ISLAMABAD: Did the federal or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government inform the Supreme Court in the BRT case about the Auditor General of Pakistan’s report that had revealed a whole host of serious issues with the planning and implementation of the project? The report had pointed out the project’s poor planning, the indecent haste with which it was constructed, the missing checks and balances and unauthorised changes to the design that had caused a loss of billions of rupees.
The SC on Tuesday stopped the NAB from probing the BRT project, observing that the PHC’s decision on the issue was based on speculation. The apex court, while accepting the KP government’s petition, annulled the PHC verdict which had found serious illegalities and corruption in the project and had ordered the FIA to initiate a probe into the matter.
The KP government on Tuesday told the apex court that the PHC had declared the project illegal whereas all regulatory procedures were completed by the provincial and federal governments. Last year, the apex court had stopped the FIA from the probe ordered by the PHC.
Although the apex court observed that the PHC decision was based on speculation, neither did the KP government’s counsel nor any representative of the federal or provincial government inform the SC about what the Auditor General of Pakistan had pointed out regarding the BRT last year.
The AGP in its audit report on the BRT Peshawar had documented losses, wastage, unauthorised variations in design, irregular payments worth billions of rupees and observed that the project’s planning was faulty and construction work had started in the absence of a detailed engineering design.
The AGP also pointed out that the ADB had earlier identified the risk that “political pressure to fast track the project due to the general elections of 2018 will undermine both design and implementation of the project”. The ADB also did not want the DED (Detailed Engineering Design) to be developed on the basis of the preliminary design.
Despite this, according to the audit report, the provincial government did not pay heed to any such warning and demonstrated that its “planning process was so shallow that it couldn’t even calculate the appropriate and reasonable completion time”.
The report said that it was seen throughout the construction phase that the narrow route (selected for the project) with very little right of way was never a feasible option for the construction of a BRT Corridor. It can now be seen that at various stations the station entrances look very inappropriate with structures standing exactly in front of shops on the University Road and in front of residential streets and house-corners inside Hayatabad Township.
Premature procurement of buses worth $7.9 million for the BRT could also end up with the expiry of the warranty period of these buses, the audit report said, adding that wear and tear will also occur with no fare revenue from these buses.
While the buses which have already arrived face a wear and tear situation without having been used, there is another awkward situation -- the non-supply of 169 BRT buses worth $33 million -- that has arisen because of the faulty timelines given for the completion of the project.
The report said that the project was conceived in 2013-14 but proper planning was not in place to foresee scenarios over the coming years -- 2017 to 2019 -- when the BRT Corridor construction would take place.
The report said, “With regard to the projects undertaken during the BRT Corridor preliminary design and later on during the Detailed Engineering Design (DED) stages, the audit observation was justified to term all expenditure as wasteful which resulted from lack of vision in the planning process.”
The report pointed out unauthorised variations of Rs10.4 billion; loss of Rs200 million due to payment of excess quantity of pile concrete; loss of Rs54.8 million due to non-recovery of cost of dismantled material; payment of Rs95 million as salaries without approved pay structure; non-deposit of profit worth Rs12 million into the government treasury earned from a saving account; unauthorised payment of Rs45 million to officers; interest worth Rs12 million earned not reflected in the financial statement; contradiction in approved PC-I and business model regarding annual subsidy of Rs1.6 billion; wasteful expenditure of Rs716 million on beautification, construction of roads and electrification; premature procurement of BRT buses costing $7.9 million; the warranty period of these buses may expire as well as wear and tear will occur with no fare revenue from these buses; loss of Rs10 million due to depreciation of buses waiting to be brought on the road; construction supervision contract worth Rs615 million and $1.97 million awarded without fulfilling the criteria for performance assessment; non-implementation of penalty/liquidated damages worth Rs1.9 billion etc.
According to the report, “An email extract of December 2016, shared with the auditors, indicated that ADB did not want the DED (Detailed Engineering Design) to be developed on the basis of the preliminary design.”
It added, the lack of planning was further evident from the fact that in its aide-memoire dated September 25 2017, the ADB had stated that while the DED was still under-preparation, the provincial government somehow got the original PC-I approved well below the ADB estimates of $587 million.
Likewise, in the preliminary design, the report said, the DED consultants were also not allowed the appropriate completion time which is normally allowed for detailed engineering designing of projects of such a magnitude. The DED contract starting in February 2017 was supposed to be completed in February 2018 but due to the unnecessary urgency imposed on the project, the civil works were initiated in November 2017 when the complete designs were not even available.
The report said that the poor designing and planning affected the project negatively, the human resource and materials were not procured according to the project guidelines, the key components of reporting, financial management and quality controls were also found missing.
The audit also found that authorities failed to adopt the Financial Management Manual for sound financial management of the project, as advised by the ADB. The reporting requirements were not followed as described in the agreement; the quality control and monitoring framework was not in place as required; no contract system was developed and the timelines and schedules have been revised many times. The report added that the initial cost of the project as approved was Rs49.34 billion which was later revised to Rs66.4 billion.