Reply To Comment (2300ha)

2,300 HA REPLY TO COMMENT ON DESIGN REVIEW SEPTEMBER, 2014
A. GENERAL
3. However, the following parts of the study are not submitted:
a) Feeder Canal
This canal is proposed to deliver the irrigation water for pump stations 6,
7 & 8 to supply for command 6, 7 & 8 respectively receiving water from
rising pipe (feeder pipe). Initially, Al-Habesh firm partly constructed the
proposed canal to irrigate 2,300 ha (but now the canal is under poor
condition. In the course of this design work it has been agreed with the
design crew to establish a new arrangement to synchronize the existing
feeder canal with the main canal in which the main canal is planned as
permanent canal that abstract irrigation water from the reservoir dam.
However, this part of design is not submitted. Thus, the detail
design of the canal system with all its required structures on the
given reach including the BOQ should be submitted.
- Accepted & Incorporated
b) Main Access Road for 2,300 ha
The Irrigation and Drainage System component comprises of Irrigation

Pipe System, Drainage System and Road Network System with all their
auxiliary structures. The design, relevant drawings (i.e. sections, profiles
and details), the BOQ (for main road) and other related roads should be
included in the Pressurized Irrigation and Drainage System Review
Report.
c) Alternative Access Road for Flood Affected Area
The existing road from command-2 to command-5 is aligned adjacent to

the left bank of Dedessa River. During the wet season the river overtops
the bank and closed the way to reach the left bank of command are
starting from command-5 in which they occupy large part of the irrigable
OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 1

area. To alleviate the problems an alternative network following from the

periphery of the upland command-2 to command-5 has been proposed
and discussed with your engineers.
Thus, the design of such alternative road with all expected outputs
(which are mentioned in section b) should be delivered incorporating in
the Irrigation and Drainage Review Report.
d) Overall Review and Design of All Pump Stations (PS1 to PS8)

based on Available Pumps
We appreciate the way in which the available pumps are optimized in

this design stage and also the BOQ setup that clearly differentiated the
available material with the non available ones.
Meanwhile, we recommend here that the vertical line shaft pump

itemized as single unit should be revised since the previous inventory
work on available pumps revealed that only 12 column pipes are found
in the store.
Hence, review the BOQ by describing the vertical line shaft pump in
separate part and specifying the required characteristics/parameters i.e.
material type, diameter (DN), working pressure (PN), etc. and finally
differentiate the available and non available ones accordingly.
- Justification: As it is stated that there are only 12 column

pipes available in the store, but they have been confirmed in the
previous inventory work. During the period of design review, it
is found that all of the parts and accessories of 43 vertical line
shaft pumps are available in the store including the other
missing column pipes. To describe about one hundred parts
and accessories of a pump in separate part is impossible and
not right. Because these drawings are pump installation ones in
the pump house, not pump assembly ones.

e) Preparation of BOQ
ⅰ. BOQ for 1500 ha
The pump stations arrangement with the farm water demand have
been reviewed in command 1-5 area and accordingly it has been
recommended additional riser pipes to be installed which is shown in
the new modified layout of the command areas. Thus, we suggest the
BOQ of the additional risers should be accounted in the detail design
review of electro-mechanical part.
- Accepted & Incorporated in “4. BOQ of Additional Pipe” of

Page 35 of the Design Review Final Report (Electro-
Mechanical Part).
ⅱ. BOQ for 2300 ha
Initially, a design of Pressurized Irrigation System on the proposed

2300 ha command area was conducted as part of design of 30,000 ha
irrigable area. The review work revealed major gap identified in the
planning of the irrigation system in which the design was conducted
without considering the available MS pipe system. Accordingly, it is
understood then the main purpose of this design work is to
synchronize the pipe system with the available (installed) pipe
material and existing condition and avail material have been assessed
and offered to the design crew.
Meanwhile, we recommend here that fittings, valves and accessories

mentioned in the BOQ should be itemized with exist and non-exist
similar to pump system BOQ.
- Accepted & Incorporated in “11.2 BOQ for Supply of Pipes &

