

C. Fund received under IBRD Loan No. 8136-IN for 2016-17 and utilisation thereof:

(Zin crore)Year Head of Account Fai Fund Closing

5054 Co-on-R&B -04-Dist. and other2016-17 Roads-010-OMNP-1537-Dist Roads t346.60 T273.80 f72.80ARLAP (WaBP)- 568-AhSP-35 Grants

D. Disclaimer Statement

The Inspection Report has been prepared on the basis of information furnished and recordsmade available by Chief Engineer, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF), Guwahati, Assam. The O/o theAG (Audit), Assam disclaims any responsibility for any mis-information and non-information on the part of the auditee.

AUDIT FINDINGS

PART 11 (A)

Para 1: Observations on-Improvement and Up-gradation of SH-31 (Jorhat-Moriani)Project of Improvement and Up-gradation of SH-31 (Jorhat-Moriani) under Package No.ASRP/PISI/NCB/SH-31/3 with road length of 17,35 km was taken up for execution underJorhat Road Division with an estimated cost of ?66.02 crore as detailed under:

a) Civil works: Z5329.82 lakhb) Electrical works: Z88.52 lakhc) Environment etc. ?83.27 lakh

Z5501.61 lakhPhysical contingency @ 3%: Z165.05 lakhPrice contingency @ 5%: Z275.08 lakhPrice escalation as per bid document@ 12%: Z660.19 lakh

?6601.93 lakh.State Government accorded (26 February 2013) AA for the project at Z75.29 crore and theChief Engineer (ARIASP & RIDF) accorded (1 March 2013) TS to the project for thesame amount. Prior to accordance of AA and TS, the Chief Engineer (ARIASP & RIDF)issued (28 November 2011) NIT for the project and against the NIT, the project wasawarded (1 March 2013) to M/s ANPL-MPA (JV) at a contract price of Z56.27 crore forcivil works with the stipulation to complete the work by March 2015. As of June 2017, thefinancial progress was ?50.31 crore against physical progress of 95%.

Test check of records revealed as follows:

A. Extra committed liability of Z8.96 crore at the time of awarding the work andsubsequent extra expenditure of Z3.00 crore for injudicious rejection of thelowest bid

As per CVC guidelines, before awarding of contract the department should establish thereasonableness of prices on the basis of estimated rates, prevailing market rates, lastpurchase prices, economic indices of the raw material / labour, other input costs andintrinsic value etc. The illustrative check points of CVC envisage the department shouldensure the conditions/specifications are not relaxed in favour of the contractor to whom thework is being awarded and L is not ignored on flimsy ground. Further Assam FinancialRule 466 (1) provides that every public officer should exert same vigilance in respect of

public expenditure and public funds generally as a person of ordinary prudence wouldexercise in respect of expenditure of his own money.

The estimated cost put to NIT was ?54.13 crore. Among the three bidders, the bid price ofM/s Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. (Z47.31 crore) was 12.6% below the estimated rateand was the lowest. But, the second lowest bidder, N/s ANPL-MPA (JV) was selected atthe bid price of ?56.27 crore (3.95%) above the estimated cost. The bid of M/s SupremeInfrastructure India Ltd. was not considered for selection as the firm could not fulfill thecriteria as detailed below:

Criteria Requirement ProposalKey personnel: Graduate Total work of similar Total work of similarDegree/Diploma in experience for 5 years experience for 3 yearsEnvironmental Science orequivalentLiquid assets and/or !68 million 760.80 millionavailability of no less than ,

Though in all other aspects M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. had the capacity toundertake the work, the firm was not selected for the above reasons.

The rejection of the bid of M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. was not judicious as inconsideration of two years less work experience of one key personnel and 772 lakh lessliquid assets, the aspect of less bid value by Z8.96 crore (?56.27 crore-T47.31 crore) wasmore important. As such, the Tender Committee undermined the aspect of economy of theproject for the trivial causes and entered in to an extra committed liability of Z8.96 crore atthe time of awarding the work and incurred an extra expenditure of Z3.00 crore up to June2017.

B. Loss of 797.39 lakh to Government exchequer due to granting interest freeMobilisation Advance

As per Clause of the contract agreement the contractor was granted interest free loan asMobilisation Advance (MA). The contractor was paid ?2.81 crore (4 October 2013) as firstinstallment (5%) and Z2.81 crore (20 March 2014) as second installment (5%) aggregatingZ5.62 crore.

ASRP commenced recovery of Mobilisation Advance from June 2014 (IPC-4) andadjusted the entire amount by May 2016 (IPC-19). In terms of CPWD Works Manual andCVC Guidelines, MA at 10 per cent simple interest can be sanctioned to contractor. But,the interest clause was not included in the agreement for granting MA. As the work wasunder loan assistance of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD),

non insertion of interest clause against MA in the agreement was injudicious. This hadresulted in a loss of Z97.39 lakh to the Government exchequer as detailed under:

Bill No. Date MA Amount MA deduction Balance (Z) Days 10% interest

IPC 1 04.10.2013 28135733 0 28135733 167 1287306IPC 2 20.03.2014 28135733 0 28135733 0 0IPC 3 20.03.2014 0 0 56271466 83 1279598IPC 4 11.06.2014 0 0 56271466 29 447088IPC 5 10.07.2014 0 537696 55733770 53 809285IPC 6 01.09.2014 0 1042240 54691530 91 1363542IPC 9 27.02.2015 0 4824297 44210519 25 302812IPC 10 24.03.2015 0 9318185 34892334 30 286786IPC 11 23,04.2015 0 5642282 29250052 50 400686IPC 12 12,06.2015 0 1066937 28183115 45 347463IPC 13 27.07.2015 0 3002725 25180390 82 565696IPC 14 17.10.2015 0 1365367 23815023 66 430628IPC 15 23.12.2015 0 3320441 20494582 54 303208IPC 16 15.02.2016 0 2503612 17990970 11 54219IPC 17 26.022016 0 5904208 12086762 32 105966IPC 18 30.03.2016 0 5431208 6655554 62 113053IPC 19 31.05.2016 0 6655554 0 0

9739206

C. Injudicious payment of T377.71 lakh in form of price adjustment

The detailed estimate was prepared and approved by the Chief Engineer (ARIASP &RIDF) in 28 November 2011 and the NIT was issued on the same day on the estimatedamount. It was observed that in the Abstract of Cost of the estimate, there was a provisionof price escalation of T660.19 lakh (12% of Z5501.61 lakh) as per bid document.Subsequently, the provision of escalation was included in the amount of AA. The rationalefor inclusion of amount of cost escalation in the estimate before inviting tender was not onrecord.

The work was awarded at the item wise tendered rates, which were higher than theestimated rates on the basis of the agreement on 16 November 2012. It was observed thatas per clause in the tender agreement, there was a provision for adjustment for change incost, which envisaged that the amounts payable to the contractor and valued at base ratesand prices would be adjusted in respect of the increase or decrease in the indexed costs forlabour, contractors equipment and plant, materials and other inputs to the works, by theaddition or subtraction of the amounts guided by the formulae prescribed in this clause.

As such, formulae for variation of price for local labour, general materials, POL, plant andequipment, if any were derived and entered in the tender agreement as particular conditionof contract.

As per condition of contract agreement, the contractor preferred bills for price adjustmentsamounting to Z295.17 lakh in respect of price adjustment on BOQ schedule items and?82.54 lakh on variation items from March 2013 to November 2016 and the priceadjustments were paid accordingly.

In this context, it was observed that though the estimates were prepared in November 2011,the agreed rates were the tender rates, quoted by the contractor and the agreed cost ofNovember 2012 exceeded the estimated cost by 3.95%. As the work was awarded at theitem wise tendered rates as quoted by the contractor, the rates should have been valid for atleast up to the stipulated date of completion. Insertion of price adjustment clause as specialcondition of contract was not judiciously cogent and extended the scope to the contractorto prefer the adjustment bills from March 2013 itself, i.e. from the month of issuing formalwork order on the basis of prevailing price indices formulated by Department of IndustrialPolicy and Promotion (DIPP), Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industries.Thus, the contractor reaped a benefit of 7377.71 lakh in the form of price adjustment fromscarce Government exchequer.

D. Avoidable payment on price adjustment 7164.09 lakh

The work was scheduled to be completed by March 2015. But ASRP had granted severalextensions of time to the contractor time to time and finally the extension was granted upto June 2017. The time extensions were granted to the contractor as the site could not behanded over to the contractor in time as per contract agreement due to delay incompensation events like shifting of utilities (electric poles, water supply line, tree cuttingetc.), land acquisition and some local issues. Any penalty or compensation in form ofliquidated damages was not imposed as the delay was not attributable on the part of thecontractor.

Audit observed that due to delay on part of ASRP in handing over encumbrance free site tothe contractor as well as granting the extensions had rendered to delay in completion of theproject and the same had provided the contractor the scope to claim price adjustment fromthe quarter June-August 2015 to the quarter September-November 2016. Thus, totalpayment on price adjustment Z164.09 lakh (ZI44.33 lakh as price adjustment on BOQschedule items plus Z19.76 lakh as price adjustment on variation items) was avoidable.

