cag's cwg audit report - chapter - 16 (2011)

8/6/2019 CAG's CWG Audit Report - Chapter - 16 (2011)

1/16

c : : :wl-e ..::I:uCommon Issues inVenue Development

There were considerable variations in the performance of design consultants engaged bydifferent venue owners/ implementing agencies. We noticed that where the role of theforeign partner in the design consultants consortia (with relevant experience in design ofsports stadia) was less, there were significant deficiencies in performance.Despite a multi-level quality assurance mechanism, most of the implementing agencieshad engaged Third Party Inspection/ Quality Assurance (TPIQA) Agencies for larger works.It is important that the role and responsibilities of the TPIQA Agencies and theimplementing agencies should be clearly demarcated. While the TPIQA Agencies shouldbe held accountable in its own right for poor quality of execution of the work, theimplementing agencies should continue to be the final point of responsibility and shouldclosely monitor the work of the TPIQAAgencies.Different implementation agencies followed different processes for award of majorconstruction works. CPWD awarded most of the venue development contracts on item-rate basis, which is the preferred method according to the CPWD Manual since it is bestsuited to deviations from the original scope of work. However, two major works (SPM androofing of JNS)I which were awarded on lumpsum basis. Large number of extra/substituted items and deviations in the works awarded on lump sum basis tended tochange the very essence of the contract. PWDI GNCTD awarded most of its works onpercentage rate tenders. This method of tendering is recommended/ suitable, only whenthe major portion of work is on account of items included in the Delhi Schedule of Rates(DSR)Iwhich was not the case in most of the venue development works.Deficiencies in the process for award of major works related mainly to pre-qualificationand eligibility. The pre-qualification of bidders separately for each venue not onlyintroduced arbitrariness and inconsistencies in eligibility criteria I but also delayed theprocess of award and execution. Considering the similar nature of works for sports venues,a common pre-qualification process should have been conducted.There were delays relating to venue development at all stages - practically no progressbeing made till mid 2006; thereafter planning delays on account of late preparation/approval of venue briefs, return briefs, and concept designs; delays in tendering andcontract award; and delays in works execution and handover.We found several deficiencies in the process of ''justification II for awarding works atsubstantially higher amounts than the cost estimates. There were also numerousinstances of deviations (quantity deviations, extra items, and substituted items) from theoriginal scope of work, with adverse implications in terms of increased cost and delays.

Performance Audit Report on XIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010) 237


2/16

Chapter 16 - Common Issues in Venue Development

These are attributable to deficiencies in performance of the design consultants, the workscontractors, and the implementing oqencles, as well as subsequent changes in detailedvenue specifications at the instance of the OC/ International Sporting Federations.Wefound numerous instances of delays in achieving the milestones listed in the contract,for which adequate penal action (levy of compensation/ Liquidated Damages) was nottaken, hindrance registers were poorly maintained, and Extensions of Time (EOTs) notmanaged properly. Further, it is a matter of grave concern that despite the lapse of severalmonths since the conclusion of the Games, final payments are nowhere in sight for mostvenue development works. Also, in our opinion, the current clauses for compensation/ LDdo not provide adequate disincentives for delays in completion. For such projects, Gol mayconsider revised LD/ compensation clauses with higher disincentives, with an appropriatecost-versus-time trade-off.A key element of cost escalation is labour wage escalation. Wefound several deficienciesin the application of this escalation clause. In our opinion, although such payments are inthe nature of compensation, the payments are routinely made as per a specified formulaand there is no mechanism to verify that payment is made for labour actually engaged bythe contractor/ sub-contractor. In order to ensure that the benefit of increased minimumwages reaches the actual beneficiary Iwe recommend that such payments should be madeonly on production of proof of unskilled labour actually engagedl duly authenticated bythe Labour Welfare Department.

Another issue with regard to the venue development contracts is the reimbursement ofservice tax to the contractors. currentiy, such reimbursement is being made on the basis ofe-challan indicating only lump payments. In future, such reimbursement should be madeonly on the basis of a certification from the Chartered Accountant that the service taxclaimed for reimbursement has been paid specifically for the work covered under thecontract.We also found deficiencies in legacy planning and signing of MoUs with the venue owners.

