Operations Review

April 2021
Content
Focus areas
1. Cost – Construction cost analysis, Labour cost movement, PMC Cost, Budgeting protocols, COVID Impact

2. Time – Construction duration analysis, Billing durations, COVID Impact

3. Contracts Management– Contract award analysis, Ongoing disputes, Procurement trend, LRP Savings

4. Quality – Quality score trend, Team structure, Update on key initiatives

5. Safety – Record of incidences, Update on key initiatives

6. Technology – Update on Pune and GGL precast initiatives, Bath Pod, BIM

2
 Construction Labour Cost
PMC Cost
Cost Analysis Movement
Cost
Labour camp
Budgeting cost and Other
protocols COVID initiatives
Impact

3
Construction budget at BD stage vs. Concept stage vs. Current budget
PUNE
TDD Concept Current
3685
3538

3522

3479

3378
3317
3248

3230
3086
3058

2981
2907

2907

2891
2851

2851

2812
2483

Variation wrt
TDD % of SA
>5% 0%
0-5% 28%
<0% 72%

UNDRI K E S H AV N A G AR H I N J E W AD I M AM U R D I M AH AL U N G E M AN J AR I

MMR
TDD Concept Current
5433
5113
5035

4979

4791
4530
4530
4233

4173
4119
4104
3908

3900
Variation wrt
3872

3720
3591

3513
3477
3447

3360
3309

TDD % of SA
3181
3170

3012

>5% 50%
0-5% 28%
<0% 23%

E M E R AL D C H AN D I V AL I K AL Y AN RKS P AN V E L P H - 1 P AN V E L P H - 2 P AN V E L P H - 5 P AN V E L
4
Construction budget at BD stage vs. Concept stage vs. Current budget

SZ
TDD Concept Current

3870
3794

3668
3476
3267

3171
3117
3066
3058

3009

3009
2849

2832
2803
2781

2759
2633

2643
2564

2558
2540
2420
2401

2325
2325
2255
2250
645
641

559
558

474
419

AGROVET RESERVE RO YA L W O O DS GODREJ 24 AQUA AIR ETERNITY AVENUES REFLECTION LAKE GARDENS NURTURE

Variation wrt TDD % of project SA

>5% 26%
0-5% 3%
<0% 71%
5
Construction budget at BD stage vs. Concept stage vs. Current budget

NCR
TDD Concept Current

5937
5829

5392
Variation % of
wrt TDD SA
4133

3835
>5% 14%
3338

3213

3193
3105
3023

3023

3012
2946

0-5% 0%

2857
2751

2748

2644

2634

<0% 86%

AIR HABITAT MERIDIAN OKHLA NATURE+ GGL

Variation wrt TDD % of project SA

>5% 19%
Overall at a portfolio level 0-5% 15%
<0% 65%
6
Budget trend for completed projects

4500 40%
4188

4000
28% 30%
3649 3685
3561 3538
3500
3265 3284
3182 3117
3042 2886 3066 3066 20%
2936 2980
3000
2836 2787 2748 2781
2656 2706
2563 2686 2626
2464 10%
2500 2565 2375
4% 2255
0.1%
2000 -2% 0%
-4%
-8%
1500
-11% -12% -13% -10%
-14%
1000
-21%
-22% -23% -20%
500 -25%

0 -30%
Serenity Elements Summit G-24 Sec-79 Prime Central Air Ph 1 Sec-88A Eternity Ph 1 Avenues Ph Prana Air Ph 2 Infinity
1
TDD Current Variation %
Cost includes escalation and contingency

7
CTC Variations year-on-year
 Trend for 13 Completed Projects in CTC since 2017

COC Variation in AOP YOY

2.00%

1.00%

0.19%
0.00%
FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21
-0.25% -0.11%
-1.00% -0.89%

-1.37%
-2.00%

8
Breakdown of highest increases
TDD Concept Current

5433
5113
5035

4979

4791
4530

4530

4133
3908
3870

3835
3668

3591
3476

3477

3213
3181
3171

3170
3009

3009
2803

2781
2420

GODREJ 24 REFLECTION LAKE GARDENS CHANDIVALI K A L YA N RKS PANVEL PH-5 MERIDIAN

Changes in
SOP and
Variance wrt Change in Change in GST Regime escalation Acceleration
Zone Project Variance % Parking Standardizat
TDD design specs Change and cost
ion
contingency

SZ Godrej 24 361 15% 67 340

SZ Reflection 162 5% 15 57 65 -28 0 9
SZ Lake Gardens 659 22% 36 77 116 356 0 37
MMR Chandivali 1205 31% 440 471 216 78
MMR Kalyan 422 13% -407 883 25 -157 78
MMR RKS 2251 71% 931 -144 1592 247 30
MMR Panvel Ph-5 261 6% 60 170* 31
NCR Meridian 623 19% 136 243 235 9
*Escalation % changed from 3.5% to 5% in Panvel Ph 5
All values in Rs/sqft of SA
9
Cost Reduction Measures (1/2)
Initiative Description Benefits To GPL

• Laid down guidelines and pointers for developing the

baseline models after critical evaluation of regional
input on
Model 2000
• design efficiency, • Implemented in Encore and Sec-43
• structural and MEP requirements, construction
methodology,
• contracting strategy and ease of construction

