Observations on DPRs of Gujarat

District: PatanBlock: RadhanpurName of the Road: Mehmdavad Bhilod Kolivada Road1. Two checklist Proforma C have been attached in the DPR out of which only one is signed. Both the Checklists indicates different values.2. The maintenance cost proposed as 3.84% for 5 year maintenance is on lower side and needs to be corrected as per Operations Manual including renewal coat. 3. L-section available in the DPR is not to scale and does not indicate the formation level and the finished road top level. It also do not justify the provision of large number of cross draining structures such that two CDs at 4.40 km and 4.6 km, 6.4 km and 6.5 km and many other structures.4. From the photographs of the site available in the DPR the road appears to be in much better condition and it does not indicate any requirement of widening such as there is hardly any traffic on this road indicated in the photographs. 5. In traffic data sheet the total commercial vehicles per day have been reported including tractors without trailers, indicating very large value of CVPD and PCO, indicating the requirement of widening which is not as per IRC SP 72.6. The traffic sheet does not indicate lean or harvest seasons and the thickness is designed and provided are not as per the codal requirements. 7. The number of existing Cross Drainage Structures with two rows of 0.9 m diameter is 9 indicating insufficient capacity. In such cases, additional pipes can be laid for improving the capacity . 8. Annexure 7.3 which has been signed by the STA for individual DPRs infact is a format for consolidated report of scrutiny by the STA for all DPRs in a batch. The Proforma included in the DPR is blank and has been blindly signed without filling any relevant data. 9. No R&D items found in Detailed estimate, why two recapitulation sheet attached indicating different overall cost in the estimate. 10. Provision of Rs. 3.38 Crs towards cost estimate for protection wall is without design and justification for requirement and without any cross sectional details in the DPR. 11. 400 m length of NP 3 pipe has been proposed in the DPR without indicating any reasons, when the cross drainage structures have been separately estimated. 12. Cost of utility shifting needs to be added into state share as the state has to provide a certificate that land is provided free of all encumbrances. 13. Provision of 11% quantities of bituminous macadam for profile corrections and undulations are not based on any details and needs to be deleted or specific justifications required. 14. 8 number of old structure are proposed to be dismantled at a cost of around Rs. 2 lakhs. However, the credit for dismantled material is no where appearing in the DPR. Observations on DPRs of Gujarat

District: AnandBlock: KhambhatName of the Road: Upgradation of Kansari- Hariyan Road

1. Hardly any traffic on the road as per photographs. Traffic can be accommodated without widening of road to 5.5 m.2. Concept of CVPD has been wrongly used. 3. It is not clear how the speed has been worked out without knowing grade change4. It is not clear as to how the structures of width more than 7.5 m width have been proposed. 5. Roads safety checklist needs to be relooked. 6. Pavement design is not available in the DPR.7. No details of lime stabilization and costing are available in the DPR.8. In cost estimate for road construction the Reconstruction Portion width should be in 5.5to 3m instead of 8.240m.9. Drain Section is not as per Rural Roads Manual IRC SP 2010. Cost of utility shifting needs to be added into state share as the state has to provide a certificate that land is provided free of all encumbrances. 11. Score of start point connected on Higher Order Road needs to be reconsidered. 12. It is not mentioned who and where Benkelman Beam Deflection Analysis test has been done and also test results are not available13. It is not clear why the CBR value has been limited to 5% only in Rigid Pavement Design.14. Provision of large nos. of culverts may be justified.