E. Undue financial benefit of Z36.77 lakh to the contractor for higher rate insecured advance

It was observed the contractor was granted secured advance of 796.96 lakh (in March2014). The same was subsequently adjusted in August 2014 against the IPC-10 (March2015). The full rates of the aggregates of different sizes were assessed without anyrecorded basis. Since the secured advance was granted on forest produces the materialwere to be procured from the designated quarry as per estimate and the rates were to be asper SOR 2009-10, as the estimate was based on SOR 2009-10. But, as the material werebrought to site in March 2014, the assessed full rates were compared with the basic rates ofSOR 2013-14 as under:

Aggregates Quantity Assessed rate As per SOR 2013-14 Difference AmountFull rate Reduced Full rate Reduced between reduced involved() rate (?) (Z) rate (7) rates (?) ()10 mm 1526 1684.00 1263.00 1130.00 847.50 415.50 63405312.5 mm 1404 1740.00 1305.00 1130.00 847.50 457.50 64233020 mm 2953 1753.00 1314.75 1210.00 907.50 407.25 120260940 mm 1911 1789.00 1341.75 1093.00 819.75 522.00 997542

3476534Thus, providing of higher rate for payment of secured advance was irregular. This hadresulted in an extension of an undue financial benefit ofZ36.77 lakh to the contractor.Para 2 Observations on Package No.ASRP/P1S1/1CB/SH-46, Improvement and Up-

gradation of SH-46 (Dudhnoi-Goalpara-Pancharatna)

The work was administratively approved (26 February 2013) at ?l7.97 crore. TheTechnical Sanction was accorded (2 March 2013) at the same amount. Prior to AA and TS,The Chief Engineer (ARIASP & RIDF) issued (22 December 2011) NIT with theestimated cost of Z133.18 crore and the work was awarded (5 April 2013) to M/s DRA-Brahmaputra at his lowest tendered rate of kl 15.67 crore with the stipulation to completethe work by 36 months i.e. by April 2016.

Test check of records revealed that

(A) Excess expenditure of ?1.62 crore

In spite of correspondences from the ARSP, the contractor did not respond and continuedwith slow progress of the work. Even after the expiry of original date of completion, thephysical progress was up to 15% only. As per available records, extension was granted upto 3.10.2016. But, the contractor neither responded nor executed the work as per milestonefixed by the ASRP and applied for extension up to 31 March 2018. The CE (ARIASP &

RIDF) issued (31 December 2016) a final notice to the contractor to show cause within 7days. Though the contractor had submitted (9.1.2017) a reply (copy not available), thereply was not satisfactory to the ASRP. As such, the work was terminated from thecontractor on 27 January 2017 in terms of the clause 15.2 (b) of the agreement. At the timeof termination (31 December 2016), the physical progress was 16.62% and the financialprogress was T15.86 crore for original scope of work. As per last paid bill, the total amountof T23.88 crore was paid to the contractor against value of work of 715.86 crore fororiginal scope of work and included Z1.02 crore for adjustment for changes. Theincomplete final bill of T22.26 crore was prepared (June 2017) by ASRP against value ofwork of ?14.03 crore for original scope of work with a projection of recovery of fl.62crore (Z23.88 crore-Z22.26 crore). Recovery of \1.62 crore on the value of the work was tobe recovered from the contractor (September 2017) resulting in an excess payment of?1.62 crore.

(B) Non recovery of Mobilisation Advance amounting to T8.18 croreAs per Clause 14.2 of the contract agreement the contractor was granted interest free loanas Mobilisation Advance. The contractor was paid Z5.78 crore (April 2013) as firstinstallment (5%) and 75.78 crore (March 2014) as second installment (5%) aggregating711.56 crore. The deduction of the MA was to be commenced when payments exceed 20%of the accepted contract price or after 9 months of payment of first installment, whicheverconcludes earlier. ASRP commenced recovery of MA from June 2014 (IPC-3) andrecovered 73.38 crore up to August 2016 (IPC-1 6), leaving an outstanding amount ofZ8.18crore to be recovered. ASRP had two valid Bank Guarantees of T5.28 crore (valid up to11.11.2017) and T2.91 crore (valid up to 30.09.2017) obtained from the contractor againstoutstanding amount of MA. It was noticed that the petitioner had filed (15 November2016) an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prayingfor granting interim measures by way of injunction restraining the ASRP from encashingBank Guarantees furnished by contractor towards mobilisation advance and the learnedCourt while issuing notice was pleased to pass (21 November 2016) an order by restrainingASRP from encashing the BGs furnished by the contractor. The matter is still sub-judice.

(C) Loss of Z3.23 crore to Government for granting of interest free MobilisationAdvance

In terms of CPWD Works Manual and CVC GuidClines, Mobilisation Advance at 10 percent simple interest can be sanctioned to contractor. But, the interest clause was notincluded in the agreement for granting Mobilisation Advance. As the work was under loan

assistance of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), noninsertion of interest clause against Mobilisation Advance in the agreement was injudiciousand in violation of extant codal provision. This had resulted in a loss of T3.23 crore toGovernment exchequer in the form of interest as detailed under:

Bill No. Date MA Amount (T) MA deduction Balance (T) Days 10% interest (!)

IPC 1 26.03.2013 57837460 0 57837460 358 5672825IPC 2 19.03.2014 57837460 0 115674919 89 2820567IPC 3 16.06.2014 0 894370 114780549 45 1415103IPC 4 31.07.2014 0 842544 113938005 54 1685658IPC 6 01.09.2014 0 1097311 111851979 32 980620IPC 5 23.09.2014 0 2086026 110754668 112 3398499IPC 7 13.01.2015 0 2259964 108494704 24 713390IPC 8 06.02.2015 0 4068751 104425953 41 1173004IPC 9 19.03.2015 0 4746004 99679949 25 682739IPC 10 13.04.2015 0 4202856 95477093 59 1543328IPC 11 11.06.2015 0 2118143 93358950 64 1636979IPC 12 14.08.2015 0 2099693 91259257 131 3275332IPC 13 23.12.2015 0 2068118 89191139 65 1588335IPC 14 26.02.2016 0 2434459 86756680 57 1354830IPC 15 24.04.2016 0 2569249 84187431 104 2398765IPC 16 06.08.2016 0 2325945 81861486 87 195121931.10.2016

Total: 32291194(D) Cost overrun of Z57.15 crore

As per incomplete final bill, the value of the balance work as per original scope wasZI101.64 crore (6115.67 crore-f 14.03 crore). ASRP invited (9 February 2017) NationalCompetitive Bidding for the balance work by dividing the work in to 4 packages. The totalapproximate estimated cost of the four packages was Z127.02 crore. The Chief Engineer(ARIASP & RIDF) issued notices (June and August 2017) to proceed with the work to thecontractors at a total tendered value of Z158.79 crore. The balance work in four packages isyet to be commenced. Thus, there was a cost overrun of T57.15 crore. ASRP had notimposed penalty for delay in completion of work amounting to Zl 1.57 crore (10% ofcontract value of ?115.67 crore) as liquidated damage and did not made an attempt toencash available valid performance securities of t7.21 crore, though as per records madeavailable to audit, Hon'ble Court did not impose any restriction on encashing the BGs onPerformance Security.

It was observed that as of date of termination of contract, out of 41.170 Km of road length34.770 km was hindrance free. In rest 6.350 Km stretches between Ch. 17.880 Km to Ch.

41.470 Km, stray hindrances were to be removed. Thus, the delay was attributable to thedepartment also and contractor was not solely responsible for the delay.

The Chief Engineer (ARIASP& RIDF) stated that while initiating bid it was establishedthat the site position could not be given as hindrance free site due to presence of utilityservices. Accordingly the bidders were asked to submit the bid putting him responsible forcoordinating with the service providers for shifting the utility from the construction site atthe time of execution of work as per work programme. The contractor did not do any workaccordingly and the delay was caused by the contractor owing to his non performance ofobligation as provided in the contract agreement.

The reply was not plausible as if the department was confirm of the fact that the delay wasattributable to the contractor only, immediate penalty should have been imposed on thecontractor without granting any extension of time. But the department granted extension oftime up to October 2016 without imposing any penalty. As such the contractor was notsolely responsible for the delay and the lackadaisical attitude of the department to monitorthe progress of the work had resulted in a cost overrun of 757.15 crore.

Comments from the Government are invited in this regard.

Para 3 Avoidable committed liability of 11.09 crore for injudicious decision of theBAC awarding the work of construction of RCC Bridge (Br No. 13/1) overRiver Sessa and one additional bridge on Sessa Bikrampur Road to a tendererin response to an unbalanced bid in violation of Assam Financial Rule

As per CVC guideline before awarding of contract the department should establish thereasonableness of prices on the basis of estimated rates, prevailing market rates, lastpurchase prices, economic indices of the raw material/labour, other input costs andintrinsic value etc. Further the Assam Financial Rule 466 (1) provide that every publicofficer should exert same vigilance in respect of public expenditure and public fundsgenerally as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of hisown money.

The work of construction of RCC Bridge (Br No. 13/1) over River Sessa and oneadditional bridge on Sessa Bikrampur Road was administratively approved (February2016) by Public Works Roads Department, Government of Assam at an amount of Z33.36crore and technically sanctioned (27 May 2016) by the Chief Engineer (CE), (ARIASP &RIDF) for the same amount.

Test check of the records revealed that the CE, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF), Assam invited(17 February 2016) bids against the estimated amount of T28.27 crore. Between the two

bidders, M/s KIDC was the lowest bidder (Z26.87 crore) and Shivam Transcon Pvt. Ltdwas the second lowest bidder (T37.61 crore). The lowest bidder could not qualify for thework as he failed to satisfy the requisite qualification criteria of viability of criticalequipments. The bid evaluation committee evaluated the bid of second lowest bidder andfound the same in order. The CE (ARIASP & RIDF) asked the L2 bidder to clarify andjustify the quoted rate as the same was 34.27% above the estimated cost. The bidder triedto justify the unbalanced bid with additional cost and the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC)without going into depth of the fact and figure submitted by the bidder, accepted theunbalanced bid and recommended to award the contract at 34.27% above the estimatedcost.