MODEL COST FOR PLOTTED DEVELOPMENT

• Increase predictability of costs at TDD level and
• Created a model cost for plotted development and
throughout the project lifecycle
Plotted Model rolled out guidelines.
• Benchmarks for future plotted deals
• Also developed an automated excel tool to calculate
cost of plotted developments at TDD stage
MANAGING ALUMINIUM FORMWORK

• Brought visibility of present repetitions being • Savings because of free issue formwork – 9.2 Cr
Free issue Formwork achieved in all zones (Rs.14/sqft on SA)

• SOP for design, execution and then reuse of aluform

10
Cost Reduction Measures (2/2)
Area Description Benefits To GPL
• RAG ANALYSIS - developed a scoring mechanism to
rate concept designs and budgets against benchmark • Objective framework for evaluating Concept Design
projects and TDD w.r.t BD sign-off
Cost and
• ENGINEERING EFFICIENCY SCORE - for rating a given • Objective feedback to decision makers about areas of
Engineering
architectural layout, w.r.t engineering efficiency improvement.
Scorecards
• MEP SCORE - to rate a given architectural layout, w.r.t • Evaluates engineering efficiency w.r.t most efficiency
optimum location for all MEP shafts which affect design projects as on date
efficiency and MEP cost
• There will be greater confidence in budgets presenting
COST AUDITOR
current best reality.
Third Party Cost • Evaluated various global cost consultants of repute
• They are independent from the management structure
Auditor
and can act with objectivity
• Finalized “Gleeds” who have a very good Indian footprint
as residential cost consultants.
• Frees up bandwidth for GPL employees

Code compliance and cost optimisation in FY21

In-house engineering peer review & value engineering • Concrete – 1652 Cu.m ; Reinforcement – 1732 MT;
In-house Peer
Review Engineering peer review of 17 projects Savings ~ Rs.10.47 Cr;
(~23 mil sq.ft of BUA) in FY21 • MEP Savings ~ Rs.4.75 crores
• Peer review consultant fee saving ~ Rs. 3.45 Cr;

11
Analysis of Awarded Contracts | Cost Escalation over time
Region Mumbai Pune NCR

Year 2016 2020 2017 2020 2018 2020 2018 2020

Vendor JCC JCC JCC JCC Millennium Millennium MCC CTCL

Labour + Material (Steel Labour + Material (Steel Labour + Material

Rate Considered Labour Contract
Free issue) Free issue) (Steel Free issue)
Nurture /
Panvel Ph Nature
Project Prime RKS RKS G-24 Park Sec-43
1 Plus
Greens

Shell and Core package

14.8 17.4 34.9 41.0 69.75 79.30 83 89
amount (Rs Cr)

YoY Escalation 4.1% 5.6% 6.63% 3.3%

12
Impact of COVID
 Comparison and before and after the 1st wave of COVID

Pune Region Projects Mahalunge R4 Mahalunge R6

Vendor KEC KEC
Date Mar-20 (before 1st wave) Feb-21 (after1st wave)
R4 Quantity Rate Amount Rate Amount
Concrete (Rs/m3) 20900 6492 13.6 6472 13.5
Steel (Rs/MT) 2293 14467 3.3 14421 3.3
Formwork (Rs/m2) 194552 362 7.0 377 7.3
Total Amount 23.93 24.16
% increase 0.96%

• Data points available for other regions correlating to pre (Feb 20) and post COVID (Mar 21) awards are
inconclusive because no apple to apple comparison is available

COVID Impact on Labour

• Cost of Labour welfare & contractor incentives to tide over 1st wave of COVID was 3.21% of COC in FY21

13
Labour Wages Trend

MIN DAILY LABOUR WAGES

600

564
500
544
499 470
YoY Increase
479
472
400
329 Mumbai, Pune 6%
318
358
300 340 Bangalore 16%
304 304
NCR 4%
200
Mumbai, Pune Bangalore NCR

100

0
2017 2018 2019 2020
Mumbai, Pune 479 499 544 564
Bangalore 304 304 472 470
NCR 318 329 340 358

Source: Data from State Government websites

14
 PMC Cost and Staff productivity

STAFF DEPLOYED (FY 21) (Nos) Staff

COC for FY-21 PMC Cost
Zone productivity
OFF ROLE (Cr.) (INR /SFT)
PMC GPL TOTAL (Crs/staff/year)
(CONTRACT)
PUNE 192 82 5 279 375 1.8 59

SOUTH 44 69 19 132 237 2.3 68

MMR 54 67 14 135 158 1.9 63

NCR 101 117 142 360 331 1.5 49

KOLKATA 0 12 12 24 41 2.3

OVERALL 391 347 192 930 1141 1.8 58

Staff cost as a % of COC is 7.5%
Benchmarking with L&T

• Total L&T Construction staff at site – 14000

• Total output in FY21 – 35000 Cr

• Staff productivity – 2.5 Cr/staff/year vs GPL’s 1.8 Cr/staff/year.

