Page 1 of 5
16- Weeks Foundation Training Programme for Deputy Managers (T) of
NHAI (7th Batch) at IAHE, Noida
Assignment - 2
While final inspection before issuing COD, you have noticed that final Plan & profile
submitted by the consultant is not matching with the formation levels mentioned,
what corrective measures required as an authority?
Submitted by: Akshey Gupta, Deputy Manager (T) -NHAI
Introduction: During the final inspection before issuing the Commercial
operation date (COD) for a road project, it is observed that the final Plan &
Profile submitted by the consultant does not match the formation levels actually
achieved on site.
1. Immediate Actions & Documentation
Upon identifying the discrepancy, the following immediate actions are crucial:
Halt COD Process: Immediately stop the process of issuing the
Commercial operation date (COD). The project cannot be formally closed
with such a fundamental discrepancy.
Detailed Documentation:
o Photographic/Video Evidence: Capture comprehensive
photographic and video evidence of the discrepancies at various
chainages where the formation levels do not match the submitted
drawings.
o Joint Measurement: Conduct joint measurements with the
consultant/contractor on-site to accurately quantify the differences
between the "as-built" formation levels and the "designed" levels
shown in the submitted Plan & Profile. This should involve using
calibrated surveying equipment (Total Station, DGPS, Auto Level).
o Discrepancy Report: Prepare a formal "Discrepancy Report"
detailing:
Date and time of observation.
Specific chainages/locations where discrepancies are noted.
Measured "as-built" levels vs. "designed" levels.
Nature and magnitude of the discrepancies (e.g., higher/lower
than specified, variations in cross-fall).
Signatures of all parties present during the joint measurement
(Authority representative, Consultant representative,
Contractor representative).
o Review of Previous Submissions: Scrutinize all previous interim
payment certificates, progress reports, and "as-built" submissions (if
any were made during construction) to identify when this divergence
might have occurred or if there were any earlier indications.
Page 2 of 5
2. Analysis of the Discrepancy (Root Cause Analysis)
Understanding why the discrepancy occurred is vital for determining appropriate
corrective measures. This involves:
Review of Approved Drawings: Compare the submitted "final" Plan &
Profile with the originally approved construction drawings. Sometimes,
the "final" submission itself might have errors or unauthorized revisions.
Construction Records Review:
o Daily Progress Reports: Check daily progress reports and site
diaries for any entries related to difficulties in achieving formation
levels, unforeseen ground conditions, or design modifications.
o Quality Control (QC) Records: Examine the contractor's and
consultant's QC records for earthwork, including compaction tests,
level checks, and survey reports during the formation stage. Were
these records properly maintained and verified?
Communication with Consultant/Contractor: Convene an urgent
meeting with the consultant and contractor to seek their explanation for the
discrepancy. They must provide a detailed justification and propose a
rectification plan.
3. Relevant IRC Codal Provisions and MoRTH Guidelines
The corrective measures must align with the prevailing standards. Key documents
to refer to include:
Indian Road Congress (IRC) Codes:
o IRC: SP: 104-2014 - Guidelines for Control of Quality for Road
Works (Fourth Revision): This code provides detailed guidelines
on quality assurance and quality control, emphasizing accurate
measurements and adherence to design specifications at every stage.
o IRC: 37-2018 - Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements
(Fourth Revision): While primarily for design, it underscores the
importance of achieving specified formation levels as they directly
impact pavement thickness, drainage, and structural integrity.
o Relevant Specific IRC Codes for Earthwork: Depending on the
nature of the earthwork (e.g., embankment, cutting), specific IRC
codes might detail tolerances for formation levels.
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) Specifications:
o Specifications for Road and Bridge Works (Latest Revision):
This is the bible for road construction in India. Section 300
(Earthwork, Subgrade and Formation) and Section 100 (General
Requirements) are particularly relevant.
Clause 109 (Measurement and Payment): Deals with how
quantities are measured and paid for, often linking payment to
conformity with drawings and specifications.
Clause 102 (Site Investigation and Interpretation):
Highlights the consultant's responsibility to conduct thorough
Page 3 of 5
investigations and the contractor's responsibility to
understand site conditions.
Clause 105 (Working Drawings): Specifies that working
drawings should be based on approved designs and that any
deviations require prior approval.
Specific Clauses within Section 300: Will detail the
permissible tolerances for formation levels, gradient, and
cross-fall. Any deviation beyond these tolerances constitutes
non-conformity.
Contract Agreement: The specific clauses within the signed contract
agreement between the Authority, Consultant, and Contractor are
paramount. These will detail responsibilities, quality assurance procedures,
dispute resolution mechanisms, and penalties for non-compliance.