During scrutiny of the justification of the bidder as accepted by the BEC the followingpoints were noticed:

SI. Justifications given by the Noticed during audit scrutiny RemarksNo. bidder which was acceptedby BEC

1 The estimate was prepared As per RBI price index inflation rate As per RBI price index,during 2013-14 and the work for all groups was as follows: inflation was 15.2% over thewas to be executed during 2013-14 5.8 last three years. Hence the2016-17. Therefore as per 2014-15 4.9 figure included for RB1 priceRBI price index, price 2015-16 4.5 index in the justification letterescalation is to be 18% over which was accepted by BECin three years. was false.2. The bidder had examined the As per letter of the CE, ARIASP & The physical verificationsite of the work and proposed RlDF, PWD (Roads) dated 31-08- report could not be produced3% increase over the 2016, 3% extra cost was proposed on to audit.estimated cost due to poor the basis of bidder's examination.road condition. However on reply to an audit query CE

stated that the she was physicallyverified by the Departmental

_____________________Engineers.,_____________

3 Additional expenditure of3% was proposed due to Justifiediinnovative type structure of1the Bridge.

4 The bidder stated that he had As per pre requisite qualification the If the bidder had not anyneeded to hire highly bidder had submitted the name Bridge Engineer or highlyexperienced engineer with documents regarding availability of experienced engineer withexpertise, skilled technician Bridge Engineer. Therefore proposal expertise or skilled technician;and one senior Bridge for increase 3.17% above the estimated why the Department did notEngineer due to which the cost was not justified. disqualify the bidder?bidder proposed for increase3.17% above the estimatedoad cost

5 2% increase due to sheet Justified JustifiedEgnespiling

6 Additional 3% increase due Justified Justifiedto increase in Forest Royalty7 The bidder had debarred in The additional increase 3.9% on Since the bidder had alreadyextracting forest product extraction cost from other debarred in extracting forestMahal/quarries instead of earmarked product from earmarked MahalMahal/quarries was not justified, /quarries, how the departmentbecause no record of non-availability was satisfied that the workof forest material in the earmarked could be completed within

Mahal/quarries was noticed during stipulated time by the bidder.scrutiny.

8 2% increase was proposed 1% contingency already included in the Acceptance of 2% increase forfor contingent and unseen estimated cost. Hence 2% increase for unseen expenditure wasexpenditure for timely contingent and unseen expenditure for injudicious.completion of project timely completion of project was not

I justified.

It is worthy to mention here that the LI bidder (M/S KIDC) was disqualified on the ground

of non submission of some documents regarding availability of critical equipments for

award of contract. But the L2 bidder (Mis Shivam Transcon Pvt. Ltd) was not fit to take up

the work at estimated cost and therefore quoted higher price to fulfill the criteria as

discussed above. Further scrutiny revealed that the L2 bidder had already been debarred

from extracting forest produces from earmarked Mahal/quarries and the Divisional Forest

Officer suspended the permit issued to MIs Shivam Transcon Pvt. Ltd on the Hon'ble High

Court order of 6 January 2014. As the L2 bidder was debarred from extracting forest

produces from the designated quarry, it was obvious that the bidder would not be able to

complete the work with the forest produces from the designated quarry. As such,

allowance of 3.9% for extraction cost from other Mahal/quarries instead of earmarked

Mahal/quarries was not justified. Further, no record of non-availability of forest material in

the designated Mahal/quarries was noticed during scrutiny.

The L2 bidder proposed for increase of 3.17% above the estimated cost to hire highly

experienced engineer with expertise, skilled technician and one senior Bridge Engineer. As

per pre requisite qualification the bidder had submitted the name/ documents regarding

availability of Bridge Engineer. Therefore proposal for increase 3.17% above the estimated

cost was not justified.

The L2 bidder proposed 2% increase for contingent and unseen expenditure for timely

completion of project. The Department had given 2% premium over and above the

estimated cost for achieving the milestone target. Scrutiny revealed that the work was

started in November 2016 and as of September 2017 the physical progress was only 2%

against the targeted 30% construction of 1200 mm dia RCC piles (quantity 2460 Rm). This

indicated that the contractor failed to achieve the target as on September 2017 by 28%.

Thus, 2% premium for timely completion of package was not justified.

As such, it is evident that the L2 bidder had flaws in his bid and the bid value was too high

and did not have any cogent reasons for the premiums. The bid of lowest bidder was

rejected as the same could not satisfy of viability of critical equipments. The L2 bidder

also, though failed to satisfy the requisite qualification criteria within the estimated cost,

was awarded with a premium to satisfy the requisite qualification criteria; this was a breach

in prescribed financial prudence.

Thus due to adoption of unfounded rate, quoted by the L2 bidder, the department hadprovided an undue advantage to the contractor and this had resulted in creation of extracommuted liability of ?11.09 crore beyond the price quoted of L, bidder (M/S KIDC) asdetailed under:

Amount in ZEstimated cost 28,27,20,000.00Quoted bid price of LI bidder (M/S KIDC) 4.95 % below the 26,87,38,194.00estimated cost (A)Quoted bid price of L2 bidder (Shivam Transcon Pvt. Ltd) 34.27% 37,96,14,685.00above the estimated cost (B) IAdditional unjustified extra commuted liability (B - A) 11,08,76,491.00

In contravention of Assam Financial Rules and CVC guidelines, the BAC accepted andrecommended to award of contract to Shivam Transcon Pvt. Ltd. Thus, injudiciousdecision the department had created an extra committed liability of Z1 1.09 crore underWorld Bank financed project. Had the department scrutinized the justification of thebidder, Z1 1.09 crore could have been saved.

Comments from the Government are invited in this regard.

Para 4 Undue financial benefits of (i) Z1.21 crore to the contractor against fictitiousprocurement of stone materials and (ii) T56.89 lakh for payment of securedadvance at higher rate.

The work "Rehablitation of SH-23 (Lahowal Bordubi Tinsukia Road) and DB-M-2(Mancotta-Saraighat Road from Phulbagan Tinali, Ch. 0.00 Km to Jokai Bridge approach,Ch.10.00 Km)" under World Bank Financed project was administratively approved (18March 2013) for 718.31 crore by the Government of Assam. The scheme was technicallysanctioned (20 March 2013) by the Chief Engineer, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF), Assam forthe same estimated amount. The Rehabilitation work was allotted to Shri Jugal KishoreMahanta at a contract price of f18.98 crore with stipulation to complete the work withintwelve months from the date of commencement. The work was commenced on 20 March2013 and completed on 25 September 2015 with an up to date expenditure of Z26.35 crore(September 2017).

In terms of Rule 274 of Assam Financial Rules, cases in which a contractor, whosecontract is for finished work, require an advance on the security of the materials brought tosite, Executive Engineer may in such cases, sanction advances up to amount not exceeding75 per cent of the value (assessed by themselves) of such materials on the certificate of anofficer, not below the rank of Sub divisional Officer, that the quantities of materials up towhich the advances were made have actually been brought to site. Further, Note-4 of Rule

293 of Assam Financial Rules envisages that measurement of work done or materials

received should be recorded in Measurement Book (MB) at the site of work.

(i) Scrutiny of records revealed that work was commenced on 20 March 2013 and the

contractor submitted (7 June 2013) 1st RA Bill of f473.46 lakh, which included secured

advance (SA) of ?304.51 lakh for 23400 cam of stone materials of different sizes.

The contractor produced certificates of genuineness for collection of 32,477 cum of stone

materials from Department of Geology and Mining, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and

Forest Department of Government of Assam in the final bill. Out of these, certificates of

genuineness for collection of 14,000 cum of stone material only were prior to 6 June 2013

(date of preparation of l" RA Bill). As such, genuineness of collection of 9400 cum of

stone materials before 6 June 2013 was doubtful. Further, the certificates did not indicate

the sizes of the stone materials. The Office of the Project Director could not furnish the

relevant MBs indicating the stack measurement of the stone material, for which secured

advance was granted. Thus payment of secured advance for 9400 cum forest material in I"

RA Bill was fictitious. Payment against fictitious procurement of stone materials, undue

financial benefit of 7120.60 lakh (9400 cum @ 71283.00 per cum on the basis of the

lowest rate) was extended to the contractor for a period of 602 days (from 15 June 2013 to

6 February 2015).

In view of the above facts it is evident that the claim of SA amounting to 1 .21 crore was

not genuine, and failure on the part of the Executive Engineer, Dibrugarh Rural Road

Division to exercise any regulatory checks in admitting and passing the bills facilitated

payment of ?1.21 crore on fictitious quantity of forest materials.

(ii) It was observed that full rates of the aggregates of different sizes were assessed without

any recorded basis. Since the secured advance was granted on forest produces the material

were to be procured from the designated quarry as per estimate and as the material were

brought to site in June 2014, the assessed full rates were compared with the basic rates of

SOR 2013-14 as under:

Aggregates Quantity Assessed rate As per SOR 2013-14 Difference Amount

(cum) Full Reduced Full rate Reduced between involved

rate (Z) rate () (T) rate () reduced ()rates (T)

5 mm - 10 mm 6580 1760.67 1320.50 1086.00 814.50 271.50 1786470

10 mm - 5 mm 6580 1710.67 1283.00 1032.00 774.00 258.00 1697640

5 mm below 3250 1710.67 1283.00 750.00 562.50 187.50 609375

9.5 mm - 4.75 mm 4050 1770.67 1328.00 1032.00 774.00 258.00 1044900

4.75 mm & below 2940 1710.67 1283.00 750.00 562.50 187.50 551250

5689635

Thus, providing of higher rate for payment of secured advance was irregular. This hadresulted in an extension of an undue financial benefit of T56.89 lakh to the contractor.