238 Performance Audit Report on XIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010)


3/16

16.1 IntroductionFor hosting CWG-2010, 14 Competitionvenues and several training venues wereconstructed/upgraded to meet thestandards and specification for suchinternational events. The works wereundertaken under the guidance of differentconsultants by the implementing agencieswho further enaged contractors to executethem. Figure 16.1 is a schematicpresentation of the various agenciesengaged in venue development.

16.2 Design ConsultancyThere were considerable variations in theperformance of design consultants engagedby different venue owners/ implementingagencies. A key requirement for the designconsultants was experience in designing ofsimilar sports stadia'. Such experiencerequirements were usually met throughconsortia involving a foreign partner withsuch experience. We noticed that where therole of the foreign partner with relevantexperience was less, there were significantdeficiencies in the performance of designconsultancy services: Almost all the design consultancy

services relating to CPWD venues wereawarded to CES.The role of the foreignpartner (SBP),if any, was not verifiablefrom CPWD's records, although the feespayable to the foreign partner were 60per cent under the contract. In the caseof roof designing consultancy contractfor JNS, strangely SBP(the JV partner)was also engaged as the TPQIA. The

Especially when the implementing agencies had no suchexperience and the construction contractors were notrequired to specifically have experience in constructingsports venues.


services of CPWD's Central DesignOrganisation (CDO) were not utilised.(Refer paragraph 17.1 and 17.2 of thereport);

In the case of the Games Village practicevenues, a consortium of Suresh GoelAssociates with Decathlon was awardedthe contract; however, Decathlonwithdrew from the consortium due toproblems with the Indian partner.{Referparagraph 20.6. of the report); and

Likewise, Architects Bureau in consortiawith Group GSAwas appointed by DDAfor refurbishment of existing venues atSiri Fort Sports Complex and YamunaSports Complex (Peddle ThorpArchitects having been appointed fordesigning of new facilities). There wereseveral deficiencies in the performanceof Architects Bureau.{Refer paragraph18.2.2 of the report).

16.3 Third Party Inspection/Quality Assurance Agency

Third Party Inspection/ Quality Assurance(TPIQA) Agency are engaged to provide anindependent assessment, at various stagesof the construction. The scope of work ofTPIQA included: Assessment of the quality of the work

being executed with regard to thematerial and workmanship as per thestipulated specifications;

review the quality assurance plansubmitted by the contractor inconsultation with the client;

advise the department on quality checkof various materials being used, as wellas that of the finished works.



4/16


5/16

the lump sum contract. (refer paragraph17.6.1.1,17.6.1.2 & 17.7.1.1 of thisreport)

PWD, GNCTD awarded most of its workson percentage rate tenders. Under thismethod, the bidding contractors quote asingle percentage rate above or belowthe cost estimate for the project.Consequently, errors/ calculations inindividual items of the cost estimatecannot be factored into consideration atthe time of bidding. According to theCPWD manual, this method of tenderingis acceptable only when the majorportion of the work is on account ofitems included in the Delhi Schedule ofRates (DSR).Considering that many ofthe items associated with developmentof sports venues were not listed in theDSR,adoption of this method was notdesirable. (refer paragraph 19.3.1.4 ofthis report)

Deficiencies in the process for award ofmajor works mainly related to pre-qualification and eligibility: In the case of Major Dhyan Chand

Hockey Stadium, Unity Infra becameeligible only through relaxation of pre-qualification criteria. (refer paragraph17.9.2 of this report)

In the case of Indira GandhiStadium(indoor cycling velodrome), JMCIndia was considered eligible on accountof financial position only throughconsideration of a shortened accountingperiod of six months with profits (whilesubstantial losses were incurred duringthe preceding extended 18 monthaccounting period). Further, unduefavours were shown in selection ofSwadeshi Construction Co. for many

Chapter 16 -Common Issuesin Venue Development

works. (refer paragraph 17.8.2.1 and17.8.4.1 of this report)

The main work for the Games Villagepractice venues was awarded toSportina Payce, which was ineligible atthe time of bidding. (refer paragraph20.6.4 of this report)

