Beyond the news

Work was launched on it in February 1995 and its very start was jinxed. It is a matter of record that the operational section of the Navy had objected to the site of the dock since it affected the movements of warships entering the breakwaters. A presentation to the effect was also made to the Chief of Naval Staff. The objections were overruled.

A few years after that, in 1999, the project attracted the adverse attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). According to CAG, it was as early as in 1985, the Ministry sanctioned construction of a new dry dock at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai at a cost of Rs 51 crore. The project was slated for completion by December 1997. The Ministry revised the sanction in the following year and approval was granted for a larger size dry dock in July 1986 at a cost of Rs 68 crore. The Ministry engaged consultants in October 1988 for preparation of detailed project report at Rs 92.11 lakh, which was valid up to April 1993.

The CAG came heavily down on Naval Headquarters (NHQ) and the Defence Ministry noting that the “inconsistent approach and indecisiveness of Naval HQ and the Ministry resulted in delay in the construction of the dockyard besides escalation in the cost by Rs 55 crore with reference to the estimated cost of Rs 68 crore.”

Apparently, NHQ suddenly decided that the dock ought to be shifted to Karwar. The proposal was sent to the Ministry in May 1991. It took two years for the Ministry to turn down the proposal by which time the consultancy agreement came to an end and an extension had to be granted up to April 1997 at an additional cost of Rs 1.50 crore “besides revision of the cost of the project to Rs. 123.54 crore.”

The CAG also notes that there were irregularities in the execution of the contract, which was allotted to a new contractor, Messrs Continental Construction Ltd., a Delhi-based firm, in February 1995. The CAG does not name the firm, but after the collapse, the firm’s name was given out by the Navy itself.

The CAG says that even till June 1998, the “physical progress of civil works” was only 30.5 per cent. The contractor had slowed down the execution of works due to dispute regarding payment of labour rates. This says the CAG report, led to the period of consultancy being revalidated at a cost of Rs 1.74 crore up to April 2000.

The CAG then points out how unwarranted decisions of the DGNP led to the contractor benefiting to the tune of Rs 63.81 lakh.

One of the items of work to be executed under the contract was pre-casting and laying of 52000 cubic metre concrete blocks. The cement for this purpose was supposed to be provided by the DGNP and the cost recovered from the contractor at the rate of Rs 95.01 per bag of 50 kg from the quoted contractor’s rate of Rs 2898.50 per cu metre.

The CAG notes that the “contract did not cater for free issue of excess cement to the contractor for use in concrete mix to achieve required strength and workability.” Yet, the contractor started claiming a refund from October 1996 onwards, “on account of difference in cost of minimum cement to be used in the blocks of concrete/design concrete mix as per the contract and actual quantity of cement used to achieve targeted strength.”

The DGNP refunded Rs 63.81 lakh for 67162 bags of cement consumed in excess between January 1996 and March 1999. This was not right as, the CAG observed, the contract had stipulated the minimum cement taking into consideration the required strenth and workability and hence there was no need for using extra cement. In any case there was no provision for free issue of cement in the contract,” the report said.

The dock was supposed to be handed over to the Naval Dockyard within a couple of months or so. Sources say the entire construction of the work was monitored stage by stage by an expert panel of the DGNP. Sources said that six such line inspections were done and work approved by the DGNP. Each approved line inspection meant the contractor was to be paid the amount agreed upon. The amount shelled out by the government till the time of the collapse was in excess of Rs 200 crore.

Not a single person has been booked so far for the collapse. A high level inquiry is on, but there is general scepticism with regard to the efficacy of the outcome.

Experts say that the dock cannot be economically rebuilt on the same site. The task of dredging out the huge prefabricated concrete blocks itself would cost upward of Rs 50 cr. Moreover, the foundation itself will have to be replaced.

Building a new dock at an alternative site would mean another six years of effort. Against the estimated loss Rs 200 crore, the new dock would cost more than Rs 500 crore taking into account cost escalations and added values. Experts say that to purchase a floating dry dock would be a better alternative.