• L&T staff productivity is higher due to a combination of infra, airports, hotels, commercial and residential buildings

• Staff cost as % of COC is 6-7% 15

Cost of Labour Camp loaded in Contractor’s rates

Impact on Rs/sqft on SA
Setup and
Labour running cost
Zone Location Project
Capacity per labour Setup Cost Running Cost Total cost
(Rs)

Pune On site Hillside 1 & 2 1000 39,000 15 21 36

Mahalunge
Pune On site 1200 38,333 14 20 35
R6/R7A

Pune On site Manjari R7/R8 1228 41,938 17 19 36

MZ On site Godrej 2 400 33,000 14 17 31

MZ On site Kalyan (PH1) 800 39,000 13 21 34

Off site.
NCR Nature Plus 700 43,610 34 34
Rented

16
 Cost of Labour Welfare on account of COVID (FY21)
EXTRA COST FOR COVID SAFETY MEASURES Unit Rate Remarks
LOGISTICS
Cost of transportation (INR per labour) per worker 1200
14 days quarantine wages per worker per day 550
Additional rooms of labor camp per worker 700
MEDICAL
COVID testing per worker 600
Vaccination (2 shots) per worker 1200
Doctor fees per month 150000 for 3 months
Medical Certificate per worker 100
Medical insurance per worker 500
FINANCIAL INCENTIVE
Additional incentive to labour per worker 5000 adopted by NCR
adopted by bangalore zone for 6 months (25
Labour increment in rate per worker per day 200 day per month)
Total cost of all welfare initiatives per labour per worker 13000
Labour incentive as % of COC % of COC 1.66%
Contractor incentive as % of COC (linked to milestone
performance) % of COC 1.44%
TOTAL LABOUR + CONTRACTOR INCENTIVE (% OF COC) % of COC 3.21% Actual incentive paid = Rs.21.3 Cr in FY 21

• Incentives given on 17 out of 30 projects. Applicable on 694 Cr of COC out of 1141 Cr achieved in FY21.

• These costs are one time expenses and are not being factored in future budgets 17
Budgeting Protocols | Proposed Escalation Guidelines

Sr No Item Brief Description Escalation Rules

1 Reinforcement Base rate as per Steel Guidelines. No additional Escalation

Vitrified Tiles, CP Sanitary, Kitchen

2 LRP items Sink, Doors & Hardware, Switch No Escalation as rates are finalised for Next 5 Years
Sockets, Painting

3 Base rate items 3 % YOY on a reducing scale

4 All other items 3 % YOY on unawarded packages

 Escalation amount calculated at TDD stage will not be allowed to change except due to design changes

 Escalation will be calculated at a contract package level instead of at an overall COC level.

 Budgets from Escalation WBS can only be transferred to the appropriate package it is linked to. Transfers to other
heads will not be allowed.

18
Budgeting Protocols | Contingency Guidelines

Project stage For Aspirational & Unique Projects* For Standard & Repetitive Projects#

TDD 7.5 % of COC 4% of COC

Concept 5 % of COC 3% of COC
Schematic 5 % of COC 3% of COC
Pre-tender 5 % of COC 3% of COC
Launch 5 % of COC 3% of COC

5 % on packages where quantification on GFC 3% on packages where quantification on GFC has not
has not been done. been done.

2% on packages where quantification on GFC 2% on packages where quantification on GFC has been
CTC
has been done done

No contingency should be kept on work which No contingency should be kept on work which has been
has been executed. executed.

 *Aspirational & Unique Projects - Being attempted by Zone for the first time which has no precedence in zone and are
unique in nature. E.g.- Worli, Bandra, Ashok Vihar, Sec-43, etc

 # Standard & Repetitive Projects - Which are similar in nature to other projects of the same zone which have
completed one entire CTC cycle. E.g. Encore, standard design product etc.
19
 Handover Scheduling
OC timelines
timelines Protocols
Time
BD vs Billing /
Current Outstanding COVID
timelines payments

20
Start to OC Duration (in months)
Please refer slide on Standard
80 Protocols (No. 24) for revised
targeted timelines of OC
70 67

60
53
50 46 46
43 42
41 40
40 38
33 33

Icon – Iconic
Tower
30

Eternity Ph 1
Central MHADA
24 Central Sale

Aria
Prana

20

Air Ph 2
G-24

10

0
Pune MMR NCR South
Average Max Min

Average Max Min Remarks

For plotted, min is 13
Overall 41 67 24
(Reserve)
Iconic tower – 31 floors. 10
G-24
months lost due to litigation 21
OC to handover duration (in months)
25

22
21 20
20

17

15
13

10

Summit

Aria
10
8
Infinity

7 Prime Sale
Horizon

5
5 4

Avenues

Air Ph 1
Central 2

0
Pune MMR NCR South 0

-5
Average Max Min

22
BD timelines vs Actuals (in months)

80

73
70
65
64

60
55 55
50
50 48 48
46 45
43 42 43
40 40
40 37 38

30
30 27 27 27 27
22
20

10

*0
0
Godrej Prana Horizon Ph 1 Infinity Hinjewadi -24 Central Sale Prime Sale Prime Rehab Godrej Summit Godrej Oasis Aria Air Ph-1 Avenues -Ph-I

BD timeline Actual Start to Handover

*Summit BD data not available

23
Scheduling Protocols | Business Index for Operations
 In FY21, we have introduced Business Index (BI) for Operations

 Business Index parameters have been created on basis of past performance (Best and average numbers). Every activity quantified and
targets measurable.