The main work of construction of ShivajiStadium was awarded to China RailwayShisiju Group Corporation (whoseeligibility is open to question) which, inturn, employed a sub-contractor,Simplex Projects Ltd. Incidentally, thisstadium is still not complete. (referparagraph 19.2.2.5 of this report)

The main work in respect of TalkatoraIndoor Stadium was awarded on thebasis of a single financial bid to SimplexProjects Pvt. Ltd. (refer paragraph19.2.3.1 of this report)

The pre-qualification of bidders separatelyfor each venue not only introducedarbitrariness and inconsistencies betweenthe eligibility criteria adopted by differentimplementing agencies (and theirexecuting divisions), but also delayed theprocess of award and execution of thesecontracts. In our opinion, considering thesimilar nature of works for sports venues(based on the venue briefs prepared by~C's consultant, EKS),a common pre-qualification process (cutting across allimplementing agencies and venues)should have been conducted, which wouldhave minimized such issues.



6/16


16.5 DelaysThere were delays relating to venuedevelopment at all stages: Planning delays - As already discussed in

Chapter 5, till mid-2006, there waspractically no progress made onplanning. While the sporting disciplinesand the competitive venues wereapproved in January 2006, no majorprogress could be made till theappointment of EKSasGC's consultant,which was approved in November 2006.Thereafter, time was lost on account ofdelayed preparation of venue briefs by~C, submission of return briefs andconcept designs by the implementingagencies, and final approval by the DC;this was compounded by delays inapplying for, and receiving clearancesfrom various statutory agencies. Annexe16.1 indicates the delays at the planningstage;

Delays in tendering and contract award;and

Delays in works execution and handover.

16.6 Contract Management andExecution

16.6.1 Cost Estimationin most cases, the costs at which workswere finally awarded were substantiallyhigher than the estimated costs'. Theawards were then "justified" within a band

In one case i.e. Weightlifting Auditorium in JNS, the civilworks component of the technical estimates wereinexplicably prepared in January 2008 on the basis ofDSR2002 (without indexing it to increase in costs)though the revised DSR 2007 was notified in December2007.

of 10 per cent through calculation ofjustified costs (based on market assessmentof the majority of items) post- financial bidopening. We found several deficiencies inthe process of justification.We recognise that the only alternative tothe justification process - viz. re-tendering-was not feasible in the vast majority ofcases, due to the limited time available forcompletion of the venues in time for theGames. However, in addition to castingdoubts on the reliability of cost estimation,not knowing the precise cost to beultimately borne by the public exchequer isalso a highly undesirable situation. This alsoputs the Government in a weak negotiatingposition vis-a-vis potential bidders.

16.6.2 Changes in Scope of Workin most of the works, there were numerousdeviations from the original scope of work,with adverse implications in terms ofincreased cost and delays. in our opinion,these are attributable to multiple factors: the failures of the design consultants, deficiencies in performance of the works

contractors; failure of the implementing agencies to

properly supervise and monitor theprogress of work; and subsequent changes in detailed venue

specifications at the instance of the OC/international Sporting Federations.

These changes in the scope of work ofawarded contracts, fell into threecategories: Deviations - representing increases/

decreases in quantity for items alreadyincluded in the contract;



7/16

Extra items - for items of work whichare completely new and in addition tothe items contained in the contract; and

Substituted items - where an item istaken up in partial modification or in lieuof items of work in the contract.

The financial implication of these changes iscomplicated by the differences between thecurrent market rates and the item-wiserates stipulated in the contract. The rate ofextra items will be worked out at marketrates prevailing at the time ofcommencement of execution of theseitems. However, for substituted items, theagreement rate of the original item will beadjusted for the difference in market ratesof original and substituted items. In a fewinstances, we noticed treatment of items as"extra" items where there was a risingmarket trend, and substituted items wherethere was a declining market trend. Boththese scenarios tended to be to thefinancial benefit of the contractors. Casestudy 16.1 illustrates the variation inamounts payable by treating substituteditems as extra items.

