The construction of a temporary dome atop the new Assembly building on Anna Salai here just in time for the March 2010 inauguration of the complex has come in for sharp criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
The government auditor termed “wasteful,” the expenditure of Rs.3.28 crore incurred on putting up the temporary structure owing to delay in having the permanent structural dome in place.
The CAG's observations are contained in its report for the year ending with March 2010 tabled in the Assembly on Wednesday. The dome's design was completed by the consultant in August 2009 and the construction work entrusted to another contractor in November 2009 for Rs.17.80 crore. Meanwhile, the [Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam] government fixed March 13, 2010 as the date for inauguration of the building.
Lapses galore
“The work of construction of the temporary dome was entrusted to a firm without calling for tenders at a cost of Rs.3.28 crore and got done. The prototype dome had to be provided due to the failure of the department (Public Works –Buildings) in providing the permanent dome within the scheduled time,” the CAG report stated. As the design and sanctioned estimate did not provide for any temporary dome, the expenditure proved wasteful.
The department's reply in September 2010 that the permanent dome could not be constructed without studying and testing the wind effect and shape on such a huge structure was dismissed by the auditor as “not acceptable,” as the consultant, while furnishing the design, had not suggested any such prototype. Moreover, the decision to construct the temporary dome was taken in February 2010, whereas the permanent dome work was entrusted to the contractor in November 2009 itself.
Going into some technical details of the building's construction, the CAG found that there was overpayment to the contractor to the tune of Rs.2.46 crore by adding to the actual length of piles used in the construction while measuring them for computing the payment.
The CAG also found violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act (TTTA), 2000, in procuring architectural consultancy services.
While the Act provided for inviting technical and financial bids for all works, “the notice inviting tenders for prequalification of architects, instead of calling for financial bids, stated that the selected architects would be paid as per the scale of charges prescribed by the Council of Architecture (COA)”.
Further, “extension of services of the consultant for Block B and other buildings without inviting open tenders or architectural competition was in violation of the provisions of TTTA.”
The CAG also noted that an advance of Rs.3.37 crore by way of part payment against material supplied in December 2009 had been made. Out of this, Rs.76.06 lakh remained unadjusted as of June 2010. “The payment of advance in violation of the agreement provision resulted in unauthorised financial benefit of Rs.10.85 lakh to the contractor.”