Fittings” on Page 57 of the Design Review Final Report
(Irrigation & Structural Part).

g) Structural Design
Like hydraulic and electro-mechanical design, the structural design part

is one of the components in the design of irrigation scheme. Thus, the
structural design part incorporating concept, approach, analysis and
results of design for various components of the project should be
presented and submitted to the client.
- Accepted & Incorporated in “10. Structural Design of Pump

House” on Page 39 of the Design Review Final Report
h) Preparing Operation and Maintenance Manual
This component is not submitted yet but mentioned in the contract

agreement, so offer accordingly.
- Accepted & Incorporated in separate document.
i) Infield Pipe Material Selection
The existing 1500 ha irrigation system revealed that HDPE type pipe has
been adopted in the infield lateral pipe system. However, your new
alternative system instead selected uPVC type without briefing. Hence,
justify the selected uPVC for infield lateral pipes comparing with HDPE
pipe in terms of cost, adaptability, installation easiness and considering
other major factors.
- Justification: As it is known, uPVC type and HDPE type pipes

have many common advantages as against the other traditional
products in durability, corrosion resistance, lower weight,
installation easiness, cost, transportation and long service life
(over 50 years), etc. However, HDPE pipe is more flexible than
uPVC pipe, but this irrigation system designed by us is one of
burying the laterals under the ground, not movable one on the

ground, so that there is no worry about the flexibility. On the

other hand, uPVC pipe costs 30~40% lower than HDPE pipe.
The lists of their sale prices in the FDR of Ethiopia are included
in Appendix to this document. Owing to the above reason,
HDPE type pipe has the advantage in the existing movable
irrigation system of laterals of Al-Habesh region. The existing
irrigation system in the Project Site is one of laying the laterals
on the ground and moving them, but the irrigation system
designed by us is one of burying the laterals under the ground.
Hence the uPVC pipe has been singled out to use, not HDPE
pipe which is relatively expensive in price. It is recommended
that the cost of supply has to be considered in many aspects
and it would be appreciated if you note that the effects of the
other transport and installation have their advantages and
disadvantages respectively.
B. COMMENT ON DESIGN REVIEW FINAL REPORT

B.1 ELECTRO-MECHANICAL WORKS FROM PS1 to PS8
1) In Chapter 2.1 Water Demand of the Area
a. In the report it is stated that the total water requirement is

estimated as 1ℓ/s/ha and in addition unaccounted water of 10% is
considered. However, in Table 1 of the estimated discharge 10%
additional water is not accounted. Please consider the additional
water.
- Justification: The estimated discharge 10% additional water is a

value considered for only calculation of electro-mechanical
capacity, not water quantity to be supplied actually.

b. In Table 2, please name the new commands i.e. LPS-4a, LPS-3b &
LPS-3a in bracket with respect to commands 6, 7 and 8.
- - Justification: In Table 2 on Page 7 of the Design Review Final

Report (Electro-Mechanical Part), the names of commands and
pump stations have already been written. Please check again.
2) In Chapter 2.3 The Water Resource
a. In Table 3, 80% Dependable mean river flow: where is the exact

location of Dedessa? It seems at Arjo-Bedele Bridge and hence at
least put a note under the table.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Table 3 on Page 9 of the Design

