L&T in a petition to PSERC had sought the addition of Rs. 229.49 crore to capitol cost of the project and allow consequential adjustment in the tariff and extension of time for achieving the scheduled commercial Operation date.
L&T had petitioned the regulator that on account of change in the applicable seismic zone of the project site from zone III to zone IV and change in earlier approved location of the railway siding and other related railway infrastructure for the project after the execution of the PPA. The company had to bear additional expenses to the tune of Rs.229.49 crore.
L& T had claimed that project site does not fall in seismic zone III but falls in seismic zone IV and it was required to incur additional capital expenditure of Rs.51.38 crore including interest during construction. It further submitted that “additional work? involves one major bridge on the main line and another major bridge to be constructed to pass through the two dedicated freight corridors lines.
The cost estimate for railway siding as per 2011 report has been assessed to Rs.473.83 crore resulting into an increase of Rs.156.74 crore. By adding interest charges @ 12%, total cost increase works out to be Rs.178.11 crore. As per 2008 Report, the cost of setting up the railway siding arrangement was estimated as Rs.317.09 crore.
PSPCL had contended before PSERC that the bidding documents cast a clear responsibility on the bidders to acquaint itself about the transport requirements of the project and site conditions. The estimate of cost was only abstract, not based on detailed engineering and would be subject to revision on account of various factors including the Dedicated Freight Corridor.
PSERC is of the view that the petitioner ought to have exercised due diligence while submitting its bid for the project. It is not a case where the site was actually in a different Seismic Zone prior to the bidding and changed to a different Seismic Zone after signing of the PPA. It appears to be a case of genuine mistake on the part of the procurer.
The Commission observed that claim on account of change in the location of railway siding and other related railway infrastructure due to change in the scope of work and consequent increase in cost of railway siding etc., does not merit to be allowed.
The most popular citizen journalists' reports on merinews chosen automatically on the basis of views and comments
View more jobs