Case Study: 16.1Overpayment by irregularly treating thesubstituted items of works as extraitemsWe noted that undue financial favourswere extended to the contractor throughirregularly treating items of work in theagreement as 'extra items' instead of'substituted items'.In Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Rangeagreement, items of integral flood flightwere partially modified but instead ofderiving rates as above, CPWD paidmarket rates treating the item as extra


The details of extra items, substituted itemsand deviated items in different works, alongwith our remarks, is given at Annexe 16.2.

item resulting in overpayment of Rs.0.31crore.In SPM treating the item viz. 'toughenedglass' as extra item instead of substituteditem CPWD justified the rate of Rs.15,955 per sqm in lieu of the rate of Rs.13,744.45 per sqm already sanctioned assubstituted item, with an additionalfinancial implication of Rs. 2.16 crore. Theextra payment was justified on groundsof a decision that for lump sum contractusual substitution of items cannot beoperated upon on the basis of variationrates and therefore such items would betreated as new item for payment atmarket rate. However, fact remained thatin another case but in the sameagreement, CPWD (Electrical Division)has substituted some items. Hence,CPWD adopted two differentmethodologies for adoption of rates incase of substitution of items in alumpsum contract.

The extent of extra, substituted anddeviated items in the 29 works (withtendered cost of Rs.1483.91 crores)reviewed by us, is summarized below:

(Rs. in crore)Category Amount

95.6615.99

131.83

Extra itemsSubstituted itemsDeviated items

These include cases which are alsodiscussed in works specific paragraphs ofthe relevant chapter.



8/16


16.6.3 Handling of DelaysWe found numerous instances of delays inachieving the milestones listed in thecontracts, for which adequate penal actionwas not taken. Hindrance registers, whichwould clarify the responsibilities of thecontractor and implementing agency forthese delays, were poorly maintained,compromising the process of determiningliabilities for delays. Further, Extensions ofTime (EOTs),which are required to behandled in a timely manner (to ensurecontractually that time remains the essenceof the contract, if a dispute requires legal orarbitration remedies) were not managedproperly. Also, compensation/ liquidateddamages for delays have not been levied onthe contractors in most cases.

It is a matter of grave concern that despitethe lapse of several months since theconclusion of the Games, final paymentsare nowhere in sight for mostvenuedevelopment works.

16.6.4 Non-levy and recovery ofcompensation for delay incompletion of work

All contracts awarded by CPWD for CWG-2010 indicated stipulated dates of start andcompletion of work specifying that time wasessence of the contract. All agreementsprovided for recovery of compensation @1.5 percent per month of delay incompletion of work, computed on per daybasis, not exceeding 10 percent of thetendered value of work. Agreements formajor works also included milestonesindicating stages of work for achievementby the contractor. In case of failure of thecontractor to achieve the contracted

milestone, specified percentage of tenderedamount was to be withheld fromcontractors' bills for adjustment against anyrecovery due from contractor for slowprogress and delay in completion of work.Regarding grant of EOT,the CPWD Manualstipulates that based on the HindranceRegister where adequate and propergrounds exist, the Engineer-in-charge cangrant extension of time. Remedies fordelayed completion/ inferior workmanshipat disposal of the Government include levyof compensation, termination of contract,award of unexecuted work to anothercontractor after giving notice to thecontractor, forfeiture of earnest money/security deposit/ performance guaranteeetc.We found that generally completion ofworks was delayed due to numerous lapses,slippages, inadequacy of manpower,incompetency of contractors/ sub-contractors, delays in procurement ofmaterial etc. on the part of the contractorand there were either no bona fidehindrance in completion of work orhindrance were of routine nature notjustifying long delays in completion of work.Despite records indicating that thecontractor was fully/largely responsible fordelay in completion of work, CPWD had notinitiated action in a single case for levy andrecovery of compensation from contractors.Amounts withheld for slow progress of workand non-achievement of milestone werealso released without reasonablejustification. Extensions of time wereroutinely granted, completely ignoringlapses, slippages and delays on the part ofthe contractor, letters issued to thecontractors pointing out such lapses,inadequacies of resources & materials and



9/16

notices issued to the contractor from timeto time under provisions of respectiveagreement.In two of the six cases in which final EOThad been granted we found that nocompensation was levied despite delaysbeing attributable to inadequate manpowerand lack of management on the contractor'spart; and delays in providing drawings forthe consultancy contract. The maximumamount of compensation that could havebeen levied in these 2 cases amounted toRs. 2.32 crore as detailed in Annexe 16.3.In 41 cases extension of time had not beendecided and CPWD assured that dueconsideration would be taken for lapses onthe part of the contractor at the time offinal extension of time/bill andcompensation levied. Details of these casesare given in Annexe 16.4.

