Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.9.2 With the above conclusions, the Arbitral Tribunal thus awards an amount of `1,79,71,530/- for the item of Structural Steel Girder for ROB as Change of Scope under this claim as against the amount claimed for `4.36 crore by the Claimant.

Claim No.3:- Change of Scope for construction of Guntakal ROB at KM 290+986 of NH-18 of Nandyal Bypass.

4.7.1 The Arbitral Tribunal concludes that the Change of Scope shall be arrived by taking the base proposal cost of ROB structure with Schedule-B proposal and compared with the total changes occurred in ROB at Km 290+986 due to introduction of new ROB at Yerraguntla, increase in rail level for Yerraguntla railway line, change of specification from PSC girder to Composite Steel Girder and increase in length of bridge from 84 m to 112 m as per approved GAD of Railway Department. The total cost of ROB shall be arrived duly considering the cost due to foundations, substructure and superstructure with the above four changes mentioned above. The Structural Steel Girder cost shall be taken as `1,34,475/- per Metric Ton. Cost of the revised estimate submitted by the Claimant through its letter dated November 21, 2016 (Annexure-C38, P. No. 219 to 313 of SOC) was `24,56,28,148/- . In this estimate, rate for structural steel was considered as `1,62.285/- per MT. Now after modifying this rate as `1,34,475/-, the estimated cost works out to `20,82,76,755/-.

"Claimant had compared the cost with his earlier drawing for which Irrigation Authorities objected and insisted on regarding the bed level by 2.5m and increase in number of spans. However in IE opinion, any change in the height of the structure due to increase in design discharge or regarding of the bed shall not be a Change of Scope. Hence the IE has arrived at the net implication by calculating only the net impact of increase of four spans and three piers as per final design.
a) Increase in length from 84m to 112m.
b) Increase in height due to FRL finalized matching with the new ROB with increased rail level
c) Change in type of superstructure (from PSC girder to composite' girder)
d) Change' in substructure and foundation due to all these changes.

46. As stated above the respondent had submitted the change of scope of proposal for ` 24.56 Crore considering the above changes. It has taken the Structural Steel Girder rate of `1,62,285/- per Metric Ton as' per actual expenditure incurred duly enclosing the Purchase Orders / Work Orders. The Independent Engineer considered all these changes as COS and made recommendations vide its letter dated January 2, 2013 for ` 27.76 Crore as the combined cost for ROBs at Km 290+783 and Km 290+986. In this proposal charges payable to Railways were excluded and the rate considered for structural steel was `1,15,000/- per Metric Ton. However, the Independent Engineer in his letter dated January 30, 2013, changed his stand and recommended only increase in length and change in type of superstructure as COS for the ROB at Km. 290+986 for `13.42Crore. In this proposal, the Independent Engineer has not considered the Change of Scope due to increase of height of ROB structure. Finally, the Independent Engineer again recommended increase in length, change in type .of superstructure and increase in height as COS for `13,98,78,294/-. The Arbitral Tribunal was of the view that the Change of Scope proposals for the ROB at Km 290+986 shall be in conformity with the Schedule- B of the Concession Agreement. Any change in execution shall be compensated to the respondent herein under Change of Scope. The Tribunal was of the view that the initial cost of the ROB structure shall 'be taken as per Schedule-B. Final cost of ROB structure shall be arrived with the above four changes and as per approved GAD by the Railway Department. The Independent Engineer finally accepted first three changes for considering Change of Scope, but he has considered only pro-rata height while arriving superstructure cost of ROB. He has not considered the change of cost due to substructure and the foundations for overall changes due to height. The Tribunal was of the view that the proposal of the Independent Engineer while arriving the Change of Scope cost is not as per Concession Agreement conditions.

47. The Tribunal was of the view that the change of scope proposal submitted by the respondent for `24.56 Crore shall be considered minus the Structural Steel Girder cost difference of `27,810/- per Metric Ton for 1342.08 Metric Tons. The Tribunal observed that the Change of Scope shall be arrived taking the base proposal cost of ROB structure with Schedule-B proposal and compared with the total changes occurred in ROB at Km 290+986 due to introduction of new ROB at Yerraguntla, increase in rail level in Yerraguntla railway line, change of specification from PSC girder to Composite Steel Girder and increase in length of bridge from 84 m to 112 m as per approved GAD of Railway Department. The Tribunal finally granted an amount of `20,82,76,755/- for Change of Scope for ROB at Km 290+986 as against claim of `24,56,28,148/-