Preparation of DPRs and Common Deficiencies

Dr. I.K.Pateriya

Director (Technical),NRRDA,

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India

ik.pateriya@nic.in

To present the details of Investigations,

Design with choice of Technology,

Assessment of accurate quantities and Cost

Estimation along with necessary drawings to

enable the execution of the Project.

Objectives of DPR

Contents of the DPR

Volume I : Report and Estimate in A4 size

Introduction

Alignment

Land Acquisition

Geometric Design Standards

Topographical Surveys

Soil and Material Survey

Traffic Survey

Pavement Design and Surfacing

Hydrological Survey

Contd.,

Contd.

Design of CD works and integration

of Drainage System

Protective Works

Specifications

Environmental Issues and Mitigation

measures

Analysis of Rates

Estimate

Construction Programme

Undertaking for future Maintenance

Volume II : Drawings in A3 size

Key Map

Block Road Map

Index Map

Plan and Longitudinal Sections

Typical cross Sections

Detailed Cross Sections

Drawings of CD Structures

Drawings of Protective Works

Miscellaneous Drawings

Contents of the DPR

Objectives of Scrutiny

To make sure of adequacy of investigations.

To Check the authenticity of the data.

To verify the optimality of design and estimation.

To check the provisions made as per the PMGSY guidelines.

Important Factors for Scrutiny

• Selection of Alignment.

• Land Availability.

• Traffic Volume.

• Soil Characteristics.

• Design and Specification.

• CD works.

• Drawings.

DPR Scrutiny Process

Stage 1 - Executive Engineer.

Stage 2 - Superintending Engineer

Stage 3 - State Technical Agency (STA)

Stage 4 - Principal Technical Agency (PTA) (Random Check)

Stage 5 - Random Check at NRRDA

Scrutiny at DPIU

Co-relation of the data during Transect Walk, Site investigations and that used in the DPR.

Verification of leads and availability of material.

Verification of specifications and Schedule of Rates.

Verification of Maps and Drawings prepared by Junior Staff.

Checklist of items to be submitted to STA by DPIU

Copy of the Detailed Project Report after scrutiny and certification at PIU Level.

Copy of the Core Network map of the Block from where the road work is proposed.

Certificate about the land availability, free of encumbrances.

Proof of entry of the proposals on to OMMS.

Special Emphasis for Cost Effective Design

Stabilization of Soil sub-grades.

Lime Stabilization

Cement Stabilization

Any other Stabilization process like use of eco friendly enzyme.

Use of local materials and industrial waste Use of Marginal Aggregates.

Use of Fly Ash.

Use of Industrial Wastes.

Common Deficiencies observed in the Project Proposals received at NRRDA

Deficiencies in Project Selection

Errors in the preparation of Core Network.

Disproportionate allocation to the Districts.

Deficiency in the Preparation of CNCPL/CUPL.

Inadequacy in the consultative process.

Deviations from CNCPL/ CUPL in the roads selected.

Deficiencies in the Design

Inadequate investigations.

Failure to check correlations in the soil properties.

Inaccurate estimation of Design Parameters.

Non adherence to the provisions of RRM for Pavement Component Design.

In adequate Geometric Design.

Failure to identify cost aberrations in the components.

Inappropriate location and design of CD Works.

Provisions beyond permissible as per guidelines.

Deficiency in checking the Schedule of Rates, Maintenance Cost.

Failure to investigate alternate designs for optimality.

Deficiencies in Reporting

Incompatibility of data on connectivity status.

Incomplete data entry on OMMAS.

Failure to clear the proposals on - line at STA Level.

Incomplete data in Format “C”.

Failure to give specific remarks on individual project proposal and submission of consolidated reports by STAs.

Deficiencies in Project Selection

Errors in the preparation of Core Network, Multi connectivity / Core network not vetted by STA.

Deviations from CNCPL / CUPL in the roads selected. The population of the target habitation, the length of

road, road code, name of block and district does not tally with core network

Many roads which are not part of Core network. In many cases, the alignment of the road proposed was

different, indicating different habitations en-route, different length of road. (Gujarat, M.P., Haryana, Punjab)

The proposal of up-gradation of road has been prepared, even when the PCI reported is 4. Road Code not reported in the proposal.

Deficiencies in the investigation

Inadequate investigation of Base year Traffic. Many of the roads leading to very small villages and of small lengths have been designed for C-curve / T-7 Category.

In Many proposals, the traffic data given in Proforma C is different from the traffic data given in the design calculation.

Deficiencies in investigation

Failure to check correlations in the soil properties. Requisite Number of tests for investigations not carried out.

CBR’s reported are extremely low of the order of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0% in many cases. Correlation among the properties of soil have not been established for CBR verification.