Comments of the Govt. of Assam are invited in this regard.

Para 5 Observations on Package No. ASRP/REHINC3/4, Rehabilitation of (i) SH-17(Amlokhi-Kathiatoli-Kampur-Chaparmukh-Reha

Road), (ii) SH-18 (Nagaon-Dakhinpat-Kampur-Baitbalangso-Khanduli Road), (iii) Ng-M-1 (Dhing-Baruati-Jajori-Kurwabahi-Bebejia-Ghahi-Dakhinpat-Nonoi

Road

The total package length of Package No. ASRP/REH/NCB/4 was 53 km. The packageconsisted of three roads, Road 1: Length of 26 km from Ch. 61 km at Kampur to Ch. 82km at Roha on SH-17 (Amlokhi-Kathiatoli-Kampur-Chaparmukh-Roha

Road), Road 2:Length of 25 km from Ch. 0 km at Nagaon to Ch.25 km at Kampur on SH-18 .(Nagaon-Dakhinpat-Kampur-Baithalangso-Khanduli Road), Road 3: Length of 7 km from Ch.27 kmat Bebejia to Ch.34 km at Dakhinpat via Ghahi on Ng-M-1 (Dhing-Baruati-Jajori-Kurwabahi-Bebejia-Ghahi-Dakhinpat-Nonoi Road).

The estimate of the package was prepared on 26 February 2013 at T2812.79 lakh. TheAbstract of Cost was as under:

Civil Work: Z26,53,57,845

Physical Contingencies (1%): Z26,53,578

Price Contingencies (5%): 1,32,67,892Chief Engineer (ARIASP&RIDF) issued NIT on 12 March 2013 at an approximate valueof Z26.53 crore with the intended time of completion as 18 months. Out of the fivetenderers ?24.50 crore, quoted by Shri Najiruddin Ahmed was the lowest Bid. The lowestbid was rejected as Shri Najiruddin Ahmed had provided false statement about technicalexperience. The work was allotted (25 September 2013) to the second lowest bidder M/sSanwarmal Khetawat at his tendered cost of ?27.58 crore with the stipulation to completethe work by 24 March 2015. Meanwhile, State Government accorded (16 September 2013)Administrative Approval (AA) to the work for Z28.13 crore. The expenditure wasdebitable to the Head of Account "5054-CO-Roads&Bridges-04-Dist & other Rds (DR)-568-Assam State Road Project (World Bank)-EAP-Plan Gen. Voted". The Chief Engineeraccorded (23 March 2013) Technical Sanction (TS) to the work for Z28.13 crore. The workwas started on 25 September 2013. The AA amount was revised to ?35.07 crore and the TSwas revised (24 February 2014) also at the same amount.

After the Ist variation, the estimated cost of the package was increased by Z7.15 crore andthe tender cost was revised to T34.73 crore after addition of supplementary tender cost. Theintended date of completion was extended to September 2015. Again, with secondvariation, the estimated cost of the package was increased by Z1 .30 crore and the tendercost was revised to Z36.02 crore after addition of supplementary tender cost. The intendeddate of completion remained at September 2015. Extension of time was granted to thecontractor up to 31.12.2015. The work was completed on 18.11.2015 at an expenditure ofT35.99 crore and the contractor was paid accordingly vide Vr. No. 22, dated I1,01.2016.

Test check of records revealed that

(A) Undue financial aid of Z71.45 lakh to the contractor in form of thirdinstalment of mobilisation Advance

As per Clause of the contract agreement the contractor was granted interest free loan asMobilisation Advance. The contractor was paid T1.38 crore (4 February 2014) as firstinstalment (5%) and 71.38 crore (15 February 2014) as second instalment (5%)aggregating Z2.76 crore. As per agreement, the amount of Mobilisation Advance was to beup to 10% of the accepted contract price. But, it was observed that the contractor wasgranted another Mobilisation Advance of Z71.45 lakh in March 2014 against InterimPayment Certificate (IPC)-5. Granting of third instalment of T71.45 lakh in excess of 10%of accepted contract price was irregular and in violation of contract agreement and extantprovision of CPWD Manual. Though the amount was recovered in August 2014 againstIPC-7, the fact remains that the contractor was provided an undue financial advantage ofZ71.45 lakh for about five months.

(B) Loss of 713 lakh to Government for granting interest free MobilisationAdvance

ASRP commenced recovery of Mobilisation Advance from March 2014 (IPC-4) andadjusted the entire amount by December 2014 (IPC-9). In terms of CPWD Works Manualand CVC Guidelines, Mobilisation Advance at 10 per cent simple interest can besanctioned to contractor. But, the interest clause was not included the in the agreement forgranting Mobilisation Advance. As the work was under loan assistance of InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), non insertion of interest clause againstMobilisation Advance in the agreement was injudicious. This had resulted in a loss of 13lakh to Government exchequer as detailed under:

Bill Date MA MA Balance (Z) Days 10% interestNo. Amount (Z) deduction ()

IPC 1 04.02.2014 13790606 0 13790606 12 45339IPC 2 15.02.2014 13790606 0 27581212 14 105791IPC 3 28.02.2014 0 0 27581212 21 158686IPC 4 20.03.2014 0 8848938 18732274 12 61586IPC 5 31.03.2014 7145436 1323786 24553924 75 504533IPC 6 13.06.2014 0 13052573 11501351 65 204819IPC 7 16.08.2014 0 4647572 6853779 115 215941IPC 8 08.12.2014 0 6214466 639313 24 4204IPC 9 31.12.2014 0 639313 0 0

1300898(C) Fictitious expenditure of ?2.31 crore and undue financial aid of T1.17 crore to

the contractor on secured advance

In terms of Rule 274 of Assam Financial Rules, cases in which a contractor, whosecontract is for finished work, require an advance on the security of the materials brought tosite, Executive Engineer may in such cases, sanction advances up to amount not exceeding75 per cent of the value (assessed by themselves) of such materials on the certificate of anofficer, not below the rank of Sub divisional Officer, that the quantities of materials up onwhich the advances are made have actually been brought to site. Further, Note-4 of Rule293 of Assam Financial Rules envisages that measurement of work done or materialsreceived should be recorded in Measurement Book (MB) at the site of work.It was observed the contractor was granted secured advances of Zl 80.04 lakh (in February2014) and Z51 lakh (in March 2014) aggregating Z231.07 lakh. The same wassubsequently adjusted in August 2014 against the IPC-7 (August 2014). The securedadvances were paid without detailed measurement in the MB. As such, payment of securedadvance without any measurement in support of material brought to site had rendered theentire expenditure ofZ231.07 lakh as fictitious.

Further, the full rates of the stone chips of different sizes were assessed on the quotationfrom a private stone crusher unit to the contractor. Since the secured advance was grantedon forest produces the material were to be procured from the designated quarry as perestimate and the rates were to be as per SOR 2009-10, as the estimate was based on SOR2009-10. But, as the material were brought to site in between February and March 2014(exact date could not be determined in absence of measurement in MB), the assessed fullrates of the material were compared with the basic rates of SOR 2013-14. In comparison ofthe assessed rates of material with the rates of SOR, it was observed that the assessed rateswere higher than those of SOR of 2013-14 compared with the basic rates. Thus, by

providing higher rate for payment of secured advance had resulted in an extension ofundue financial benefit of Zl 17.11 lakh to the contractor. The details are as under:Items Quantity Assessed As per SOR 2013-14 Difference Amount(cum) Full rate Reduced Full rate Reduced between involved ()() rate (Z) () rate (?) reduced rates

53 mm to 3400 1850 1387.5 913 684.75 702.75 238935026.5 mm26.5 mm to 6000 1750 1312.5 863 647.25 665.25 39915009.5 mm

I i9.5 mm to 5500 1700 1275 1 853 639.75 635.25 34938754.75 mmDust 2000 1100 825 645 483.75 341.25 682500GSB 2000 1232.44 924.33 1 463 347.25 577.08 1154160

1,17,11,385Comments of Government are invited in this regard.

Para 6 Injudicious decision of the Bid Acceptance Committee (BAC) of the ASRP inawarding the work of construction of "Rehabilitation of SH-33 JorhatKamarbandha Nagabat Road from Garali to Kamarbandha" under WorldBank financed project in violation of the codal provision led to avoidableexpenditure of ?6.19 crore.

As per CVC guidelines, before awarding of contract the department should establish thereasonableness of prices on the basis of estimated rates, prevailing market rates, lastpurchase prices, economic indices of the raw material / labour, other input costs andintrinsic value etc. Further Assam Financial Rule 466 (1) provides that every public officershould exert same vigilance in respect of public expenditure and public funds generally asa person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money.Further as per the provisions of the Assam Financial Rule-243, when owing tomodification or deviation from the original proposals, or when from the preparation of thedetailed estimate, or in course of execution, it becomes apparent that the cost of the workwill exceed the amount administratively approved by more than 10 per cent, revisedadministrative approval to increased expenditure must be obtained; similar steps must betaken if the original proposals are materially departed from, even if no increased cost isthereby incurred.

The work of rehabilitation of SH-33 Jorhat lKunarbandha Nagabat Road from Garali toKamarbandha was administratively approved (March 2013) by State Government andtechnically sanctioned (May 2013) by the ChieF Engineer (CE), Public Works Department(ARIASP & RIDF), Assam for ?18.35 crore.

