Central Government Employees
Welfare Housing Organisation
~
~ : 23717250
6th floor, 'A' Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Jarlpath, New Delhi -110001 Phones: 23739722/23717249/23355408 Fax :23717250 E-mail : cgewho@nic.in
No.:A-107/2 7th July, 201
MEMORANDUM
The LXXXVIII(88th} meeting of the Executive CommitteEj of CGEWHO was held at 1100 hrs on 21st June, 2011 under the Chairmanship ofSh S K Singh, ~I)mt Secretary(H}, M/o Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation in his Office -Room No.114, 'C' Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. A copy of the Minutes of the meeting is enclosed.
, '1 I f I ' 1c" ' , , , " -0 7 '.: .'1 /
"c- : i
Encl, As Above
To,
Sh S K Singh, Jt Secretilry(H), Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Ninnan
Bhawan, New Delhi.
\1inistry of Housing & Urban2) Ms Sudha Krishnan, Jt Secretary & Financial Advisor, Poverty Alleviation, Nirn1an Bhawan, New Delhi.r
3) Sh Rajeev Kapoor, Jt Secretary(AT&A), Ministry of pJ~sonnel, PG & Pension, Room
No.193, Gate No.4, North Block, New Delhi.
4) Sh Sameer Mitra, Dy Chief(Projects), HUDCO, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi.
5) Sh S K Vyas, Member to the Staff Side, National Council(JCM), 13, Firozshah Road, New
Delhi.
7) Sh M Narayanan, Dy Director(Technical), CGEWHO attended the meeting as Member Treasurer in place of Sh R C Agarwal, Dy Director(Finance), CGEWHO & Member
Treasurer.
Chairman
.Sh S K Singh Jt Secretary (H) M/o Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
? Membdrl
Ms Sudha Krishnan It. Secretary (F) & FA M/o Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
3, Col (Retd) Sunil Kumar Chief Executive Officer, CGEWHO Member-Secretary
4. MemberSh Rajeev Rai Director (Welfare )
Represented by Sh Rajeev Kapoor Jt. Secretary (AT&A), M/o Personnel, PG & Pensions
5 MemberSh A K Chauhan Dy. Chief (Projects) Represented by Sh Sameer Mitra Dy. Chief (Projects), HUDCO
6. I
Sh M Narayanan Dy. Director (Tech), CGEWHO
/' Prior to discussing agenda items, Chairman, Executive Committee directed CEO to review
all the projects and monitor the progress regularly and make sure that the projects are completed
without further delay.
Item No.i) To confirm minutes of LXXXVII(87th) meetin{?: of the Executive Corn
held on 4th March 2011.
The minutes of the 81h EC meeting held on 04th March 2011 was reviewed. Therebeing
no comments from any of the members, the minutes were approved. However, while discussing
the' Action Taken Reports' towards progress on Project Monitoring Committee of ongoing
projects ofCGEWHO, CEO informed that in Chennai & Jaipur, th~ beneficiaries,have refused to-
participate to the election of allottee members to constitute PMC. tlairman & JS(F) & F A were of the opinion that constitution of the PMC would have been ideal since many complaint, are
received from both the projects.
f;'
.
To review the present status of Hvderabad (Ph-Ill) project presently under
construction.
Item No.ii):
CEO has intimated that CGEWHO has entered into a contract agreement with i'v1/S.
Ambica Chennakesava Projects Ltd on 13.03.2008 towards constructiop of turnkey project at
Hyderabad. According to the contract agreement, the project was required to be completed
\\.ithin 24 months. However, due to the requirement of provisioning of additional basement
\\"orks as well as certain delays due to heavy rains, delay in supply of steel etc as well as delay in
releasing the payments, the contract was extended upt~ 18th Apri12011. However, as on date, the
~gency has executed approx. 45% of construction only.
Even after issuance of show cause notice towards canceJation of the contract, the construc~ion agency is not in a p.ositi.on to mobilize more than 100 J t'50 labours which shall not
be sufficIent to complete the project m the near future.
