Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EPC Contracting
Legal, Taxation, Commercials and Risks
12th - 13th August, 2013 Le Mridien, Chennai
ORGANISED BY
www.constructionsphere.com
SUPPORTED BY
www.solarquarter.com
www.windinsider.com
www.powerbusinessweek.com
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
PROJECTS
Few projects being undertaken by L&T-TIIC in India on EPC model are Four Laning of AmravatiJalgaon (275 km)
Four Laning of Jalgaon-Maharashtra/Gujarat Border (208 km) Six Laning of SamakhialiGandhidham (56 km) Six Laning of KandlaMundra (71 km) Four Laning Beawar-PaliPindwara (244 km) Six Laning of DelhiAgra (180 km) Six Laning of Krishnagiri Walajahpet (148 km) Four Laning of Maharashtra Karnataka Border Sangareddy (145 km) Six Laning Hosur Krishnagiri (60 km) KMDAs Project for construction of ROBs and Flyovers Mumbai Mono Rail Project WDFCC CTP1 & CTP 2 - REWARI-IQBALGARH (626 km)
4
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
ISSUE-1
Non-availability of Land:
Schedule 100% land to be handed over in 90 days
of commencement Actual handing over 50% Site at commencement (full of hindrances) and balance 50% (bypasses) only after completion of original contract duration Result 125 % time overruns with huge costs 33 months project completed in 74 months No compensation matter in arbitration
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
ISSUE - 2
GAD Approvals & Utility Shifting :
of 3-6 Months Inordinate delay in approval from multiple agencies for identification, diversion/shifting of both chartered/unchartered utilities In case of an urban elevated corridor project, underground utility is a major bottleneck for project execution. Most of the cases, it leads to change in alignment and/or re-design of foundations, leading to total variation in methodology of works, time & cost implication
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
10
Manuals, IRC Codes and Tech Specs. Inconsistency in the clauses of 2/4/6 Laning Manual. Indecisiveness in the approval of Change in Scope.
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
11
ISSUE -4
Poor Drafting of RFP /DPR
Manual, defines the requirement and type of crash barrier Single beam or double beam under various criteria .
CONTD
.
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
12
ISSUE -4 CONTD..
Poor Drafting of RFP /DPR
Interpretation of Indicative cross section
Hume Pipe: Schedule B shows rectangular drain in Cross Section SP 84 allows to use Covered or Piped drain.
Apart from economy, the ease of construction of piped drain will actually speed up the construction process.
Contd.
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
13
Distance, Speed, Vertical and Horizontal Gradient. Further Embankment height is a function of HFL/Ground water table.
In most of the recent EPC bids, it is observed that the
NHAIs given P&P in schedule B is non-conforming to the requirements of 2/4/6 Laning manual in terms of sight distance criteria, embankment criteria.
CONTD
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
14
RE Wall and Reconstruction Length RE Wall length increased by 40% due to wrong P&P and length of RE wall mentioned in Schedule B . Reconstruction Length increased due to increase in RE Wall length Embankment Qty Incorrect interpretation of Clause 4.2.2 of SP 84 criteria of fixing the Height of embankment, the quantities of earthworks dramatically by 20% .
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
15
Issue 6 : Contradictions in Schedules, Ambiguities in IRC and Manuals. Height of embankment Issue: SP 84 Clause 4.2.2 : Criteria states bottom of Subgrade shall be 1 mtr above HFL/ High Water Table. IRC 36 states that bottom of Subgrade shall be 0.6 mt to 1.0 mtr above HFL or Ground Level.
CONTD
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
16
Issue 6 : Contradictions in Schedules, Ambiguities in IRC and Manuals. CONTD... Ambiguity within the provisions of schedules
Schedule says Change of Span arrangement is not
treated as change in scope . In the similar Schedule, as a footnote below Table, it is mentioned that Increase of Span Arrangement shall not be treated as change in scope.
Contd.
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
17
mtr above HFL. Two laning manual says bottom of Subgrade is 0.6 mtr above Ground Level.
II ) Clause 5.9.4 and 5.9.7
pavement shall be mentioned in Schedule B for reasons attributable due to poor subgrade / grossly deteriorated Condition . Two laning manual is silent if the reconstruction of pavement is required for reasons other than the failure of subgrade .
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
18
Piped drains.
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
19
approved / certified by Authority. The Change of Scope order pending with NHAI for operational projects are more than 10% of TPC.
Change of Scope is not getting approved causing the delay in project completion.
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
20
THANK YOU
R O A D S | R U N W AY S | E L E V A T E D C O R R I D O R | R A I L W A Y S
21