Slack in planning, eager to compromise, uncaring about delivery

CAG AUDITS IMPLEMENTATION OF NEC-FUNDED PROJECTS
GANGTOK: In February 2007, the North East Council approved Rs. 4.26 crore for the “design, supply, erection, testing and commissioning” of 2x2.5 MVA 3.3/66 KV switchyard-cum-substation at Rongli hydel project along with the construction of a 66 KV line bay at Rongli. For those confused with the technical terms, the fund was sanctioned to transport the power generated by the 2x2.5 MW Rongli hydel project. The funds were tied to the stipulation that the work be completed within 10 months of the first instalment [of Rs. 90 lakh transferred in Feb 2007] being received.
This is what happened-

The work was awarded the same month on turnkey basis to the lowest bidder who offered to complete the work at 27 per cent above the estimate projected by the Department and the work was already now for Rs. 5.44 crore. When the first instalment was released to the contractor in May 2007, he was stipulated to complete the work within 6 months. The work order also stipulated that 25 of the total value of the work would be released after completion of the project and 5% after six months of completion and handing over. The Department was to thus, withhold 30% of the dues until the work was completed to their satisfaction.
The project was to be completed by January 2008, but had still not been completed when the Audit team checked sometime last year. This, because, hold your breath, the Department could not provide the drawings to the contractor. What the Department did do, was release Rs. 58.36lakh as mobilisation advance [against government norms] and then clear the entire amount of Rs. 4.34 crore without having deducted the 30% they were required to as per the work order. It is unclear what the current status of the work is.
The Performance Review which includes these details of bungling by individual departments, it may be recalled is of the Development Planning, Economic Reforms and North Eastern Council Affairs Department and the North East Council funded projects which came through it to Sikkim since 2003-04.
In the CAG Report which is essentially about financial irregularities and on how funds are unwisely spent, the Forest Department stands out as an exception in revealing that after having worked rather hard to secure funds, it does not use them.
In January 2002, the Department prepared a Rs. 4.01 crore project to cover 4,250 hectares with bamboo cultivation in Sikkim during the 10th Plan period from 2003-04 to 2006-07. In September 2003 it revised the proposal and pegged the funding requirement at Rs. 7.31 crore on the ground the labour rates had gone up. A year later, in August 2004, the proposal was scaled down to the Bata-figure of Rs. 4.99 crore when the Department was informed that projects above Rs. 5 crore need clearance from the Planning Commission, Rs. 4.99 crore, the NEC could clear itself. This was in retrospect because in principle approval for Rs. 4.99 crore was granted in March 2004 and Rs. 63.40 lakh sanctioned for the first phase work for coverage of 530 hectares with bamboo cultivation.
The Department then fell slack and when the 10th Plan period ended in February 2007, it had utilised only the first instalment received in March 2004; Rs. 4.36 crore of the Rs. 4.99 crore approved for the State remained unsourced and the 3,000 hectares that this money would have covered with bamboo cultivation remained undeveloped.
Gangtokians are paying attention to their jhoras nowadays with even GMC councillors overseeing jhora cleaning works to ensure that these are not clogged when the monsoons arrive. This attention is well directed because these storm water drains are already undermined by some dodgy civil works as the following will illustrate.
The Irrigation & Flood Control Department got a Rs. 4.68 crore “Storm Water Drainage System of Gangtok” approved for NEC funding in August 2004. Ten jhora-training works were to be completed by August 2006. The funds secured, the Department took a year to award the works [between August to December 2005] to different contractors are 15 per cent above. The completion dates were also pushed back to between Jan to June 2007. Only 6 works had been completed by June 2010 when the Audit team inspected the site, and of these, the one at Lumsey [completed only in Feb 2010] damaged by the June 2010 deluge, its first call to drain storm water.
Disturbingly, scrutiny of the store records for cement received under NEC fund revealed that 15,334 bags of cement were received and 7,780 bags issued. The store records however showed ‘nil’ against stock in balance – nearly half the stock was not accounted for, suggesting obvious pilferage.
The Roads & Bridges Department has dipped into NEC funding to commission bridges which remain works in progress three years past their scheduled completion and has even planted on in North Sikkim at a place with no road connectivity [detailed in a previous edition].
If the residents of Kaluk and Rinchenpong are still left to their own devices to source water, they can blame the Water Security and Public Health Engineering Department for having wasted Rs. 3.71 crore received from the NEC for “Augmentation of Kaluk-Rinchenpong Water Supply Scheme”. The project was designed to serve the projected population of the area for 25 years. Water was to be sourced from Hee Khola 17 kms away. The project included a filteration component as well, but when completed in June 2007, it could supply only untreated raw water, that too only for a few weeks. The supply lines were damaged and the villages treated the most expensive water supply which ran only for a few weeks after have consumed Rs. 3.71 crore.
As mentioned earlier, the Audit performance review is of the DPERNECAD although the cases cited are of individual departments. What the CAG Report discovered is that the DPERNECAD, despite being the nodal department through which projects are forwarded for approval by NEC, it is kept in the dark about release of funds by NEC through the Finance Department to the implementing departments. It only follows then that it cannot undertake effective monitoring. It has also shied away from field inspections on the excuse of shortage of staff and has never bothered to carry out an impact study about the status of implementation.
The Audit has recommended that the DPERNECAD now insist on survey and investigation while scrutinising proposals and actively involve itself in the planning of schemes instead of remaining merely the transmitting agency.