16.6.5 Payment of escalation in cases ofunjustified EOT

Further, under the provisions of thecontract, penal action against the contractorfor delay in completion of work woulddeprive them of their claim for escalation inrates of labour and material beyond thestipulated date of completion of work. Wefound that an escalation of Rs.7.02 crorefor periods beyond the stipulated date ofcompletion, was made in JNS(referparagraph 17.6.1.3 of this report).

Recoveries need to be made in all suchcases while finalising the EOTsandpenalties for delays in completion.


16.6.6 Adequacy of penal provisions fordelays in completion of projects

For the venue development and otherprojects relating to CWG-2010, completionwithin stipulated time limits was ofparamount importance. Clearly, the routinedelays in completion occurring in a largeproportion of public works projects wouldnot be acceptable in this scenario. However,the current clauses for liquidated damages/compensation for delays (generally limitedto 10 per cent of the contract cost) do notprovide adequate disincentives for timelycompletion. By contrast, BOT contracts withrevenue generation arrangementsautomatically provide necessary incentives/disincentives for contractors, since delayedcompletion automatically delays/ reducesrevenue generation.For such projects, where timely completionis of utmost importance, Gol may considerrevising the LD/ compensation clauses (to,say, 20 -25 per cent of contract cost), whichwould provide far higher disincentives tothe contractor for delayed completion.Naturally, the risks on account of stricter LDclauses would be factored intoconsideration by the prospective bidders,and would, likely, result in higher awardedcosts. However, an acceptable cost-versus-time trade-off needs to be considered insuch circumstances.A potential problem in such an arrangementis that contractors could be favoured byattributing delays to the Department (andnot the contractor); in such a situation, LD/compensation would not be leviable.Safeguards against such misuse couldinclude specifying that hindrances/ delaysnot attributable to the contractor should beidentified well in time (and not just before/



10/16


11/16

prevailing at the time of the last stipulateddate of receipt of tenders. This clauseforms an exception to the general rule ofthe contract that nothing more than whathas been agreed to be paid for work done isto be paid to the contractor. It is in thenature of recompense to the contractor ifduring the progress of the work the cost ofwages of labour increases as a direct resultof the coming into force of any fresh law orstatutory rule. Similarly, the contractorcannot benefit in the event the cost oflabour decreases due to the same reason.As per this clause, for labour wageescalation payments, the labour componentof the work executed during period underconsideration shall be the percentage, asspecified in Schedule F,of the value of workdone during that period and theincrease/decrease in labour shall beconsidered on the minimum daily wages inrupees of any unskilled adult male mazdoor,fixed under any law, statutory rule or order.Also, Engineer-in-Charge may call for booksof account and other relevant documentsfrom the contractor to satisfy himself aboutreasonability of increase in cost of wages.We found several deficiencies in theapplication of clause 10C with regard toreimbursement of increase in labour costsEscalations were to be calculated on thebasis of percentage of labour component inschedule F to the contract. We found cases,detailed in Annexe 16.7, where no suchpercentage was mentioned in the signedcontract and appended to Schedule F , butpayments of Rs. 3.81 crore were made. Suchpayments against deficient contracts areirregular and not permissible.Though the payment under Clause 10 CofGCCis in the nature of a compensation,


there is no mechanism in place to verifythat payment is being made for labouractually engaged by the contractor/sub-contractor. Though the contractor doessubmit fortnightly reports indicating thelabour engaged, these are neither completeas they generally do not reflect the labourengaged by sub-contractors, nor are theseauthenticated by an independentcompetent authority (Labour WelfareDepartment of the Government). It is alsonot mandatory for the engineer in charge toverify the strength of labour engaged beforemaking such payment. Hence, no assurancecan be drawn that the payments madeunder Clause 10C of GCCtruly and fairlyreimburse the contractor for the labouractually engaged by it and that the benefitof increase in minimum wages is beingpassed on to the actual beneficiary i.e. thelabourer in the instant case. A case study inthis regard is given in the box below