Review Final Report (Electro-Mechanical Part).
3) In Chapter 2.4 Design of Pump Station
a. Please show the detail analysis for the design review of the pump
stations on Command 1~5 and the farm water demand which
resulted in the additional pipes to be installed.
- Accepted & Incorporated below: In Command 1~5, a

simultaneous irrigation for the whole areas has not been made
so far, so that the issue of pipe capacity is not raised. However,
the irrigation at the same time for the whole areas is impossible
in consideration of the current pipe system and pump capacity.
Based on a layout of the current pipe arrangement given by the
Client, the computed result of head loss in the main pipe is as
follows when the current pipe system and additional pipes are
installed on Command 2~4.
№ Command Area Current system When additional

pipes are installed
1 Command -2 109.7m 8.85m
2 Command -3 38.3m 11.48m
3 Command -4 41.3m 8.66m
Accordingly, in order to provide the irrigation at the same time

for the whole areas with the current pumps in store, the
capacity of the main pipes has to be increased and the head
loss in the pipes should be decreased by a large margin.
b. In Table 5, please clarify the source of the minimum water level

data and justify what makes the difference of 2.5m between PS5
and PS1 levels. As it is known, the river flows relatively in gentle
slope in the project area.
- Justification: According to source from the Client, the

minimum water depth is 0.5m and the maximum and minimum
water level variation is 4.8m. As it is known in the surveying
data, the slope of Dedessa River is gentle as 0.000435, but
because the distance between PS5 and PS1 is 6,5km, its
relative difference is more than 2.8m.
c. Show the analysis how you determined the required water level or
total dynamic head presented in Table 5.
- Please refer to “A 4. System Head” on Page 11 of the Design

Review Final Report (Electro-Mechanical Part).
d. Show the analysis how you determine the bed wet well level?

- Justification: The bed wet well level depends on the minimum

water level, pump NPSH and pump length. Please refer to the
Figure 3(Page 13) of the Design Review Final Report (Electro-
Mechanical Part). That is the recommended value of pump
manufacturers.
4) All comments stated above which apply from PS1 to PS5 will also
valid in PS6 to PS8 design parts, in cases when similar condition
exists.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the Design Review Final Report

(Electro-Mechanical Part).
B.2 PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM
1. Irrigation materials available at store of Arjo project and materials

which are not available are not indicated separately. Hence please
indicate the materials at store and which are not.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 on Page 2~4

of the Design Review Final Report (Irrigation & Structural
Part).
2. The non available irrigation materials should be properly

addressed to the Client so that those materials can be supplied
timely.

3. Please present hydraulic analysis sheet of the irrigation system.

- Justification: The hardcopy of hydraulic analysis sheet is

impossible due to its large quantity and paper size, but if it is
needed, its softcopy can be provided.
4. The BOQ should be prepared separately for the supply of materials

and unit installation costs.

5. It was expected that, the review report would have included the
length of pipes installed, the quantity of main canal excavated, the
remaining pipe installation works, the exact quantity of materials
available on site and the material requirement. Therefore, such
data has to be furnished in the report.

6. Item BOQ 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, the trench excavation, bedding and
backfill for DN 63mm to DN 560mm is presented. However, the
trench excavation, bedding and backfill should be presented for
each diameter indicating the width, depth and length of pipes.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Item 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 of “11.1 BOQ

of Civil Works” on Page 48 of the Design Review Final Report
7. Item 2.5, thrust blocks are required for end cups in case of buried
the submains.

- Accepted & Incorporated in Item 2.5.4 of “11.1 BOQ of Civil

Works” on Page 49 of the Design Review Final Report
8. Item 2.6, pressure testing for main line can be merged for all
diameters.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Item 2.6 of “11.1 BOQ of Civil

9. Item 2.7, supply of bituminous paint to be included.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Items 2.7 and 3.8 of “11.1 BOQ of

Civil Works” on Pages 49 and 53 of the Design Review Final
Report (Irrigation & Structural Part).
10. Items 3.1.1 to 3.1.2.6 can be merged as one set and

presented in the bill of quantity.

11. The installation of bend to hose, hose, tripod and sprinkler

head can be merged as one set and presented in the bill of
quantity.

12. Typical layout drawing of the irrigation system showing

details irrigation materials should be presented in the report.