Test-check of records revealed that before approval of the estimates, CE, PWD (ARIASP& RIDF), Assam invited (September 2012) National Competitive Bidding for constructionof Rehabilitation of SH-33 Jorhat Kamarbandha Nagabat Road from Garali toKamarbandha against the approximate estimated cost of ?17.30 crore. Amongst the twobidders, firm UCN Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd was the lowest bidder (?I6.41 crore) andfirm Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd was the second lowest bidder (?22.14 crore). Thelowest bidder did not satisfy the qualification criteria of liquid asset; hence the bidder wasnot qualified for the work. The bid evaluation committee evaluated the bid of secondlowest bidder and found in order. The L2 bidder quoted price 27.90% above the estimatedcost and Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) suggested to compare the bid price alongwith the actual current market rates prevailing in Jorhat district. The analysis showed thatthe prevailing market price in Jorhat district was only 9.5% above the estimated cost. Itimplied that the price quoted by the bidder was still 18.3% above the current marketsprevailing in Jorhat district. The TEC stated that the quoted price of the bidder wasunreasonably high and bidder might not be recommended for award of the package. TheTEC therefore recommended rebidding of the contract package.

In contravention of codal instructions of Assam Financial Rule and CVC guidelines, theBid Acceptance Committee (BAC) accepted and recommended to award of contract to M/sBrahmaputra. Thus, due to this injudicious decision the department committed to incur anextra avoidable expenditure of Z6.19 crore as detailed under:

Particulars Amount (in T)

Original AA amount 18,35,41,253Estimated cost 17,30,20,000Original contract amount 22,13,77,074Avoidable expenditure (Over and above the 4,83,57,074estimated cost)

Revised contract value (A) 28,34,63,897Difference of original contract value and 6,20,86,823revised contract value which includes rateproportionately 27.95% over and above theestimated rateAs per estimated rate the revised contract (B) 22,15,44,287price should be (Z'l7,30,20,000 +?4,85,24,287)Avoidable expenditure (A - B) 6,19,19,610

The contract price was revised on the basis of variation statement prepared by the EE,Jorhat State Road Division and the same was approved by the CE, PWD, (ARIASP &RIDF), Assam. The State Government accorded (February 2014) AA on revised contract

price of T28.35 crore. The work commenced in June 2013 and the CE extended (July 2015)the time for completion up to October 2015. As of September 2017, against the physicalprogress of 100 per cent an expenditure ofZ26.08 crore was incurred.

Thus unjust adoption of rate 27.95% over and above the estimated cost by ignoring theTEC's recommendation led to an advantage to the contractor and resulted in an excessexpenditure T6.19 crore.

The Chief Engineer (ARIASP & RIDF) stated that the reply would be fumished afterverification of records.

Comments from the Government are invited in this regard.

Para 7 "Improvement and upgradation of SH-22 (Gogamukh-Ghilamara)"-Observation thereof

The Chief Engineer (CE), PWD (ARIASP & RIDF) invited (8 February 2012) NationalCompetitive Bidding (NCB) for item rates bids in electronic tendering system for thework Improvement and upgradation of SH-22 (Gogamukh-Ghilamara) under Package No.ASRP/P1S1/NCB/SH-22/7 at an approximate value of 71.81 crore with period ofcompletion as 30 months. The work was awarded (20 November 2012) to M/s Shivam-Bhartia (JV) at a contract price of T64.80 crore.

After awarding of the work and signing of the agreement with the Contractor, the CEprepared (7 December 2012) an estimate based on SOR 2009-10 with the followingabstract of cost:

SI. No. Description Amount (') Total Amount

PART- Civil works 703963841.00 724528222.00A Electrical works 6458500.00

Environment management plan 14105881.00PART- Pre construction activities (Electrical shifting, Pipeline 82904756.00B Utility Shifting, LA and R&R)Physical contingencies (@ 1% of Part A)

7245282.00Price contingencies (@ 5% of Part A) 36,226411.00Price escalation as per Bid document (@ 12% of Part A) 86943387.00Total

937848058.00The Government accorded (18 March 2013) Administrative Approval of the above costestimate for a sum of ?93.78 crore and the CE, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF) accorded (20March 2013) Technical Sanction for a sum of T93.78 crore. Notice to Proceed with thework was issued (20 March 2013) with the stipulation to complete the work within 30months from date of issue of the notice.

As of July 2017, the expenditure against the work was T44.12 crore, against physicalprogress of 78%.

On test check of records of the CE, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF), the following observationswere made:

(A) Signing of Contract agreement before preparation of estimate and inclusion ofprice escalation in the estimate as per contract agreement clause.

Before preparation of cost estimate (7 December 2012), the CE, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF)entered into contract agreement (20 November 2012) with the lowest bidder. Thus, thepreparation of cost estimate after signing of contract agreement and subsequent preparationof estimate was irregular. Further, as per clause of contract agreement, price escalation of78,69,43,387 was included in the estimate. As such, even though the contractor quotedbelow the rate as published (February 2012) in the NCB, irregular inclusion priceescalation of Z869.43 lakh in the estimate as per tender clause had increased the AAamount to that extent and the contractor was compensated to that extent as the bid was notinvited on the basis of the increased estimated cost. As the work was awarded at the itemwise tendered rates as quoted by the contractor, the rates should have been valid for at leastup to the stipulated date of completion. Insertion of price escalation clause as specialcondition of contract was not judiciously cogent and extended the scope to the contractorto reap a benefit of Z869.43 lakh in form of price escalation from the scarce Governmentexchequer.

(B) Extension of time in violation of the contract clause and the subsequent nonimposition of liquidated damage resulted in undue favor to contractor

As per the tender agreement, the work was stipulated to be completed by 19 September2015, but as of 15 September 2015, the contractor completed just 14.89 per cent of thework. The contractor was granted extension up to 31 December 2016 and as on 30November 2016, the physical progress was only 54.19 per cent. Thereafter, the contractorwas again granted extension up to 31 July 2017 and the progress of the work as of 31 July2017 was just 77.91 per cent. In this regard the CE replied that extension of time wasgranted due to non availability of forest permit for procurement of stone material, theweather and due to non availability of requisite quantity of earth.

However, the provision of sub-clause 108.4 of Supplementary Technical Specifications ofthe contract envisaged that the contractor would satisfy himself that the required materialsare available in adequate quantities and complying with the requirements of specifications.No claim would be entertained on account of non-availability of materials, and increase inleads etc. As such granting of time extension as per the above stated reasons was inviolation of the contract clause and as per clause 49 of the contract agreement, the

contractor was required to pay Z162000 per day for Section-I and ZI96000 per day forSection-II as liquidated damages, subject to maximum of 10 per cent of the contract value,where the completion date was later than the intended date of completion. Thus, grantingof time extension and subsequent non imposition of liquidated damage clause had providedan undue financial favour of 76.48 crore (10% of 764.80 crore) to the contractor.(C) Non-realization of interest amounting to T148.68 lakh on mobilization advanceAs per CVC guideline, the contractor is liable to pay interest @10 per cent per annum onthe mobilization advance. The contractor was provided interest free Mobilization Advanceof Z647.96 lakh (10 per cent of the contract value) in two installments, Z323.98 lakh videIPC Number 1,Voucher Number 25 dated 13 September 2013 and Z323.98 lakh vide IPCNumber 2, Voucher Number 10, dated 10 March. The interest free Mobilisation Advancewas provided as per clause of the contract agreement. The Mobilization Advance wasrecovered from the subsequent IPCs at 15 per cent of the Bill values as shown in the tablebelow:

Bill No. Date Mobilization Mobilization Balance (Z) Period in Interest at 10Advance (Z) Advance Recovery days per cent (Z)IPC 1 13.09.13 32397932 0 32397932 181 1606582.38IPC 2 10.03.14 32397931 0 64795863 222 3941008.65IPC 3 17.09.14 0 1847888 62947975 142 2448934.92IPC 4 06.02.15 0 2410333 60537642 61 1011724.98IPC 5 08.04.15 0 2653507 57884135 43 681922,686IPC 6 21.05.15 0 4396692 53487443 40 586163.759IPC 7 30.06.15 0 909772 52577671 161 2319179.46IPC 8 08.12.15 0 2292196 50285475 34 468412.644IPC 9 11.01.16 0 6267569 44017906 32 385910.409IPC 10 12.02.16 0 7268319 36749587 14 140957.32IPC 1I 26.02.16 0 4642393 32107194 23 202319.305IPC 12 21.03.16 0 7176211 24930983 37 252725.033IPC 13 26.04.16 0 7756281 17174702 35 164688.923IPC 14 31.05.16 0 4374238 12800464 24 84167.4345IPC 15 24.06.16 0 3333276 9467188 104 269750.014IPC 16 06.10.16 0 1254567 8212621 102 229503.381IPC 17 16.01.17 0 3503545 4709076 45 58057.1014IPC 18 02.03.17 0 1729124 2979952 19 15512.0789IPC 19 21.03.17 0 2979952 0 0Total

14867520.50Thus, from the above it was seen that interest at 10 per cent of the mobilization advanceamounting to T148.68 lakh was not recovered from the contractor. Moreover, as per Subclause 51 of the Contract Data, advance payment for mobilization and equipment shall becompletely repaid prior to expiry of the original time (19 September 2015) for completion.