 BI was created to establish a uniform measure of performance for all projects as some schedules were conservative and some were
aggressive in their plans.

 Maximiser projects: working on BI-3 levels

 Optimiser projects: working on BI-1 levels

 Actual performance for FY21 : Weighted avg of all maximizer projects is 2.60 with RKS (BI 4.7) OKHLA (BI 4.50)

 All Schedules are updated on a weekly basis

Key Indicators: A sample BI calculation for a G+24 Tower

G+24 Aluform Unit Current stats BI-1 BI-2 BI-3 BI-4 BI-5
Start to OC readiness Months 36-40 28 22 20 18 15

Average slab cycle Days 14-16 13 11 10 9 7

OC readiness
Months 15-20 11 8 7 6.5 6
(from completion of terrace)

24
Scheduling Protocols | Finishing timelines
Current
UNIT BI-1 BI-2 BI-3 BI-4 BI-5
stats
INTERMEDIATE FINISHING MILESTONES

Lift completion (lag from terrace completion to lift

months 6-7 6 4.5 4 3.5 3
installation)

Toilet & Flat completion: lag between typical RCC

slab completion & Toilet / flat completion (all
no of floors
finishing + MEP) (except windows, doors, painting, 10-15 7 6 5 4.5 4
gap
CP sanitary fittings, wooden flooring, electrical wire
pulling & electrical switch board)

 Aim is to reduce gap between RCC and finishing to 5-7 floors across all projects

 The above will ensure that OC will be achieved in 11 months for Optimizers and 7 months for Maximizers from Terrace
completion.

25
Contractor issues being faced due to COVID
1. Labour shortage – Workers leaving due to fear of a prolonged lockdown. New workers also not coming to
sites.

2. Reduced working hours – Shortened work hours due to night curfew slowing down progress.

3. Productivity loss – due to time consumed in following COVID protocols.

4. Reimbursement requests from Contractors - to compensate for additional cost due to labour idling,
Overhead cost, transportation cost of labour, cost of COVID safety measures.

5. Cash flow issues and payment delays

6. Unavailability of material / Delay in delivery of material due to COVID restrictions.

26
Labour leaving sites in the second wave

GPL LABOUR STATUS 31-Mar-21 11-Apr-21 22-Apr-21

15,949
TOTAL 15,389
13,191 (-17%)

525
KOLKATA 488
363 (-31%)

133
CHENNAI 147
144 (+8%)

3,019
BANGALORE 3,278
2,983 (-1%)

4,103
NCR 4,146
3,504 (-15%)

2,103
MUMBAI 2,245
1,408 (-33%)

6,066
PUNE 5,085
4,789 (-21%)

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

27
 Support required to retain workers in 2nd wave | Under discussion
MEDICAL EXPENSE
Sl. Min Anticipated
Item Max spend (Cr)
no. Spend (Cr)
1 Covid test 0.4 0.4 Apart from this,
2 Vaccination 1.7 1.7 following measures
3 Doctor on call 0.3 0.3 are under discussion
4 Temp Medial dispensary 0.2 0.2 with HR:
Doctor / Social counselors to counsel workers that they are More
5 no impact -
safe here in labour camp than travel GPL Staff
SUB-TOTAL 2.5 2.5
FINANCIAL ASSITANCE 1. To reimburse travel
Sl. Min Anticipated
no.
Item Max spend (Cr)
Spend (Cr)
allowance to staff
1 Wages in case of complete lockdown 10.5 - from home to site
2 Labour incentive for staying back at GPL site due to no means of
2-a Slab 1 - May , June July (3 months) 10.5 7.4 public transport
2-b Slab 2 - additional 3 months (August, Sept , Oct) 10.5 7.4
3 New workers - Transport from home to site 0.5 0.5 2. First priority in
4 New workers - wages for 14 days mandatory quarantine cost 1.8 1.8 Vaccination to be
5 Contractor incentive for achieving milestones 11.3 5.6 given to field Staff
SUB-TOTAL 45.1 22.6 & their dependents
MEDICAL + FINANCIAL ASSITANCE 47.6 25.2
SALEABLE AREA UNDER CONSTRUCTION 29.5 29.5
COST IMPACT (INR PER SFT) 16.2 8.5
28
Analysis of outstanding bills

% of Outstanding beyond contract

0-30 days 30-60 days 60-90 days more than 90 days

2% Avg
6% Outstanding
12% Avg COC Per Outstanding
6% 21% 22% Zone as a % of
26% 26% Month (Cr.) Per Month
9% COC
(Cr.)
22% 6%
56% 11% NCR 30.0 33.9 113%
20%
15% Pune 34.4 17.5 51%
19%
21% Bangalore 21.7 8.5 39%
24% MMR 14.4 4.8 33%
6% Kolkata 3.8 4.4 116%
73%
67% 7%
59% 54% Chennai 0.9 0.3 29%
46%
OVERALL 17.5 11.9 68%
35%
30%