- Accepted & Incorporated in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 on Page 13 of

the Design Review Final Report (Irrigation & Structural Part).
13. Item 3.2.2, lateral pipes 75, 63 and 50mm dia. were
recommended as uPVC. Please compare the comparative
advantages and disadvantages of using HDPE and uPVC pipes in
terms of cost, durability, transport cost and installation easiness
and recommend the best one.
- Please refer to reply of “3. i) of A. General” of this document,

because they are the same comments.
14. Materials expressed in pcs need to be in whole number. E.g.

no brass sprinkler of 7037.1 pcs, rather it should be 7038. Include
also spare items for fast wearing materials.

15. Item 3.1.1.1, brass sprinkler female is recommended and

Item 3.1.2.1, tripod of female end is recommended. In our opinion,
either the brass sprinkler or the tripod end should be male for
compatibility reasons. Please check compatibility of the materials.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Item 2.1.2.1 of “11.2 BOQ for

Supply of Pipes & Fittings” on Page 59 of the Design Review
Final Report (Irrigation & Structural Part).
16. The water intake valve is not mentioned in the BOQ.

- Accepted & Incorporated in Item 2.1.2.3.3 of “11.2 BOQ for

Supply of Pipes & Fittings” on Page 59 of the Design Review
Final Report (Irrigation & Structural Part).
17. The number of end plugs, Item 3.3.7.2, is not enough. The
number of end plugs of the lateral ends should be the same as the
number of clamp saddles, Item 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. It can be merged
with the quantities of end plugs (Item 3.4.7.1, 3.4.7.6 and 3.4.7.7).
- Justification: In Item 3.3.7.2, the end plugs are for the

manifold pipe, not for laterals. The end plugs of laterals are
indicated in Item 3.4.7 of “11.1 BOQ of Civil Works” on Page 51
and Item 2.4.7 of “11.2 BOQ for Supply of Pipes and Fittings”
on Page 60 of the Design Review Final Report (Irrigation &
Structural Part).
18. Item 3.5, pressure regulator valve: There has to be good

compatibility of the pressure regulator valve set in connecting to
the submain pipes and the infield lateral pipes. In this connection,
there has to be a sound interface between the submain pipes,
pressure regulating valves and the lateral pipes. Adaptor from MS
pipes to the lateral pipes is not indicated in the BOQ.
- Justification: Because the mains, submains and inlet pipes of

valve system are MS pipes and they are connected by welding,
the adaptor has not planned to install. The adaptor of the exit of
the valve system is indicated in Items 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of
“11.1 BOQ of Civil Works” on Page 50 and Items 2.3.3, 2.3.4
and 2.3.5 of “11.2 BOQ for Supply of Pipes and Fittings” on
Page 59 of the Design Review Final Report (Irrigation &
Structural Part).

19. Item 3.6, excavation, bedding and backfill of pipes have to be

clearly indicated in the BOQ for each type of pipe dia.

(Irrigation & Structural Part), but the infield pipes are
50~150mm in diameter, so that excavation volume has been
estimated based on bed width of 0.5m.
C. COMMENT ON DRAWING ALBUM

C.1 GENERAL LAYOUT
1) The Dedessa River feature including its boundary should be shown

clearly.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the final layout.
2) Main Pump Station-8 located on left bank of the river should be

shown in the general alignment.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the final layout.
C.2 ELECTRO-MECHANICAL PUMP STATION & RISING PIPE
1) Cover Part
a. List of drawing per page or Table of contents to be provided.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the list of drawings.
2) Comments on Drawing Title:- Pump Station-1 for Command-1 of

Al-Habesh Area “PS1”
a. Box-Title

i. Drawing No. should be given.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the Box-Title.
b. Material Description
i. Vertical line shaft pump unit should not be mentioned

as a single unit assembly rather the column pipe,
turbine, line shaft should be separated so that the
existing and non-existing can be differentiated.
- Please refer to reply of “3. d) of A. General” of this

document, because they are the same comments.
ii. Items in 9, 14, 15 & 16 have not remarked whether

they are existed or not.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Drawing No. ADSDIP-

TPS-(1, 2, 3, 4).
iii. In item No. 14 & 16, what is PN?