As of IPC Number 7 dated 30 June 2015, Z12218192 only was recovered out of balance of?64795863 with a recoverable outstanding amount ?52577671. In this regard, it was seenthat the Project Director, World Bank Aided Project, PWRD issued (27 July 2015) a noticeto the contractor for enchasing the bank guarantees against mobilization advance.However, the bank guarantees could not be enchased on the order (17 September 2015) ofthe Hon'ble High Court and only normal deduction of Mobilisation Advance in thesubsequent IPCs were observed. Insertion of provision of interest free MobilisationAdvance in the contract agreement in violation of CVC guidelines had extended an unduefinancial benefit of T148.68 lakh to the contractor and a subsequent loss to the Governmentexchequer to that extent.

Para 8 Undue financial benefit of Z1.02 crore by including the carriage charge to theprice of the material in Secured Advance

State Government accorded (6 February 2016) administrative approval to the work"Rehabilitation of Cinamara Titabor Road (Ch. 0.00 Km to Ch.13.00 Km) under PackageNo. ASRP/REH/NCB/1 I for Z23.11 crore and the Chief Engineer, PWRD(ARIASP&RIDF) accorded (8 February 2016) Technical Sanction for ?23.11 crore. Thework was awarded (4 March 2016) to Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd, Guwahati at acontract price of T19.53 crore with the stipulation to complete the work by March 2017. Asof September 2017, the department incurred an expenditure of ?10.78 crore against thephysical progress of 77%.

In terms of Rule 274 of Assam Financial Rules, cases in which a contractor, whosecontract is for finished work, require an advance on the security of the materials brought tosite, Executive Engineer may in such cases, sanction advances up to amount not exceeding75 per cent of the value of such materials on the certificate of an officer, not below therank of Sub divisional Officer, that the quantities of materials up on which the advancesare made have actually been brought to site.

Scrutiny of the relevant documents of the work revealed that the contractor was granted(17 August 2016) Secured Advance amounting to f187.88 lakh. Further scrutiny revealedthat the assessed rates were taken on the basis of the SOR 2013-14, but, the component ofcarriage was included in the assessed rate over and above the basic rate. The details wereas under:

Item Quantity Cost of Cost of Total cost Rate at Rate at Amount of Actual Differencebrought to carriage item (SOR (Z which which SA paid (Z amount of ()site (5 2013-14) advance advance to SA (Z(5 paid be paid

(75% of (75% of costtotal of item) (5cost)

40mm (37.50 4000 cum 1057.74 863 1920.74 1440.56 647.25 5762240 2589000 3173240mm to 9-50mm)20mm(26.50 6600 cum 1057.74 922 1979.74 1484.81 691.50 9799746 4563900 5235846mm to9.50mm)10mm(9.50m 2216 cum 1057.74 883 1940.74 1455.56 662-25 3225521 1467546 1757975m to 4.75

MM)Total

18787507 8620446 10167061As amount of secured advances should not exceed 75 per cent of the value of materialsinclusion of carriage component was not judicious and prudent. Thus, the department paidadditional amount of k'101.67 as Secured Advance as carriage charge resulting an unduefinancial benefit to the contractor to that extent.

PART 11 (B)

Para 9 Unauthorised committed liability of Z3.41 crore

As per the provisions of the Assam Financial Rule-243, when owing to modification ordeviation from the original proposals, or when from the preparation of the detailedestimate, or in course of execution, it becomes apparent that the cost of the work willexceed the amount administratively approved by more than 10 per cent, revisedadministrative approval to increased expenditure must be obtained; similar steps must betaken if the original proposals are materially departed from, even if no increased cost isthereby incurred.

The work "Rehabilitation of Diphu Dilai Sariahjan Road in Karbi Anglong District"Package No. ASRP/REH/NCB/25A was administratively approved (7 February 2017) for722.32 crore by the Government of Assam. Chief Engineer, (ARIASP & RIDF) accorded(20 February 2017) technical sanction to the work for the same amount. The work wasawarded to Shri Kulen Hazarika (June 2017) at a contract price of T25.73 crore withoutobtaining fresh Administrative Approval. As of September 2017, there was no physicalprogress against the work.

Thus, allotment of work Z3.41 crore (15.28%) above the AA amount to the contractor inviolation of provision of Assam Financial Rule was irregular and resulted in an unauthorized committed liability Z3.41 crore.

Comments from the Government are invited in this regard.

Para 10 Irregular allotments of work by splitting up of work into smaller Groups toavoid International Competitive Bidding (ICB) or National CompetitiveBidding (NCB) of competitiveness

As per CVC guideline, the award of Public Contract through open tender is to ensuretransparency in public procurement, to maximize economy and efficiency in publicprocurement, to promote healthy competition among tenderers, to provide for fair andequal treatment to all the tenderers and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corruptpractices by authorities concerned. This is also required by the Article 14 of theConstitution of India. Further in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Meerut NagarNigam, Meerut Vs Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd.] it has been emphasized that all thepublic tenders should be in an open and transparent manner with adequate publicity.

The work "Repair and Refurbishment of Assam Road Research and Training Institute(ARR&TI) of PWRD at Fatasil Ambari (Phase-Ill)" was administratively approved (4January 2016) by Government of Assam at an estimated amount of Z3,93,85,000. Theexpenditure of the scheme is debitable to the head of account 5054-C.O. on R&D -04-Dist.& other Roads (DR) -010-OMNP-1537-Dist. Roads-568- Assam State Road Project(World Bank) EAP-Grants for creation of Assets-99-Plan- GA- Voted for the year 2015-16. The work was technically sanctioned (1 March 2016) for the same amount. The workwas awarded (26 February 2016) to two different contractors by splitting the single workinto seven groups at a tendered value of 7308.75 lakh, The contractor started (26 February2016) execution of the work on the basis of work order issued by the Project Director andas of September 2017, overall physical progress of the work was 97% with up to dateexpenditure of Z266.47 lakh.

As per World Bank guidelines shopping procedure was applicable for value of the workless than US $ 1,00,000. Further scrutiny of work order and other relevant records revealedthat the orders for execution of works were issued to the same contractor for the sameitems of work by splitting up the value of work keeping the amount within the threshold ofshopping procedure of procurement as detailed under:

Name of AA NIT No. Group Item Details of work Name of the Amountwork Amount No. of contractor to whom (T in(T in works part of the work was lakh)lakh) allottedRepair and No NIT A Earthwork, Brick work,Refurbishme was plastering, RCC, Door M/S Acme Trade & 60.74nt of Assam 392.85 invited, Civil & Window (Part-I) Si. AgenciesRoad the work Works No. 1 -25

Research and was B Door & Window (Part-Training allotted on II), Flooring, Roofing, M/S Capital Overlays 63.30

Institute the basis Wall Paneling SI. No,(ARR&TI) of 26-35of PWRD at Shopping C Wall Paneling & M/S Acme Trade & 61.80Fatasil procedure Ceiling SI. No. 36 - 48 Agencies 61.80Ambari

D Furniture & Fixtures SI. M/S Acme Trade & 56.65No. 49-60 AgenciesE Water supply and

Sanitary works M/S Capital Overlays 64.90including minor civilworks SI No. 61 - 128

F Electrical works Sl No. M/S Capital Overlays 32.55Electric 1 - 63G al Installation of lift with M/S Acme Trade &works Electrical works SI No. Agencies48.81

1 64-96 AgenciesTotal:

388.75From scrutiny of relevant records, it was revealed that the CE bifurcated the single workinto smaller Groups keeping the amount below US S 1,00,000 (?66.81 lakh) to avoidInternational Competitive Bidding (ICB) or National Competitive Bidding (NCB). Bysplitting the works, the department also sidelined the CVC. Guidelines, Article 14 of theConstitution of India and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Meerut Nagar Nigam,Meerut Vs Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd.] regarding open and transparent publictenders with adequate publicity.

Comments of the Government are invited in this regard.

Para 11 Non submission of Utilization Certificate amounting to Z8396.95 lakh

During test check of records of the Chief Engineer, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF), Assam itwas noticed that an amount of fl0314.71 lakh was transferred to different D.C. Offices forland acquisition, APDCL for electrical utility shifting, PHED for water pipeline shiftingand Forest Department for tree cutting for improvement/up gradation and widening ofState Highways during the period from 2013-14 and 2016-17 through bank draft/cheques.But, Utilization Certificates for only Z1 917.76 lakh was obtained from the grantees leavingoutstanding Utilization Certificates for Z8396.95 lakh as detailed below:

Year Purpose for which the Amount Amount of UCamount was shifted disbursed (Z) UC received outstanding(in Z) (2013-14 Land acquisition 23,05,93,112 9,31,77,913 13,74,15,199Electrical utility 20,95,74,169 2,38,88,882 18,56,85,287shifting

water pipeline shifting 2,45,99,575 15,91000 2,30,08,575Tree cutting 1,45,98,142 18,29,362 1,27,68,780Total for 2013-14 47,93,64,998 120487157 3588778412014-15 Land acquisition 8,92,37,846 5,84,65,256 3,07,72,590Electrical utility 14,40,57,344 79,27,447 13,61,29,897shiftingwater pipeline shifting 62,41,496 Nil 62,41,496Tree cutting 73,97,820 Nil 73,97,820

Total for 2014-15 24,69,34,506 6,63,92,703 18,05,41,8032015-16 Land acquisition NilElectrical utility 12,14,98,840 48,95,936 11,66,02,904shiftingWater pipeline shifting 64,26,480 Nil 64,26,480Tree cutting 38,52,909 Nil 38,52,909

Total for 2015-16 13,17,78,229 48,95,936 12,68,82,2932016-17 Land acquisition 14913018 Nil 1,49,13,018Electrical utility 139721210 Nil 139721210shiftingwater pipeline shifting 18758961 Nil 18758961Tree cutting Nil NilTotal for 2016-17 17,33,93,189 Nil 17,33,93,189Grand total 1,03,14,70,922 19,17,75,796 83,96,95,126

From above, it was seen that Utilization Certificates for Z1917.76 lakh, against ?10314.71lakh (?47,93,64,998 for the year 2013-14, Z24,69,34,506 for the year 2014-15,?13,17,78,229 for the year 2015-16 & Z17,33,93,189 for the year 2016-17) were receivedtill date of audit (September 2017). The arrear in submission of UCs against the funds forZ8396.95 lakh was ranged from 6 to 53 months (ANNEXURE-I). It needs to be mentionedhere that the Chief Engineer, PWD (ARIASP & RIDF), Assam & Project Director, WorldBank Aided Projects had also failed to obtain the APRs/ beneficiaries list from the granteesconcerned for which UCs had already been received. Thus, non submission of UCs alongwith relevant vouchers/APRs/ beneficiaries list etc. led to blocking of funds by the granteeorganizations to the tune of T8396.95 lakh.