On an average 1/3rd bills are being paid on time

NCR PUNE BANGALORE MMR KOLKATA CHENNAI OVERALL

29
 Contract
Ongoing
award
Disputes
analysis
Contract Management

Procurement
LRP Savings
Trend

30
 Value Of Post- Award Contractor Amendments / Settlements

Total of Original WO Total of Latest

Zone Total Variance Amount Total Variance %
value Amendment

Mumbai 1614 1693 79 4.90%

North 2958 2902 -57 -1.91%

Pune 1797 1762 -36 -1.98%

South 1425 1376 -49 -3.45%

Kolkata 415 403 -12 -2.91%

Total 8209 8135 -74 -0.90%

All values in Cr
The above info covers data from 5165 WO

31
Summary of Ongoing Contractor Disputes (1/2)
Potential Financial
Contractor Claim Amount Exposure to GPL Potential Recovery from
Potential Net Impact Cr.
All Zones Cr (Expected Settlement contractor In Crs
value). In crs
Total 241.31 50.26 58.53 -8.27

Project wise Disputes

Potential Financial
Exposure to GPL
Contractor Claim (Expected Settlement Potential Recovery Potential Net Impact
Zone Contractor Project Amount Cr. value). In crs from contractor In Crs Cr.

South Elite (Shell & Core) Azure - Chennai 2.94 1.59 Nil 1.59
Godrej Eternity
South Viraj (Shell & Core) (Phase-I) Nil 8.16 7.75 0.41

Pune Tricon Godrej Park Greens 1.02 0.51 Nil 0.51

Pune IVRCL (Shell & Core) Godrej Prana 8.86 5.72 5.98 -0.26
Capacite (Shell &
MZ Core) Godrej Emerald 20.94 5.95 5 0.95

MZ Stonesteel (Precast) Godrej City - EWS 1 9.00 0 0.75 -0.75

East Simplex Prakriti 61.39 5.10 4.96 0.14

32
Summary of Ongoing Contractor Disputes (2/2)

Project wise Disputes

Potential Financial
Contractor Claim Exposure to GPL GPL Counter Claim Potential Net Impact
Zone Contractor Project
Amount Cr. (Expected Settlement (Recovery Cr. Cr.
value). In crs
NCR Progressive Godrej Air 13.17 3.0 Nil 3.0
NCR GDCL Oasis / Icon 69.91 14 25 -11
NCR Ensemble GGL 0.43 -0.43
Simplex (Civil and
NCR Summit 25.89 2.74 7.38 -4.64
Finishing)
Capacite (Civil and
NCR Summit 26.56 1.99 1.99
Finishing)
NCR Apex Summit 0.64 0.55 0.55
NCR Lembda Godrej Wood 0.10 0.06 0.025 0.035
NCR SPCL Frontier 0.89 0.89 1.25 -0.36

33
Claim causes
 Major Causes for the Claims raised by the Contractors:
 Suspension of Works
 Delayed Release of Phases as per Contract
 De-scoping of Works
 Interest on delayed Payments
 Idling Charges due to delayed supply of Client Supply Material due to cash flow issues - Aluminium FW, Steel
 Change in PF and ESI Rules

 Other Reasons:
 NGT Ban
 COVID Lock down
 Ban on Mining of River Sand

34
Summary of Internal Tender Price Estimate Vs. Contract Award Deviation By
Package Category since 2018
Core & Shell Finishing MEP Infrastructure Miscellaneous Total

Total Total Total Total Total Total

Zone / initial initial initial initial initial initial
Package Total Total Total Total Total Total
Tende Tender Tender Tender Tender Tender Savin
Award Savings Award Savings Award Savings Award Savings Award Savings Award
r price price price price price price gs
Value Value Value Value Value Value
Estima Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat
te e e e e e

Mumbai 302 286 16 196 177 19 106 93 13 11 10 1 33 27 6 648 594 55

North 869 856 13 203 194 9 207 198 10 75 70 4 174 165 9 1527 1482 45

Pune 837 823 14 131 120 11 150 141 9 67 67 0 101 95 6 1287 1248 40

South 416 388 28 109 105 4 132 115 17 41 38 3 0 0 0 698 646 51

Kolkata 66 65 1 3 2 0 24 23 2 8 7 1 3 2 0 104 99 4

Total 2490 2418 72 642 598 44 620 570 50 203 194 9 310 289 21 4264 4069 195

% 2.9% 6.9% 8.1% 4.4% 6.8% 4.6%

35
 Cement Procurement Prices (Rs/bag including tax)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

348
331

325

323
312
311
309

308

303
300

296

296
296

296

296

296

295
294

293

287

286
283
278

273
266

266

264
255

251

AVERAGE OF MUMBAI AVERAGE OF NCR AVERAGE OF PUNE AVERAGE OF BANGALORE AVERAGE OF KOLKATA

YoY % 3.4% 2.2% 2.2% -1.1% -0.1%

Cement cost is 6%-8% of COC

36
 Steel Procurement Prices (Rs/MT including tax)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

64542

58393
55785
54357
54267

51047

49257
47013

46169
44553

44387
43174
42762
42442
42385
42070

41881
41054
40793

39565

39325
39174
38305

37076
34967
33809

33642
33015

31777
AVERAGE OF MUMBAI AVERAGE OF NCR AVERAGE OF PUNE AVERAGE OF BANGALORE AVERAGE OF KOLKATA

YoY % 9.9% 13.0% 10.5% 10.6% 12.9%

Steel cost is 10%-12% of COC 37

 LRP Savings FY21

Procurement Value (In

Zone Budget (In Cr) % Saving from budget Value of Saving In Cr
Cr)

