CAG exposes China chink in new bridge

April 1, 2013

Warning: Undefined variable $thumb in /var/www/web/indiantollways.com/wp-content/plugins/digg-digg/include/dd-class.php on line 887

CAG exposes China chink in new bridge

By Mail Today Bureau in New Delhi

THE Comptroller and Auditor General ( CAG) has questioned the use of pre- fabricated steel frames made in China for the construction of the eagerlyawaited Signature Bridge across Yamuna in Wazirabad.

The bridge, which is now likely to be completed by the end of 2014, is being designed on the lines of the famous London Bridge.

In a draft report, the CAG has objected to the procurement of steel frames from China in violation of contractual norms and said the Delhi government does not have any mechanism to check quality of material and fabrication work being done in China.

The CAG report mentioned that as per the contractual agreement, fabrication and assembling of steel frames and pylons were to be carried out in three selected fabrication workshops or in similar steel assembling factories with approval from the engineer- in- charge of the project, but the contractor violated the norms in procuring them from the neighbouring country.

The CAG has also slammed Delhi government for escalation of the cost of the project by ` 672 crore against the initial estimate. The government had estimated the project cost as ` 459 crore in March 2006, which went up to ` 1,131 crore in February 2010 when the project was finalised.

The Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation ( DTTDC) is overseeing the project. CAG says DTTDC could not ensure quality of the material being made in China for the bridge which will link National Highway 1 on Yamuna with Wazirabad on the eastern side.

In its reply, the DTTDC said the CAG inferred it wrongly that only Indian workshops were to be engaged for fabrication of steel component and informed the auditor that the contractor had hired a firm to ascertain the quality of material imported from China.

However, the CAG rejected DTTDC’s explanation and said assessment of quality of the material by a firm appointed by the contractor cannot be taken seriously.

( With inputs from PTI)