4. Corrective Measures & Action Plan
Based on the analysis and in adherence to IRC/MoRTH, the following corrective
measures should be implemented:
a) Minor Discrepancies (Within Permissible Tolerances but requiring
documentation/adjustment):
Re-submission of Revised Drawings: If the "as-built" levels are within
the acceptable tolerances specified by MoRTH/IRC but differ from the
submitted final Plan & Profile, the consultant must be instructed to revise
and re-submit the "as-built" drawings reflecting the actual achieved levels.
This ensures that the final documentation accurately represents the
constructed asset.
Justification for Variation: The consultant must provide a formal
justification for any minor variations from the original design, even if
within tolerances, explaining the reasons (e.g., minor adjustments during
construction, optimization).
No Financial Penalty (if within tolerance): If the deviations are minor
and within acceptable tolerances as per specifications, and do not
compromise performance, a financial penalty might not be imposed for the
level variation itself. However, the cost of re-submission of drawings will
typically be borne by the consultant.
b) Major Discrepancies (Beyond Permissible Tolerances & Affecting
Performance/Design):
Rectification Orders: This is the most critical step. The Authority must
issue a formal "Rectification Order" to the contractor, with a copy to the
consultant, clearly stating the identified non-conformity and the required
corrective actions.
Corrective Works (Rework): The contractor will be mandated to carry
out corrective works at their own cost and risk to bring the formation levels
in line with the approved design or within acceptable tolerances. This could
involve:
Page 4 of 5
o Cutting: If the formation is too high, cutting and removing excess
material, re-compacting, and re-profiling.
o Filling: If the formation is too low, adding approved fill material in
layers, compacting it to the required density, and re-profiling.
o Redo Drainage: Inaccurate formation levels often lead to improper
drainage. Corrective measures may involve re-establishing correct
cross-slopes and longitudinal gradients to ensure effective water
runoff.
Impact on Other Layers: Assess the impact of incorrect formation levels
on subsequent layers (sub-base, base, wearing course). If these layers have
already been laid on an incorrect formation, they might also need to be
removed and relaid after the formation is corrected, all at the contractor's
expense.
Third-Party Verification: The Authority may engage an independent
third-party surveyor or quality auditor to verify the rectification works
carried out by the contractor.
Penalties/Liquidated Damages:
o Financial Penalties: As per the contract agreement, penalties may
be levied on the contractor for non-compliance, rework costs, and
delays caused by the rectification.
o Consultant's Liability: The consultant, having submitted incorrect
drawings or failed in their supervision duties, may also be subject to
penalties or professional liability clauses as per their contract. Their
payment for the final design and supervision might be withheld or
reduced until the issue is resolved.
o Withholding of Payment: Payments due to the contractor may be
withheld until the rectification works are satisfactorily completed
and re-verified.
o Extension of Time (EOT) - Not Applicable for Contractor:
Generally, an EOT will not be granted to the contractor for delays
caused by their own non-compliance and rectification work.
Revised Final Plan & Profile: Once the rectification is complete and
verified, the consultant must submit a new, accurate final Plan & Profile
reflecting the "as-built" and corrected formation levels. This revised
document will then form the basis for COD.
Performance Guarantees: Review whether any performance guarantees
or bonds can be invoked to cover the costs of rectification if the contractor
fails to comply.
5. Future Preventative Measures
To prevent recurrence of such issues in future projects:
Enhanced Supervision: Strengthen the Authority's supervision team on
site, particularly during critical stages like earthwork and formation.
Stricter QC/QA Protocols: Ensure rigorous implementation of Quality
Page 5 of 5
Control and Quality Assurance protocols by both the contractor and the
consultant throughout the project lifecycle, with clear hold points for
verification.
Regular As-Built Surveys: Mandate more frequent "as-built" surveys and
submissions at various stages of construction, not just at the end, to catch
discrepancies earlier.
Digitalization and BIM: Promote the use of advanced technologies like
Building Information Modeling (BIM) and digital terrain models for better
visualization, clash detection, and accurate representation of "as-built"
conditions.
Training and Awareness: Conduct training sessions for consultants,
contractors, and Authority personnel on the critical importance of adhering
to design specifications and accurate documentation.
Conclusion:
The discrepancy between the final Plan & Profile and the actual formation levels
is a serious issue that undermines the integrity and longevity of the road
infrastructure. As an Authority, a prompt, methodical, and firm approach is
required. By meticulously documenting the issues, conducting a thorough root
cause analysis, strictly enforcing IRC codal provisions and MoRTH guidelines,
and demanding comprehensive rectification from the responsible parties, the
Authority can ensure that the project is ultimately completed to the required
standards, safeguarding public funds and ensuring the quality and safety of the
infrastructure. Failure to address such discrepancies decisively would set a
dangerous precedent and compromise the quality of future projects.