NCR 0.61 0.61 -10% 0.00

Pune 14.18 13.02 8% 1.16

South 5.52 4.19 24% 1.33

Total 20.32 17.83 12% 2.49

• Rates finalized for a period of 5 Years. Savings of Rs.367 Cr (Rs.48 per Sft) over a procurement value of Rs.1513 Cr (24%
savings)

38
 Quality Score
SOPs
Trend
Quality

Update on NPS
key initiatives improvement

39
CQRA Scores | RCC

RCC CQRA CHART

2020-2021
2020 2021

9.08
8.68

8.63
8.52

8.23
8.18
8.08
8.07

6.93

6.44
BANGALORE MUMBAI NCR PUNE AHMEDABAD

Overall 2020 2021

RCC 8.13 8.16
40
CQRA Scores | Finishing

FINISHING CQRA CHART

2020-2021
2020 2021

8.76
8.52

8.48
8.20
8.10

7.82
7.75

7.03

6.10

5.26
BANGALORE MUMBAI NCR PUNE AHMEDABAD

Overall 2020 2021

Finishing 7.66 8.16
41
Key Learnings from CQRA Audits - Diagnosis
 All projects get a higher score in RCC which dips by 0.5 points in Finishing.

Advance Finishes - Key Defects

Sample size – 4700 rooms
80 3.3% 3.5%
70 67 65 3.0%
60
2.5%
50 1.9% 47 47
2.0%
40
1.0% 1.5%
30 1.0% 25
1.0%
20
0.7%
10 0.5%

0 0.0%
Hollowness Dado Internal walls not in plumb Hollowness Floor Tile Cracks in Tile Door Damage

Occurence % defect

MEP- Key Defects Sample size – 4700 rooms

30 27 1%

25 1% 1%

20 1%
15
15 1%

10 0.40% 0%

5 0%

0 0%
Exposed plumbing pipes - not plugged properly Damage to concealed Plumbing pipes & electrical conduits 42
Occurence % defect
 43

Key Learnings from CQRA Audits – Defects vs. Solutions

Defect Frequency of Defect Solution

25% defects due no plaster in old projects of Bangalore (Air, Avenues Ph 1, United)
Now Int. Plaster mandatory across all projects of Bangalore
Internal walls not in
1.9 / 100 rooms
plumb
For extreme cases, we are insisting on cement sand backing plaster to be done prior to internal gypsum
plaster to ensure walls are in plumb and the defect will be eliminated.

Tile fixing with Tile adhesive to eliminate this defect (covered in new SOPs)
Hollowness of Tile – 3.6 / 100 (toilets + Mumbai / Pune – Tile adhesive implemented
wall dado kitchen) NCR – Not implemented due to Cost Delta 4.5 INR per sft
South – Not implemented due to Cost delta of 1.5 INR per sft

Hollowness of Tile –
1 / 100 rooms More focus on supervision and training to workmen.
floor

Better Protection of finished product (Guidelines issued across all projects and is being implemented)
Cracks in Floor Tile 1 / 100 rooms Guidelines of attic stock clearly issued (3% for floor & wall tiles as attic stock from every batch delivered to
site)

Damage to door This defect will be reduced drastically as we are going ahead with Pre Hung Doors (which will be installed
0.7 / 100 rooms
frame/shutter only after painting leading to chances of less damage as major worker / material movement is over)

MEP defects (Electrical

1 / 100 rooms Supervision levels being improved and enhanced checks are implemented
& Plumbing)
Key Initiatives

Area Current Challenges Description Benefits To GPL

• Outdated method statements QUALITY SOP

• These SOPs will address the
Strategic
present problems (Cracks, leakage,
Initiative • Unable to eliminate customer • Prepared and rolled out 92 SOPs
finishing, tile hollowness,
complaints of cracks, leakage, for RCC + Finishing + MEP & 23
undulations etc.)
finishing etc. SOPs for waterproofing

Digitizing quality checks at site has

• Manual quality checks with no
traceability of the root cause and
supervisor leading to no
Strategic
accountability.
Initiative
• No data also means no analytics to
identify areas of improvement
DIGITAL QUALITY SOFTWARE
• Implemented Digital quality
software "Qwikspec" at 21 out of
33 operations sites of GPL
made identifying following possible on
basis of actual data
• Most quality conscious engineer
• Most quality conscious contractor
• Area which have most quality
issues
• Sites / zones comparisons

44
Key Initiatives

Area Current Challenges Description Benefits To GPL

CQRA AUDITS – CUSTOMER

• Not enough focus on customer pain
Governance points which were mainly in
finishing activities (touch and feel)
during CQRA audits
ISSUES
• Reviewed CQRA audit reports
and realigned them to focus more
on customer touchpoints which
directly impact NPS
• More emphasis given to customer
touch points in CQRA audit reports.
• Creates a direct co-relation of CQRA
audit reports with NPS scores

QUALITY LEADERSHIP FORUM

• Senior leaders create awareness of
quality at sites
• Lack of quality consciousness at • Formed Quality Leadership
sites Forum (QLF) at every region
• Decisions linked to cross functional
Governance
teams will be resolved on the spot
• Lack of cross-learning • Comprises of senior leaders of
operations (Ops head), CC (Zonal
• Improves cross-learning
CC head) and Design (Zonal
Design head).