TPS-(1, 2, 3, 4).
c. Section A-A
i. The level of minimum river level to be mentioned.

TPS-(1, 2, 3, 4).
ii. Spacing height between wet well level and strain to

be mentioned.
- Justification: This value has not to be

mentioned. Because the bed wet well level and

pump installation level are given in the drawings

and the pump length is constant. Its dimension is
not controlled by an installer.
iii. Level of OGL to be mentioned.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Drawing No.

ADSDIP-TPS-(1, 2, 3, 4).
iv. Length of the pipe from the river wet well should be
known.

ADSDIP-TPS-(1, 2, 3, 4).
d. Section B-B
i. Details of electric pump panel to be shown.
- Justification: The structure and dimension of the

electric pump panel are different as per the
manufacturers and companies. Hence, the average
dimension and type are given in the drawings.
3) All comments offered to PS1 are valid to PS2 & PS4, PS3 and PS5,
LPS-4a, LPS-3b, LPS-3a and PS8.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the Drawing Album.
4) Rising Main Pipe Profile
a. OGL, pipe invert level, pipe top level should be shown along the
given profile.
- Justification: The OGL, pipe invert level and pipe dimension

have been shown in the given profile.

b. Cross drains and road crossing should be shown.
- Justification: A cross drain does not exist in the pipe

alignment. The pipes to be installed are MS pipes and all of
them will be buried under the ground. And the depth from the
ground surface to the pipe top level is 1m, so there will be no
problem in the road crossing.
5) Detail Intake Gate
a. Proposed material to be known whether they are avail in

store.
- Justification: The required materials for manufacturing the

gate are given in the drawings. Whether they are avail in store
or not is not our obligation. Only the materials for field
irrigation are given in the list of materials from the Client.
C.3 DRAWING FOR PUMP HOUSE
1) Cover Part
a. List of drawing per page or Table of contents to be shown.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the list of drawings.
b. Page arrangement should be coincided with Electro-Mechanical

Pump Station.
- Accepted & Incorporated in the Drawing Album.

3) Title:- Pump Station-1 for Command-1 of Al-Habesh Area “PS1”

(Drawing No. ADSDIP/EM/PH/18)
a. Plan
i. Figure in all section drawings should be shown.

ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).
ii. Please show the detail and mixing proportion of the

masonry work.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Section A-A of Drawing

No. ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).
iii. Please correct the River direction.

ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).
b. Section B-B
i. Wet bed level to be mentioned.
- Accepted & Incorporated in Section B-B of Drawing

No. ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).
ii. Minimum River Level should be mentioned.

No. ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).
iii. The floor dimension should be set at proper position in

the drawing.
- Justification: The floor dimension has been set at the

most proper position in the drawing.

iv. How water divert to the pump house? What are the
arrangements to guide the river water to the wet well?
- Justification: As per the hydrological data given from the

Client, the minimum water depth is 0.5m. Thus if the above-
mentioned water depth is provided in the end position of the
inlet pipe, the required water quantity will be enough to
supply from the pump house. The water flow velocity of the
inlet pipe is about 0.8m/s. Therefore, there is no necessary
to install the additional diversion structure.
c. Section A-A
i. What is the protection works for sediment or silt trap?
- Justification: The protection works is not needed. In

order to get rid of sediment or silt, it has designed in the
drawing that a maintenance person would clean them
manually by going down and up in a ladder.
ii. How the river water be guided to deliver to pump house?

In this section structure arrangement to be shown.
- Justification: As per the hydrological data given from the

Client, the minimum water depth is 0.5m. Thus if the above-
mentioned water depth is provided in the end position of the
inlet pipe, the required water quantity will be enough to
supply from the pump house. The water flow velocity of the
inlet pipe is about 0.8m/s. Therefore, there is no necessary
to install the additional diversion structure.
iii. What is the recommended slope of the inlet pipe?

No. ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).

iv. The extension of the inlet pipe to the wet well should be
shown.
- Please refer to Electro-mechanical drawing.
v. The top level of the retaining wall should coincide with

the maximum flood level.

No. ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).
vi. In this section, please show the OGL line.

No. ADSDIP/TPH/(1, 2, 3, 4).
C.4 PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE FOR 2300 HA
1) All drains should be in cut.
- Justification: Because the indicated filling has been considered with

only the free board to the maximum for the longitudinal slope regulation
of canal in depression, there will be no trouble in the drains.
2) In case of drainage canals like FD-LP3a-13(0-478), instead of

providing number of consecutive vertical drops, chute structures would
be efficient and economical so please review the alternative structure.
- Justification: Because the distance between the vertical drops is

planned as 20m in the minimum in the design, the chute structures are
never economical.

Reply To Comment (2300ha)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply To Comment (2300ha)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2,300 HA REPLY TO COMMENT ON DESIGN REVIEW SEPTEMBER, 2014

- Accepted & Incorporated

b) Main Access Road for 2,300 ha

The Irrigation and Drainage System component comprises of Irrigation

c) Alternative Access Road for Flood Affected Area

The existing road from command-2 to command-5 is aligned adjacent to

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 1

area. To alleviate the problems an alternative network following from the

d) Overall Review and Design of All Pump Stations (PS1 to PS8)

We appreciate the way in which the available pumps are optimized in

Meanwhile, we recommend here that the vertical line shaft pump

- Justification: As it is stated that there are only 12 column

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 2

ⅰ. BOQ for 1500 ha

- Accepted & Incorporated in “4. BOQ of Additional Pipe” of

ⅱ. BOQ for 2300 ha

Initially, a design of Pressurized Irrigation System on the proposed

Meanwhile, we recommend here that fittings, valves and accessories

- Accepted & Incorporated in “11.2 BOQ for Supply of Pipes &

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 3

Like hydraulic and electro-mechanical design, the structural design part

- Accepted & Incorporated in “10. Structural Design of Pump

h) Preparing Operation and Maintenance Manual

This component is not submitted yet but mentioned in the contract

- Accepted & Incorporated in separate document.

i) Infield Pipe Material Selection

- Justification: As it is known, uPVC type and HDPE type pipes

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 4

ground, so that there is no worry about the flexibility. On the

B. COMMENT ON DESIGN REVIEW FINAL REPORT

1) In Chapter 2.1 Water Demand of the Area

a. In the report it is stated that the total water requirement is

- Justification: The estimated discharge 10% additional water is a

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 5

- - Justification: In Table 2 on Page 7 of the Design Review Final

2) In Chapter 2.3 The Water Resource

a. In Table 3, 80% Dependable mean river flow: where is the exact

- Accepted & Incorporated in Table 3 on Page 9 of the Design

3) In Chapter 2.4 Design of Pump Station

- Accepted & Incorporated below: In Command 1~5, a

№ Command Area Current system When additional

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 6

pipes are installed

1 Command -2 109.7m 8.85m

2 Command -3 38.3m 11.48m

3 Command -4 41.3m 8.66m

Accordingly, in order to provide the irrigation at the same time

b. In Table 5, please clarify the source of the minimum water level

- Justification: According to source from the Client, the

- Please refer to “A 4. System Head” on Page 11 of the Design

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 7

- Justification: The bed wet well level depends on the minimum

- Accepted & Incorporated in the Design Review Final Report

B.2 PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM

1. Irrigation materials available at store of Arjo project and materials

- Accepted & Incorporated in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 on Page 2~4

2. The non available irrigation materials should be properly

- Accepted & Incorporated in “11.2 BOQ for Supply of Pipes &

3. Please present hydraulic analysis sheet of the irrigation system.

OROMIA WATER WORKS DESIGN AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE Page 8

- Justification: The hardcopy of hydraulic analysis sheet is

4. The BOQ should be prepared separately for the supply of materials

- Accepted & Incorporated in “11.2 BOQ for Supply of Pipes &