Even when borrowed earth is being used for sub-grade, the same CBR value has been used in design of pavement.

For very high density of soil 1.89 gm/cc, CBR reported is 2.1 to 2.3%. In some cases CBR alues as low as 0.75 % have been certified by PIU. CBR reported is 2.18 %, MDD 1.75 gms/cc, PI 8 % and 75u passing – 14% only. Sand and Gravel content was reported to be more than 75%.

Most of the soil tests have been reported from consultant

lab, PIUs did not even see the correlations among the test results.

Deficiencies in the Design Non adherence to the provisions of RRM / SP: 72

for Pavement Component Design. Available crust thickness not considered in

providing the required crust thickness, in up-gradation projects.

In many cases for C curve traffic and 3 % subgrade CBR, in up-gradation projects, 4 layers of WBM Gr.II, and one layer of Gr.III have been proposed without making provision of GSB as sub base.

Equivalent thickness of layer not considered in providing the crust, as per relevant codes of IRC.

In some cases, Crust thickness provided was more than design thickness.

Deficiencies in the Design

Thickness of Cement Concrete Slab and layers below that not as per SP:62: 2004. Inadequate thickness/ Higher thickness proposed by PIU.

Cement Concrete roads have been proposed in many cases without sharing of cost as per PMGSY guidelines. In many cases length of CC road is much higher than length of flexible pavement.

Section of Built-up drain proposed along the cement concrete pavement, though not as per SP:20, with very high costs.

Deficiencies in the Design

In adequate Geometric Design.

Geometric design of roads completely neglected even in case of New Connectivity Proposals. In many cases, requisite land width is not available for road. However, quantities for widening of roads, widening of Curves, Super elevation etc. up to 10 % of all items proposed in the estimate on Ad-hoc basis.

Deficiencies in the Design

In-appropriate location and design of CD Works. X-sections of the road and L-section are not available for

verification of location of CD structures. Large number of CD structures proposed in DPR, without hydrological data and level data.

Low cost HP culverts are not proposed and costly R.C.C. Slab culverts/ Box Culverts proposed by PIU have been vetted by STAs.

Separate DPR for large CD structures/ Long span Bridges not prepared by PIU.

The cost of similar CD structures in adjoining districts varying in a very wide range, from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 1,75,000

Deficiency in checking the Schedule of Rates, Maintenance Cost.

Deficiencies in Scrutiny of BoQ

Failure to identify cost aberrations in the components.

History of cost trends of roads of the same district or state not taken into account for checking that the cost per km of road or individual layer is normal or there is an aberration.

In many cases the rates of GSB reported to be more than WBM Gr. II or rate of WBM Gr II reported to be more than WBM Gr III.

In Some cases the cost per Km in the same block increased by more than 60 % in subsequent year. However, on intervention from NRRDA, the cost per km was brought even below the preceding phase.

Deficiencies in Scrutiny of BOQ

Deficiency in checking the Schedule of Rates, basic rates of materials and quantities of materials as per data book and Maintenance Cost.

Investigations on possible use of locally available materials, including soil stabilization measures, use of alternative material like fly ash/ industrial waste etc. are not been fully applied wherever possible.

Inadmissible items such as Laying foundation stone, Shifting of utility lines, Plantation along the road proposed by PIUs.

Deficiencies in scrutiny of BoQ

X-sections of the road and L-section are not available for verification of quantities of earthwork and also the location of CD structures.

The quantity and estimate for Earthwork in many proposals was very high. Earthwork quantities of more than 7000 to 9000 cum per km costing 10 to 12 lalkhs have been vetted by STAs without verification of level data and quantity calculation sheets.

State officers at the level of Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers are not verifying the DPRs w.r.t ground realities in the filed before submitting to STAs, for ensuring need based provisions.

Deficiencies in Reporting

Incompatibility of data on connectivity status. Already connected habitations proposed under New Connectivity

Incomplete data entry on OMMAS, locked by STA without verification.

Failure to clear the proposals on - line at STA Level.

Incomplete/ inadequate/ inappropriate data in Format “C”. Proforma ‘C’.

General observation of Phase –VIII Batch-I year 2012-13 of Kerala State

• The height of embankment in Upgradation projects at some places was about 12 m.

• Provision of Retaining wall on both sides of road for restricting the required land width can not be met from MoRD fund.

• Some road proposals have not been entered on OMMS Proposal Module.

• The score sheet has not been attached in DPR.

• The provision of M20 wearing coat over slab culvert should be replaced by BT surface.

• The provision of plastering on CC work should be deleted.

• The provision of PCC bed on small slab culvert should be deleted.