45
Quality Organization Chart

HO Ops - Quality
Amit Sharma

BANGALORE PUNE MUMBAI NCR

Zonal Quality head Zonal Quality Head Zonal Quality head Zonal Quality head
Ramakrishna S. Vikram D Arun K Jayant C

Projects: 17 nos.
Projects: 10 nos. Projects: 11nos. Projects: 08 nos.
Staff : 35 nos.
Staff : 11 nos. Staff : 20 nos. Staff : 11 nos.
GPL – 12 nos.
GPL – 08 nos. GPL – 06 nos. GPL – 08 nos.
PMC – 11 nos
PMC – 03 nos PMC – 14 nos PMC – 03 nos
Contract- 12

46
Measures to Improve NPS
Sr.
Present Pain Point Measure Status
No.

Chronic defects of cracks, leakage, Partially implemented due to cost

Revised SOPs rolled out specifically to address cracks,
1 hollowness etc. not getting addressed impact ranging from 34 INR per sft
leakage, hollowness
by existing SOP (MZ) to 108 INR per sft (Bangalore)

Contractors not aligned with GPL Aligned finishing contractors with CQRA scores. Proposed (Cost impact of 4.21 INR per
2
quality objectives. (Incentive of 0.55% of contract value) sft)

PMC’s poor quality staff not Implemented at Key sites (RKS, Sec
3 In-house supervision to be implemented
accountable for quality 43)

Hire experienced foremen (10 - 15 years) in finishing

4 Lack of experienced supervision activities who can guide the workers on finding real time Proposed in revised site org structure.
solution

Retain a part of PBFT (25%) of Key construction staff and

Sites taking shortcuts in quality which link its release with NPS results.
5 Under discussion
is known only post handover Bonus could be in multiples in case of better result or zero if
threshold not achieved

Construction staff taking quality lightly Introduce formal consequence management system for In development stage. Target to be
6
with no fear of consequences grave quality lapses implemented in FY22

CQRA Audits not focused on customer Key customer touchpoints identified and incorporated in
7 Implemented
touchpoints audit. Weightage of workmanship increased from 60% to 70%

47
 Safety Incident
Record
Update on
key initiatives

48
Safety- Major Incident Statistics

Ahmedab
FY 2020-21 Mumbai North South Pune Kolkata Vikhroli GPL
ad

Fatal

Lost Time (LTI) 1 2 1 4

Dangerous Occurrences

Bangalore North Vikhroli GPL

Incident Category
Godrej 24 - Godrej Meridian
Godrej Air Godrej Two Total GPL
South (Sec-106)
Fatal
Lost Time (LTI) 1 1 1 1 4

Dangerous Occurrences

49
Update on Key Initiatives

Area Current Challenges Description Benefits To GPL

ISO 45001: 2008 Certification

• Improve Environment, Social &
Governance (ESG) rating and boost
Low score in Global Real Estate • Implementation of ISO 45001
stakeholder’s confidence.
Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) & (International standard for
Governance
ESG and no benchmark with Occupational Health and Safety) at
• Benchmarking with International
International Safety Standard. GPL level- Internal audit Q1’ and
Standard.
Final Certification by October’ 22-23

Insufficient involvement and participation
of senior team members in safety
processes
Non-availability of IRCA
Strategic approved/competent Internal Auditors
Initiatives
To take GPL safety standards to
international level
• Bangalore – 88
Safety Involvement Index for • MMR – 97
Operation Heads • NCR – 83
• Pune - 93
Internal Auditors Training • Competent internal auditors, well
Conducted IRCA approved online equipped to do cross audits without
Internal Auditors Training (2 batches – 49 any external help
participants) • Strengthening cross audit culture
Gap Assessment Exercise of M/s
Landlease (Australia), safety
requirements (GMR) and GPL Safety • Provides insights and identifies gaps
Management System alongwith GILAC for system improvement
Safety to identify the improvement area
for further continual improvement.
50
Update on Key Initiatives
Area Current Challenges Description Benefits To GPL
Winning of External Safety Awards

• Identified and prepared for the

prestigious external recognition/
Strategic External recognition for Safety  Recognition from external agencies
awards e.g RoSPA, CIDC,
Initiatives performance  Motivation to internal stakeholders
Greentech, National Safety Council,
Apex India Foundation etc…
• Received total 54 Safety Awards
and Accolades

Not able to conduct internal safety audit  Virtual Safety audits helped us in
due to COVID-19 protocol & restrictions Virtual Safety Audit program assessing the Safety compliance
on travel. even during pandemic

Guidelines for COVID 19 prevention

Expert and relief
Problem • Developed and implemented
Solving guidelines and checklist for prevention
 Hygienic and Sanitised sites helped
Implementation of Govt. of COVID 19 spread at GPL.
us to avoid mass spread of COVID
notifications/directives for COVID 19. • Coordinated with projects and region
19 among workforce at project sites
for grocery arrangements, thermal
scanning, sanitation of workplace,
sanitizer, medical & quarantine facility
at labour camp etc.
51
Numbers of Safety Awards Received
 54 Prestigious External Safety / OHS / EHS Awards

• 12th CIDC Vishwakarma Award 2021 - 11 Projects

• RoSPa Intl. Safety Award - 3 Projects

• Apex India Foundation, 2020 OH&S Awards - 18 Projects

• NSCI Safety award 2020 (construction sector) - 6 Projects

• CREDAI Safety Award - 4 Projects

• Grow Care India Safety Award - 4 Projects

• 19th Annual Greentech safety Award - 2 Projects

Numbers Of Safety Award Received

60 54
50 40
40 33
30
20
10
0
FY 2018 - 19 FY 2019 - 20 FY 2020 - 21
52
 Encore
GGL Precast
Precast
Technology

Bath Pods BIM

53
Toilet Pods
 We have successfully produced & erected monolithic
thin 50mm wall concrete Bath Pod at NCR for the first
time in India.

