Obstruction by BGB

S.No. Document Contents Pg. No.

1. 05.10.2016 Respondent NO.3/Employer wrote to (Ann. C-3 page 20
Respondent’s Inspector General, BSF vide letter no. SOC Vol-CD1)
letter P/07/45/2012 Part-IV, to handover the
site to the claimant/ contractor M/s
T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd. to
facilitate commencement of work.
2. 18.11.2016  The land was handed over to Document C3, Pg
the claimant /contractor 20, SOC
through the BSF Coy
Commander.

Site was handed over on 18.11.2016

only on paper without actual physical
visit to site and without list of
inventories.
3. Claimant’s letter It was brought to the notice of the Pg 24, Annexure C-
dated Respondent that the work was 7 , SOC
01.02.2017, stopped by the Border Guards of
Bangladesh which objected any activity
being done within 40 mts (150) yards of
the International Border.
4. Claimant’s letter It was brought to the notice of the Pg 31, Annexure C-
dated 15.02.2017 Respondent that the work was 12, SOC
stopped by the Border Guards of
Bangladesh which objected any activity
being done within 40 mts (150) yards of
the International Border.
5. 11.02.2017 The commandant of 30 Bn, BSF, Pg 201, Annexure
Letter No. ops/30 informed the Land Port Authority of C-68, SOC
Bn/ICP India, the Principal Employer of the
Dawki/2017 of works, that the Bangladesh Border
BSF. guard had objected to the construction
works within 150 yards of the
International Border and also
requested for taking up the said issue
at the appropriate level.
6. 03.03.2017 It was brought to the notice of the Pg 33, Annexure C-
Claimant’s letter Respondent that the work was stopped 14, SOC
by the Border Guards of Bangladesh
which objected any activity being done
within 40 mts (150) yards of the
International Border.
7. 30.03.2017 It was brought to the notice of the Pg 35, Annexure C-
 Claimant’s letter Respondent that the work was stopped 15, CD-1
by the Border Guards of Bangladesh
which objected any activity being done
within 40 mts (150) yards of the
International Border.

It was also stated that the claimant

will come up with the comprehensive
accounts of losses inferred from long
idle manpower and machinery.
8. Claimant’s Letter  It was pointed out that that Pg 41, Annexure
dated 30.05.2017 even after three months, the C-21, SOC
matter with BGB was not
resolved.
 The Claimant further stated that
until the dispute was fully
resolved, the Claimant was
finding it difficult to plan its
construction works on a time
scale in view of the uncertainty
about the change in the layout.
 The contractor has already
started works like culvert,
installation of paver making
machines and toilet blocks,
boundary fencing. Prefabricated
building agency has since been
fixed and structural frame work
of P.E.Bs done and waiting for
vetting by IIT, as per
requirement of the employer.