CGEWHO has already committed to the Project Monitoring Committee that the project shall be completed by Nov. 2011. In this scenario, CEO has informed the house that there are
following options available to complete the project:
Cancellation of the contract and settle with the agency and go for retendering for the
balance works.
Getting the project assigned to an agency as per the contract provisions. II.
1"" If CGEWHO adopt the first option, it will have to formally cancel the contract and settle
i the dues with the construction agency and foreclose the contract. However, the contractors may
not accept the cancellation and may resort to obtaining a legal stay. Even if they agree to accept .,
the cancellation, there shall be a requirement of preparation .of final bi~t after settling the disputes
and subsequently prepare the tender documents for retendenng the bal ce works. .
It was also intimated by CEO, CGEWHO that this exercise shall take minimum 6 -12
months. Further, by floating a new tender, CGEWHO shall be getting a rate around the present
market rate of the new works and tenderer may add certain mal-gin towards unforeseen
expenditures on the already completed works. Further, the increase in cost of construction based on fresh tender shall have to be borne by CGEWHO, till we get it settled by the Court of Law
with regard to the risk and cost on the present construction agency. Since CGEWHO shall not be
able to charge the above additional expenditure from the beneficiaries, it shall have to find a way
to finalise the additional cost till the same is recovered from the contractor through legal actions.
Further, if CGEWHO resorts to the above option, it shall not be able to complete the project
minimum before middle of20l3.
-
Regarding second option, CEO has informed that in view of t ~ above uncertainties, the
construction agency was asked to assign the total project to one ~ the proven construction
agency.. Assi~ment. of work is as per existing ~rovisions 01 the co~tract agreement.
Accordmgly, dISCUSSIOnS were held between M/s. AmbIca Chennakes va Projects Ltd and M/s. Sivanssh Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd in presencecof Director (Tech) and ~y. Director
(Tech)I and finally M/s. ACPL, vide the Agreement of Assigning the work dated 31.05.2011
unconditionally agreed to assign the total balance works to M/s. SIDPL. M/s. SIDPL has already
completed one of the CGEWHO project at Lucknow satisfactorily.
CEO further infonned that while agreeing to the above arrangement and since the project
is to be completed at the earliest, M/s. smPL has agreed to complete the works positively by
31.03.2012. However, they have requested the following approvals from CGEWHO:
The contract has to be extended upto 31.03.2012 at the same tenns and conditions of
the contract along with applicable escalation.
a.
b. As per the agreement, the agency is eligible for 3% mobilization advance. However,
since CGEWHO is asking to execute Rs.5 -6 Crs pt month, the agency has
requested to release minimum 10% of mobilization advantr against bank guarantee.
CEO also intimated the house that the Dy. Director (Tech) 'has explained the above arrangement being proposed to the representatives of the Project Monitoring Committee on 01 sI
June 2011, wherein additional 15 beneficiaries were also present. Considering the difficulties
towards cancellation of the contract, as well retendering the whole work, the PMC members
were of the opinion that the above action shall be in the best interest of the project and requested
to complete the project by 29.02.2012.
r
The Executive Committee discussed the matter in detail and considering the present stage
of the project, which is only approx. 45% completed, the Executive Committee agreed to the
above proposal of assigning the works by Mls. ACPL to Mls. SIDPL according the agreement
dated 31.05.2011 signed by both the agencies.
With regard to the request made by M/s. SIDPL as detailed' at para (a) & (b) above,
CEO while recommending the assignment of work also recommend~d that extension of contract I
"-: ,
commitment to the beneficiaries it would be appropriate to accept the requirement of 10%
mobilization advance to M/s. smPL against bank guarantee but on interest. "\ *' ~
The Executive Committee, after deliberations, decided to extend the contract upto 31.03.2012 at
the same terms and conditions of the contract with applicable escalftion. Sinct? the contract has
been agreed to be extended upto 31:03.2012 as above, there is no' relevance on imposing any
penalty.