 We are planning to implement toilet pods at Ashok Vihar

and Encore Township Project (Pune).

 Benefit of Using Toilets Pods–

 Very high and consistent quality finish produced in
factory environment.
 It will save project construction duration by 3 months
since these are pre finished Pods.
 It is light weight with high strength & durability of
concrete.
 This technology has been developed in-house by
GPL Team saving in excess of 5Cr vis-à-vis imported
technology.

 Design and engineering guidelines for adoption of bath

pod in projects have been circulated

 Production and installation methodology SOP

document under finalization.

Toilet Pods (Actual picture on

54 site)
Pune Precast
Progress we made last year:
In-house model
strategy- Hired
consultants,
developed cost and
business plans, The JVP eventually
finalized specs and backed out of this
technology Designs developed strategy

JVP allocated land Tenders floated and

Vendors finalized

Current Status:

• Agreement reached with Encore JVP on an outsourced model strategy. Suggested vendor - SPCL
• BOQ shared with SPCL for precast works.
• Discussion on to close SPCL costing to check business viability.
• We are expecting budgetary quotes from SPCL by end of May 2021 to decide on future course of action.

55
GGL Precast Productivity

Calendar Peak Capacity Actual Production Actual Production

Remarks
Year (sqft) (Sqft) (m3)

2018 3,27,600 1,74,248 5,935 21 Tables

Productivity loss due to M/s BCC Non-
37 Tables + 8
2019 5,77,200 2,50,466 5,970 performance and M/s BCC dispute and
Platforms NGT
Productivity loss due to M/s BCC Non-
47 Tables + 8
2020 7,33,200 1,87,980 7,363 performance and M/s BCC dispute and
Platforms COVID- 19

Loss in production due to transition

2021 (Till 47 Tables + 8
1,83,300 93,966 2,786 from old vendor (BCC) to new
March'21) Platforms
vendor (Survi)

Total 7,06,660 22,055

Balance
4,60,875 14,384
production

56
Benefits earned and Lessons learnt
Benefits
 Fast Construction – Completed 33 Villas from Basement to
terrace and rest 63 villas from first floor to terrace floor
(180Sqyd) 6 Month timeframe. The slab cycle achieved in Pre-
cast for villas are 1.2 slab/ day.
 Improved Quality of Construction
 Easy to Finish – Pre-cast reduces the time in finishing activity,
avoid chipping and grinding in structure which saves time in
handing over to finishing vendor.
 Improved Safety – As most of the concrete work happens in
factory, it reduces the accumulation of debris at site. Also,
reduces dirt and dust pollution at site.
 No External Plaster
 Faster MEP works, as all the conduits and boxes get
embedded in the factory itself
Lessons
 Decision to implement a new technology in any project should
be taken at concept stage. (even at redesign)
 Post appropriate due diligence, development of an in-house
team with experienced professionals should be explored and
implemented in time.
 Standardisation of Pre-cast is required, which was very less
in Suites having 61% unique elements which leads to time loss
due to re-fabrication & frequent modifications of the moulds/
formwork.
 Use of BIM for all the consultants is necessary – all
coordination of the structural, architectural and MEP should be
on BIM
 Mock-up is required to check the feasibility in design prior to
implementing at site – like Double wall mock-up.
 Need simpler connection details unlike the Connection details
in Suites (high rise) which are tedious and complicated, pin joint
connections helps in increase in erection efficiency.
57
Update on BIM Initiative
Current Challenges
• Delay in release GFC drawings
• Variation in Tender VS CTC
quantities
• Inability to consistently identify
customer pain points and
constructability issues before
construction
Description
FULL SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF
INNOVATIVE DIGITAL SOLUTION BIM
• BIM implementation in 16 GPL projects
• Organizational level BIM road map
including KPI for short term (Nov'21) and long
term (Nov'23) established
BIM STANDARDISATION
• Finalization of standard BIM SOP and
templates
Benefits To GPL
• GFA to GFC in 7 months –
• Released for Mahalunge R6 and R7A
• In pipeline for Chandivali, Kalyan- Ph 2, Manjari-
R5, Ashok Vihar-Parcel-5
• BIM models for quantity validation during bill
certification – Godrej Hillside 1000 cu.m concrete
reduction in contractor claim (reconciled in 3 days)
• BIM model for constructability review with project
team – Done for Godrej Hillside; planned for
Mahalunge R6 and R7A by May’21.
• Transforming GPL into a BIM led organisation,
with a platform for future digitalization
58
 Thank You

59