Steps may be taken to obtain the UCs along with APRs under intimation to Audit.Para 12 Irregular allotment of work without obtaining revised administrative

approval led to unauthorized expenditure T9.24 Crore

As per the conditions of sanction, the amount of contract should not exceed the amountapproved in the administrative approval in any case. It was noticed that in respect of sevenWorld Bank Financed Projects, works were allotted to the contractor over and above theestimated/sanctioned amount without obtaining revised Administrative Approval (AA) andin contravention to the conditions of the sanction. Details are shown in ANNEXURE-II.Therefore, allotment of works at cost above the original sanctioned amount withoutobtaining revised administrative approval was irregular and unauthorized. Thus theexpenditure ?9.24 crore incurred there against was also irregular and unauthorized.

Para 13 Execution of earthwork-observation thereof

Test check of vouchers revealed that the contractors had brought 259161.81 cum of earthand utilized in 4 works as shown below:

Nameof NameofWork Particular Quantity Rate Bill Payment VoucherContractor Package No and Work (Cun) ( V) value () made (Z) No. & Date/ Supplier Order No.M/s Improvementandup Earthworkin 25916181 100 25916181 23842887 OfSHIVAM- gradation of SH-22 embankment in all 02.03.2017BHARTIA (Gogamukh -Ghilamara) kinds of soil and(JV) Package No. payment ofItem No. 34 ASRP/PISI/NCK/SH- borrowing earth

22/7 from private land.CE/ASRP/61/201 1174Dated: 20.11.2012

The Department made payments of T2,38,42,887.00 to the contractors against the total billvalue of Z25916181.00 against various items of earthwork with components of labourcharges for earth cutting, carrying, loading, unloading etc. which included compensation tobe paid to the private land owner/Pattadar for borrowing earth from private land. However,the contractors did not furnish any proof of payment of compensation for borrowing earthfrom private land owner/Pattadar indicating name of the land-owner, Dag and Pattanumber of land etc duly certified by local Circle Officer. In absence of such documents,the genuineness of earthwork executed from private land could not be ascertained in audit.In absence of any supporting documents of the payment of compensation, total earthutilised in the works (259161.81 cun) was held as collected from Government landrequiring realization of Forest Royalty amounting k38,87,427 (259161.81 cum @ f15.00).The same may be recovered from the contractors and remitted to Government Accountunder intimation to audit.

Para 14 Outstanding of Mobilisation Advances amounting to T2568.51 lakh

During scrutiny of Package-wise Mobilisation Advances Statement for the year 2016-17 ofOffice of the Project Director, it was seen that an amount of ?25,68,50,997 being 1st and2nd Mobilisation Advances against packages of Rehabilitation, Upgradation and BridgeWorks were paid to contractors but remained outstanding as on 31 March 2017. The detailsare shown below:

SI No. Packages Amount of outstandingMobilisation Advances (Z)

1 Rehabilitation 13,53,95,1352 Upgradation 10,24,75,1283 Bridge Works 1,89,80,734

Total 25,68,50,997

Outstanding Mobilisation advances from the subsequent contractors bills may be recoveredat the earliest under intimation to audit.

Para 15 Non-reconciliation of Bank Balance with Cash Book balanceScrutiny of Annual Accounts, Closing balance of Bank Statement and Cash Book for themonth of March 2017 revealed that Project Director, ASRP had been operating a SavingBank Account bearing No: 551802010005117 with Union Bank of India, Hatigaon Branch,Guwahati. The Division did not reconcile Closing balance of Cash Book with those ofBank Balance. The position as on 31 March 2017 was as under:

Closing Balance as per Cash Book: ?72,79,59,180.76

Closing Balance as per Bank Statement: Z 41.34,788.68

Difference: 772,38,24,392.08

Reasons for non-reconciliation of Closing Balance of Cash Book with Bank Balance as on31.03.2017 may please be stated to audit.

PART-III

Follow up on findings outstanding from previous report:The Audit Party served Audit Requisition for furnishing up-to-date reply of all outstandingparagraphs of previous Inspection Reports. The Chief Engineer (ARIASP& RIDF), inresponse, furnished further reply. However, the positions of outstanding paras were asunder:-

. IR. No. & Date Period of audit Position of outstanding paras1 ECO-L12/37-1/201

1 3 9 , 2015-16 Part 11 (A): Para 1,2dated, 14.12.2016

Part 11 (B): Para 3. 4, 5, 6, 7

PART -IVBest Practices: Nil

PART - VAcknowledgement: The help and cooperation extended by the concerned officers/officialsof the office of the Chief Engineer (ARIASP & RIDF) cum Project Director ASRP,Guwahati, for smooth conduct of audit was really worthy of plaudit. The Chief Engineer(ARJASP & RIDE) cum Project Director ASRP instructed all the concerned officers andstaff to produce all relevant record s/docments to audit as per requisition issued by theaudit team. During Exit Conference, minutes of the Exit Meeting drawn and initial reply onthe observations was furnished by the Chief Engineer (ARIASP & RIDE) cum Project

Director ASR.P.

Sd/-Audit Officer

Sr. Deputy Accountant GeneralES/HQ Economic Sector

ANNEXURE-II(in reference to Parat2 under Part II B)

Allotment of works over and above the estimated/sanctioned amount without taking revised Administrative Approval and Technical Sanction

S. Name of the project Package No. Administrative Bidding price of Allotted Price and Date of Difference of Up-to-date RemarksNo. Approval amount L, bidder and name of the Agreement allotted price expenditure

and date name of the contractor with AAcontractor amount

I Rehabilitation of Sepon Sunrura ASRP/REH4/NCB/9 Rs. 42.46 crore Rs.39.50 Crore Rs.43.83 crore (L2) March 2016 Rs. 1.37 crore Rs. 4.42 crore No revisedRoad dated-06-02-16 (M/S BB (Jugal Kishore AA was

Enterprise) Mahanta) obtained

2 Rehabilitation of Raha Barapujia ASRP/REH/NCB/27 Rs.13.02 crore Rs.10.86 Crore Rs.13.40 crore (L3) February Rs, 0.38 crore Rs.0.67 crore No revisedRoad in Nagaon District. dated-18-01-17 (M/S CCL (Ramesh kr 2017 AA was

International Agarwalla) obtainedLimited)

3 Rehabilitation of Dhing ASRP/REH/NCB/28 Rs.23.21 crore Rs.13.88 Crore Rs.17.25 crore (L2) February Rs. 0.60 crore Rs.0.86 crore No revisedDakhinpath Nonoi Road (Dalong dated-18-01-17 (M/S CCL (M/S UNC 2017 AA wasGhat to Bebejia) International Construction Co. obtained

Limited) Pvt. Ltd)

4 Rehabilitation of Dhing Borsila ASRP/REH/NCB/33 Rs.26.45 crore Rs.27.18 Crore Rs.27.18 Crore March 2017 Rs. 0.73 crore Rs. 1.36 crore No revisedRoad dated-27-02-17 (Sanwarmal (LI) (Sanwarmal AA was

Khetawat) Khetawat) obtained

5 Rehabilitation of Kahua-ati to ASRP/REH/NCB/34 Rs, 14.06 crore Rs. 14.42 Crore Rs. 14.42 Crore March 2017 Rs. 0.36 crore Rs..72 crore No revisedBardua Road dated-22-02-17 (Ramesh kr (L[) (Ramesh kr AA was

Agarwalla) Agarwalla) obtained

6 Rehabilitation of Agia ASRP/REH/NCB/26 B Rs.23.21 crore Rs.21.95 Crore Rs.24.19 Crore February Rs. 0.98 crore Rs. 1.21 crore No revisedMedhipara Lakhipur Road dated-28-11-16 (Bimal kr (L3) (M/S Jayanti 2017 AA was

Agarwalla) Contractors and obtainedEngineers Ltd)

Total: Rs. 4.42 crore Rs, 9.24 crore

,APDCL . Nagaon Dtd.5/12/16Electrical circle

SH-2 (Jania -Barpeta Medical Chief Executive Officer,SH-2ege (APDCL. Barpeta Vr.No.82-85 dtd.23/11/16 1,45,66339.00 1College) Electrical circle

Chief Executive Officer .SHI-2 (Mansh Bridge -Beki Bridge) APDCL . Barpeta Vr.N 71 132 2,59,56,721.00 Nil 2,59,56,721.00 8

Electrical circleChief Executive Officer,

SH-3 (Narengi- Bonda) APDCL. Guwahati DtI/27 3,57,31,984.00 Nil 3,57,31,984.00 8Electrical circle-I 1td. 15/02/17Chief Executive Officer, Vr 22