Case Study: 16.2Contractor paying less than minimumwages to labour while claimingcompensation under Clause lOCIn case of the Indoor Cycling Velodromeat IG stadium (Composite work forconstruction of Indoor Cycling Velodromeexecuted by JMC Projects (India) ttd.),the contractor claimed esclation paymentfor the months of June-September 2009on the basis of revised labour late of Rs.180 per day per labour and for October-December 2009 at the revised rate ofRs. 203 per day per labour. However, asper labour reports attached with runningaccount bills, payment to the unskilledlabourers by the contractor was @Rs. 155 per day per labour.



12/16


It is a known fact that the unskilled laboursector is a disorganised sector. It is theprimary responsibility of the Labour WelfareDepartment to ensure that the unskilledlabour engaged in any nature ofemployment activity is duly identified,registered and recompensed/benefited asper the labour laws of the country.Construction industry being a majoremployer of unskilled labour, it is imperativethat systems are put in place in this sectorto ensure all unskilled labour are dulyidentified, registered and remunerated atleast as per the prevailing minimum wagerates apart from benefitting from otherstatutorily prescribed labour welfaremeasures.

Therefore, we recommend thatpayments under clause 10C forstatutory increase in wagerates/other labour related costs,should be made only on theproduction of proof by the contractor,duly authenticated by the competentauthority of the Labour WelfareDepartment, of the unskilled labouractually engaged and compensated atminimum of the applicable wage rate.In the long term, measures shouldalso be taken to ensure properidentification of unskilled labourthrough issue of unique identificationnumbers and payments through wagecards directly credited to their bankaccounts as is being done in theimplementation MNREGA scheme.

16.10 Deficiencies in DetailedAnalysis of Rates forDelhi{DAR)Scrutiny of records indicated that theDepartment was reckoning the followingcomponents of costs as per DARwhileanalysing rates, as indicated below: one per cent of the cost of the steel

items towards water charges, though nouse of water was required in theexecution process of the items; and

five per cent towards wastage of steel(TMT Bars) used without crediting itsscrap value in the analysis of rates.

CPWD, without commenting on thereasonability of the charges stated thatthese were done as per provisions of DARand did not furnish the comments of thecompetent authority (approving authority)of DAR.

The matter needs to be examined bythe DAR approving authority andnecessary clarification issued

16.11 Service Tax Issues16.11.1 Excess reimbursement ofService taxAs per clarification issued in the Service TaxRules for reimbursement of service tax, thegross amount charged for the workscontract was to exclude VAT/Sales Tax toarrive at the net amount subject to servicetax. However, this was not done by CPWDwhile allowing reimbursement of service taxreimbursed with reference to total amountof work done. CPWD accepted the fact inSPM stadium and assured that necessary

248 PerformanceAuditReporton X IX CommonwealthGames(CWG-2010)


13/16

correction/adjustment shall be done in thenext reimbursement of service tax to theagency. Though CPWD was requested inJanuary 2011 to provide details of suchoverpayments made in all CWG-2010 works,their reply was still awaited. As a case study,we calculated that such recoveries/adjustments amount to Rs.0.18 crore in thecase of Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd., theagency executing works at Dr. SPMukherjeeStadium.

16.11.2 Reimbursement of Service Taxwithout assurance of its paymentfor the particular work

CPWD, in the NIT for works, specified thatService Tax on work contract as applicablewould be reimbursed to the executingagencies, and accordingly reimbursedservice tax @ 4.12 per cent of the grossamount of the work done. Suchreimbursement was done on the basis ofe-challan, which indicate only lump sumpayment without break-up of the paymentsmade against various works - Government/non-government, undertaken by thecontractor. In the absence of work-wisebreakup, it cannot be assured that thereimbursement is specifically with respectto the Service Tax paid on that particularwork executed for Government, and thecontractor is not unduly enriched by suchreimbursement.

We recommend that in future,reimbursement of Service Tax should bemade only on the basis of a certificationfrom the Chartered Accountant to theeffect that the Service Tax paymentsought to be reimbursed has been paidspecifically for the work covered underthe contract/ agreement permitting thereimbursement.