9. 05.06.2017 It was recorded that the progress of Pg 62 annexure r-

Respondent’s some activities like construction of 37, RD -1
letter building falling within 150 yards of
international borders was objected by
BGB.
10. 05.06.2017 It was recorded that the progress of Pg 63 annexure r-
Respondent’s some activities like construction of 38, RD -1
letter building falling within 150 yards of
international borders was objected by
BGB.
11. Claimant’s letter Claimant anticipated that the entire Annexure R-39
dated 05-06-2017 layout of the project may undergo Page 64 SOD Vol-
change. RD-1
12. 05-06-2017 Labour license obtained in April 2017 Annexure R-39
Page 64 SOD Vol-
 RD-1
Claimant’s letter Copy of license.
Annexure R- 19
Page 28 SOD Vol-
RD-1).
13. Minutes of the It was recorded that the progress was Pg 43, Annexure C-
meeting dated affected due to objection by BGB not 23, CD-1
09-06-2017 allowing construction within 150 yards.
14. 15.06.2017 Claimant requested that the start date Pg 78, Annexure R-
has to be shifted due to objection by 44, RD-1
Claimant’s letter BGB.
15. 22.06.2017 Respondent stated that claimant Pg 79, Annexure R-
request of shifting of start date was not 45, RD-1
Respondent’s justified.
letter
16. Respondent’s Content of letter dt.30.5.2017 of the Annexure R-49
letter dated Claimant (that they have commenced page 86 SOD Vol-
22.06.2017 work on some of the available work RD1
fronts) was refuted.
17. 06-07-2017 The issue of BGB was resolved with Pg 48, Annexure
issuing of revision of layout plan. C-24, CD-1
18. 14.07.2017 In the letter that there was total change Pg 55, Annexure
in the layout of the project . it was C-27, CD-1
Claimant’s letter further mentioned that even the
revised layout was defected as ANY
coordinated were not mentioned.
19. 24.07.2017 Respondent’s letter Pg. 106, Annexure
R-59, Vol RD-1
Respondent’s There is no denying that the layout of
letter most of the buildings has been changed,
but …
20. July 2017 Respondent alleges that there was
inadequate deployment of resources
and non-completion of pre-
construction activities till July 2017 in
general and even thereafter upto April
2018 of any building / structure
foundation work.
21. Minutes of MOM: Pg. 58, Annexure
meeting held on C-29, Vol CD-1
04.08.2017 GM/AP mentioned that there is no
denying that the layout of most of the
building has changed, Pg. 128, Annexure
R-67, Vol RD-1
22. 10-08-2017 Claimant submitted Job Mix Formula Annexure R-73
for M-25/M-30 concrete Page 138 SOD vol
Respondent’s RD-1
 letter
23. 11.08.2017 The contractor was in a fix about the Pg 63, Annexure C-
whole project layout, as to which one 62, Vol CD-1
Claimant’s letter will be changed. Actually, PEB building,
toilet drains, culvert, road alignment
and some length of fencing were
changed in the revised layout.
24. 17.08.2017 It is recorded that 266 days were lost Pg 69, Annexure C-
due to obstruction by BGB. 32, Vol CD-1
Claimant’s letter
25. Minutes of
Not setting-up complete Laboratory till Annexure R-88
meeting dated
September 2017 Page 164-166 SOD
11- 09-2017 Vol-RD1
26. Claimant’s letterIt was recorded that in the revised Pg 106, Annexure
dated 05.04.2018.layout plan except fencing on the C-45, SOC
and minutes of northern and eastern side the entire
meeting dated
layout was changed. Pg 43, Annexure
09.06.2017 C-23, SOC
27. 18.04.2018 In order to justify its delay the Pg 237, Annexure
respondent stated that the contractor’s R-120, Vol R-2
Respondent’s contention that the revision in layout
letter plan substantially changed the scope of
work their work is devoid of any merit
because the size and design of the
buildings/ sheds remained unchanged
and only their locations were shifted.
Similarly the location of various
utilities have been shifted to suit the
change in location of buildings/sheds.
The above changes did not result in
revision in the contractor’s scope of
work.
28. Minutes of Concrete batching plant mobilized in Annexure R-124
meeting dated April 2018, 20 months after award of Page 255-257 SOD
23-04-2018 work Vol- RD2

29. April 2018 Claimant mobilised CC batching plant

Respondent alleges that Claimant

abnormally delayed the preliminary /
pre-construction activities, which are
independent of handing over of site
and was not in position to take up any
building work on ground till April 2018
(i.e. more than 19 months after award
of work)
30. 05.10.2018 Even after this dispute was resolved, Pg 115, Annexure
the BGB continued to stop the work at C 48, SOC
Email by claimant various instances. BGB stopped the
work on 02.10.2018 when the Main
Drain South side concreting work was
in progress. Further, on 04.10.2018,
BGB stopped the South side fencing
Angle grouting work. This was informed
to the Respondent by the email dated
05.10.2018.
31. RITES email dated  The issue raised be the Claimant Part of Ann. C-53
11-10-2018 in early October 2018, was page 126 SOC Vol-
already clarified by RITES CD1
 From the reply it is clear that
the works stopped by BGB are
only peripheral minor activities
like a small portion of drain
(30m). Same was with chain link
fencing also where only a minor
section falling in a particular
patch was stopped temporarily
for a few days and there was no
hinderance to remaining major
portion of the work.

32. Claimant’s email It was recorded that due to objection Pg 116, Annexure
dated 29.10.2018 by BGB the claimant was instructed by C-49 , SOC
BSF to stop the work. The excavated
materials was being dumped by the
southern side of the project as the filing
area was on the southern side. The
claimant stated that it did not have any
area to dumped any excavated earth.
33. 02.11.2018 It was recorded that due to objection Pg 250 RD-2
by BGB there stoppage of fencing work
Minutes of RCC drain work.
meeting

34. 10.11.2018 It was recorded that the issue of Pg 359

interference by BGB within 50 yards of
Minutes of International border was recorded. RD-2
meeting

35. Minutes of There was no restriction in earthwork Annexure R-163

meeting dated either in filling or in excavation, Apart page 349-351 SOD
14-11-2018 from very minor hindrance to drain / Vol-CD2)
chain link fencing, all other work fronts
were available to the Claimant without
any hindrance.