M-12(Baihata-Goreswar Road) APDCL. Rangia Dtd08/03/17 12,95,590.00 Nil 12,95,590.00 7

Electrical circle Dtd,08103/17

Total 13,97,21,210.00 Nil 13,97,21,210.00

Pipeline Executive Engineer,PHE Vr, Nol 19/2 dtd 22/04/16 10,090,642.00 Nil 10,090,642.00 6Shifting S11-3 (Nagaon-Singimari-Naltoli) Nagaon Division

Executive Engineer,PHE Vr. Nol 19/1 dtd 22/04/16 8,668,319.00 Nil 8,668,319.00 6Kaliabor DivisionTotal 18,758,961.00 Nil 18,758,961.00

Tree Cutting NilT o t a l f orti n g N0 1 1 7 ,3 3 ,9 3 ,18 9 .0 0 1 7 ,3 3 ,9 3 ,1 8 9 .0 0

Total for 2016-17 Nil

Grand Total (from 2013 to 2017) 103,14,70,922.00 19,17,75,796.00 83,96,95,126.00

Electrical utility SH-33Kmbandha-Naabat DOM, APDCL, Jorhat Vr. No.53 dtd 08/07/15 48,95,936.00 UC submitted for Nil

shifting -3 ad l- a Electrical Circle Vr.No53di_0_0715489593.0 48,95,936.00Chief Executive Officer 22

SH-3 (Nagaon-Singinari-Naltoli) ,APDCL. Nagaon Vr. No. 16-28 did 07/12/15 6,69,29,090.00 Nil 6,69,29.090.00

Electrical circle

Chief Executive OfficerSH-2(Medical college-Barpeta ,APDCL . Barpeta Vr. No.121-123 dtd26/02/16 84,30,264.00 Nil 84,30,264.00 20

Town Electrical circle

Total 12,14,98,840 48,95,936.00 11,66,02,904.00

SH-46 (Dudhnoi - Goalpara - Executive Engineer,PHE Vr. No.51 did 17/10/15 7,90,809.00 Nil 7,90,809.00 24

P a n c h a ra tn a ) G o alp ara D iv isio n V r . o ,2 di_2 3/_/_ _2 6 9 7 ,7 1 .0_N i

Water Pipeline SH-2 (Chapaguri-River Manash) Vr. No.28 dtd 23/11/15 26,97,771.00 Nil 26,97,771.00 22

shifting Managing Director, Urban 21

SH-31(Jorhat Morioni) Water Supply & Sewarage Vr. No.74 did 21(01/16 29,37,900.00 Nil Rs.29,37,900.00

Board, Guwahat 64,26,480.00 Nil 64,26,480.00

T o t a lN i2 9 0 8 . 04

SH-2 (Chapaguri-River Manash) DFO, A Valley Division, Vr.No.50, did 17/10/15 2960583.00 Nil 2960583.00 24SH2(haaui-ie Mns) Bongaigaon Nil 453,024.00_______25

SH-l1 (Jorhat - Morioni) DFO, Jorhat Division Vr.No.5, did 07/09/15 453,024.00 Nil 453,024.00 25

Tree Cutting S1-3 (Morigaon-Nagaon) DFO, Nagaon Division Vr.No.4 dtd 01/02/16 4Nil 439,30200 19

fotal 38,52,90900 Nil 38,52,909.00

13,17,78,229.00 489593601268,82,293.00Total for (2015-16) 4 5960

a n Vr, No. 50 18,48,825.00 18,48,825.00 17aciind Dtd.17/05/16 Nil

2016-17 SH-31 (3orhat-Morioni) DC, Jorhat _ Vr. No, 97 82,40,53000 Ni82,40,530.00 17Dtd,30/05/16 Nil

Vr. No.3 31,11487.00 15Dtd 06/07/16Ni

Vr. No. 11 12,12,315.00 Nil12,12,31500 11Dtd 01/11/16Ni

Vr. No.80 did 13/02/17 4,99,861.00 Nil 4,99,861,00 8

Total49,13,018.00 Nil 1,49,13,018.00

Chief Executive Officer

SH-3 (Morigaon-Baropuiia) ,APDCL Morigaon Vr.No.42-49 did. 15/i1/16 2,38,98,929.00 Nil 2,38,98,929.00

Electrical circleChief Executive Officer.

SH-3 (Baropujia-Nagaon) APDCL. Nagaon Vr.No.50-57 dtd.15. 1.16 83,07,464.00 Nil 83.07,464.00 11

E le c tric a l u tility E le c tric a l c irc le 2 ,9 9 ,6 4 ,1 8 3 -0 0 N il

shifting SH-3 (Nagaon-Singimari-Naltoli) Chief Executive Officer Vr. No.03-04 ,99,64,183.00 Nil 2,99,64,183.00 10

wvalt pipeline Executive Engineer,PHEBshifting S1-3 (Marigaon-Baropujia) Moriga Division Vr,No.5 dated 03/09/13 98,85,900.00 Nil 98,85,900.00 49

ShitiExecutan iveiineHSH-3 (Baropujia-Nagaon) Executive Enginer,PE Vr.No.49 dated 07/02/14 56,20,000.00 Nil 56.20,000.00 44__________________Nagaon Division I ,0000

SH-22 (Gogamukh - Ghilanara) Executive Engineer,P-E Vr.No.6 dated 03/09/13 11,56,745.00 Nil 11,56745.00 49___________________________ hilamara Division

SH-42 (Ghilamara - Dhakuakhana) Executive EnginerPHIE Vr.No.88 dated 28/02/14 23,04,000.00 Nil 23,04,000.00 44___________________________ ihilanmara Division

SH-45 (Soibari - Itakhola - Excutive Engineer,PIlE Vr.No.50 dated 07/02/14 18,05,00000 UC5subrnitted for 2,14,000.00 44_________ BloMpam-sapekhati) Tezpur Division Ut5subited or0,1,00.0Total: 2,45,99,575.00 15,91,000.00 2,30,08,575.00

SH-31 (Jorhat-Morioni) DFO, Jorhat Division Vr.No.87 dated 28/02/14 7,38,001,00 UC submitted for Nil7,38,001.00

Tree cutting SH-32 (Barhola-Garonga) DFO, Golaghat Division Vr.No.86 dated 28/02/14 8,07,975.00 UC submitted for Nil -

SH-22 (Gogamukh - Ghilamara) DFO, Dhemaji Division Vr.No.41 dated 19/03/14 55,11,320.00 Nil 55,11,320.00 43SH-22 (Gogamukh - Ghilamara)SH-42 (Ghilamara - Dhakuakhana) DFO, Lakhimpur Division Vr.No.42 dated 19/03/14 24,00,760.00 Nil 24,00,760.00 43SH-45 (Soibari - itakhola - DFO, Sonitpur Division Vr.No.43 dated 19/03/14 2,83,386,00 UC submitted for NilBlo!pani-sapekhati) _______________________ 2,83,386,00

1 SH-3 (Morigan-Nagaon) DFO, Nagaon Division Vr.No.132 dated 31/03/14 48,56,700.00 Nil 48,56,700.00 43

Total: 1,45,98,142.00 18,29,362.00 1,27,68,780.00

Total (2013-14): 47,93,64,998 12,04,87,157 358877841

2014-15 Land SH-2 (Manash Bridge- Barpeta M. Deputy commissioner, Vr.No.42 dated 06/12/14 8,52,39,941.00 UC submitted for Rs 3,07,72,590 34acquiSLtion College) Barpela Vr.No.57 dated 25/03/15 + 39,97,905.00 58465256 31

Total: 8,92,37846.00 58465256 3,07,72,590

EAiPDti l SB2 nghgoguri-Abhayapuri- 1PptLGenengi g er Vr.No.82,83dated 12/12/14 14,40,57,344,00 UC submitted for Rs 13,61,29,897 34Electrical Circle47

Total: __________ _____________14,40,57,344.00 7927447 13,61,29,897SH-46 (Dudhnoi - Goalpara - Executive Engineer,PHE r 1,1384.00 Nil 1,1,0897 4Pancharatna) Goal ara Division Vr.No.13 dated 11/06/14 18,13,084.00 Nil 18,13,084.00 40

water pipeline SH-31 (Jorhat - Morioni) Executive Engineer,P-E Vr.No.8 dated 94/14 34,79,938.00 Nil 34,79,938.00 42shifting ________________Jorhat Division VN. ae //43,9980 i 47,3.04

SH-22 (Gogamukli - Ghilamara) Executive Engineer,PHE Vr.No. 14 dated 11/06/14 9,48,474.00 Nil 9,48,474.00 40___________________________ hilamara Division

Total: 62,41,496.00 Nil 62,41,496.005Har46 (Dudhnoi - Goalpara - DFO, Goalpara Division Vr.No. 17 dated 17/04/14 15,68,520,00 Nil 15,68,520.00 42Pancharatna) _____________ ___________

Tree cutting SH-3 ( Nagaon-Singmari) DEO, Nagaon Division Vr,No. 17 dated 07/03/15. __ SH-3 ( Singmari-Naltoli) 58,29,300,00 Nil 58,29,300.00 31

Total: 73,97,820.00 Nil 73,97,820.00

Total (2014-15): 24,69,34,506 66392703 180541803

2015-16 Land Nilacquisition

Chief Executive OfficerSH-3(Baropujia-- Nagaon) ,APDCL, Vr. No. 15-24 dtd 02/07/15 4,12,43,550.00 Nil 4,12,43,550.00 27