16.12 Absence of Works of ArtDelhi Urban Arts Commission, in itsapproval to projects, stipulated a conditionthat one percent of the project cost shouldbe spent on works of art in the buildings. Nosuch works were executed. CPWD repliedthat since the estimates did not include thiscost, it had separately asked SAl to releaseRs.22.54 crore for the execution of suchworks in the venues owned by SAl.As such, the works of art remainunexecuted.

16.13 Legacy PlanSince the funds for development/upgradation of various competition andtraining venues not owned by Governmentdirectly/ indirectly were released byGovernment, MYASwas required to enterinto MoUs with the venue owners forlegacy/ future use of sports infrastructureand facilities created. We found that theaction taken by MYASin this regard wasdeficient

16.13.1 Memorandum of Understanding(MoU)

MYASsigned MoUs on various dates inrespect of the following venues:



14/16


Name of the organization and venue Date ofMOU1. Main Rugby Competition Venue, Multipurpose Hall and Athletics 09.11.2010

Track Training Venue at Polo Ground at Delhi University, NorthCampus.2. Delhi Lawn Tennis Association (DLTA) and All India Tennis 27.05.2010

Association (AlTA), R.K. Khanna Tennis Stadium3. Rugby and Table Tennis Training Venue at JMI. 08.07.20104. Lawn Bowls Training Venue at DPS,RKPuram 04.08.20105. 1000 yard Big Bore Shooting Range at CRPFCampus at Kadarpur 17.06.2010

We found that the MYAShad not fixed anytime limit for signing of MoU with the venueowners although the CWG-2010 concludedon 13 October 2010, the legacy/future useof most venues are yet to be decided.

The deficiencies in the MoUs signed arelisted below:

VenueDelhi University,

16.13.2 Deficiencies in MoUs

Deficiencies DU signed MoU with MYAS; however, MoU with seven colleges' for legacy

use of rugby training venues and women wrestling hall are still pending.North Campus. DU (March 2011) replied that the colleges were independent

administrative units governed by separate statutes and based on theirrequirements; the final proposal would be submitted to MYAS.

DLTAand AlTA DLTAand AlTA signed MoU for legacy use of R.K. Khanna, Tennis Stadium.As per MoU MYAS has the right to nominate seventy five talented players annually

to avail of free coaching by AlTA, MYASwould nominate up to ten coaches per year for free of cost

training by AlTA, tenure membership be provided for 20 government servants for using

facilities and maintenance of stadium and facilities shall be responsibility of DLTA

and AlTA. It was observed that the activities mentioned in the MoU schemes viz.

nomination of talented players and providing coaching to them had stillnot been implemented.

3 Daulat Ram, Khalsa, Ramjas, Kirorimal, St.Stephens, SRCCand Hindu.



15/16

Further, the provision of tenuremembership for 20 Governmentservants for using DLTAfacilities doesnot represent proper legacy use ofsuch facilities (targeted towardschildren, youth and sportsmen) andinstead provide an opportunity forpatronage by MYAS to individualGovernment Servants. Werecommend that this clause in MoUbe ammended.

The comprehensive legacy plan foroptimum utilization of developedinfrastructure for usage and regularmaintenance and upkeep of facilities in theoperational condition in respect of abovevenue owners has still not been prepared.

During CWG - 2010


We suggest thatAt DU, besides regular use by thestudents of DU and respective colleges,the sports facilities may be madeavailable for training/ practice ofnational level athletes; and Tennisassociations and societies could havebeen invited to utilize the stadium byorganizing tournaments/tennis events.

16.13.3 Present PositionOur visit at the DU, revealed that if thelegacy plan for usage and regularmaintenance and upkeep of facilities for theoperational condition had been preparedand implemented, then the sportinginfrastructure would have remained inproper working condition; unlike the poorcondition as can be seen from the series ofphorographs taken by us and presentedbelow:

After CWG - 2010

Rugby Main Competition Venue Rugby Main Competition Venue



16/16


During CWG - 2010 After CWG - 2010

Toilets in Multipurpose Halloilets in Multipurpose Hall

cag's cwg audit report - chapter - 16 (2011)

Documents