'ructlb~f; Ltd.
To consider and decide the course of action towards Ch~nnai Ph-111 project.Item no.iv)
The issue regarding further course of action towards Chennai Ph-il project was discussed
in d.etail in the 87th EC meeting held on 04th March 2011- After going through the agenda point
circulated during the above meeting, the EC decided that one final opportunity may be offer,-d to
M/s. Srico Projects Pvt Ltd to execute the Chennai Ph-IlI project as ~er terms and conditions in S
+ 4 configuration in accordance with the LOI. Accordingly, the above decision was intimated to
M/s. Srico Projects Pvt Ltd and they have vide their letter no.S~PL/LetterS/CGEWHO/2011-
12/144 dated 02.05.2011 intimated that: t
~;
Originally planning pefll1ission was taken for S + 4 configur:Jtlion as multistory was not
pefll1itted in that area as per the old Master Plan.
Accordingly, though the plans were got approved for the total project, while finalizing the
contract agreement, it was explicitly recorded that th,e details towards no. of DUs and their
SBA given above are for the Ph-I of the project. The no. ofDUs and their SBA for balance
DUs to be constructed on balance land shall be finalized at a l,ater date as per the prevalent
local bye-law.
b.
They infonned that after prolonged discussions, they were asked to prepare revised plans in
S + 10 configuration as the new Master plan has been approved. c.
d.
e.
They have also infonned that according to the above instructikJns from CGEWHO , they have obtained NOC from Airport Authority, Sewerage Board ~d Fire department and has
submitted the plans to Chennai Metropolitan Developmen,t A~trority who have scrutinized
the plans and has asked to resubmit the plans after attending to ~eir small queries.
They have also infonned that they have incurred huge expen~;ure for getting approval as
above and now by asking to do the S + 4 blocks, the amount spent by them shall become a
waste. They have also, vide the above referred letter, has intimated that they shall ~e agreeable to
execute the project in the remaining land with S + 10 configuration with the SBA lates
quoted in their original tender and agreement dated 21.06.2007 with due supplementation for
the variations that may occur in the execution of construction on the remaining land of the
housing proj ect.
CEO intimated that Chennai Ph-Il project is in the advariced stage of construction and CGEWHO is expected to get virtual completion by 31st July 2011. However, the validity of
the approved plans has since expired and there is a requirement of revalidation of the same towards obtaining occupancy certificate so that the DUs cb be handed over to the
beneficiaries of Chennai Ph-Il project. It was intimated to th EC by CEO that without a
justified reason, it may not be possible to .get revalidation of! he plans and there is every possibilit~ of C~ennai Metropolitan Development ~uthority iJ iosing a penalty for delay in
constructIon. Smce about 60% of the DUs accordmg to the pi. n were to be released Lo the
construction agency in time, the onus of the payment of penalty, if levied, shall be on
CGEWHO, particularly, for the portion not released in time.
" \
\
Maximum as pennissible in local auth
Maximum as pennissible in local autho
Maximum 30% Minimum Stilt + 4 with lifts. However, high rise construction with lift and generator facilities as per nonns and local ethos, could
also be proposed as alternative proposal with original proposal for
S + 4 configuration.
EC has approved selection of M/s. V S R Constructions (presently known as M/s. Srico
Projects Pvt Ltd) as a turnkey contractor at the prescribed rate and without any limitation
to the configuration I
1.
11.
After approval of the plan, the contract agreement was signed with the following
stipulation "The details of DUs given are for Phase-I only. No. of DUs and their SBA for the
balance DUs to be constructed on balance land shall be finalized at a later date as per
prevalent local bye-laws".
02.05.2011 towards construction of S + 10 storey building for Chennai Ph-III project on the
same rates as quoted by them in the tender with due supplementation for the variations that may
occur during the execution of the project according to the approved tender, subject to conformity
with local bye-laws and other statutory requirements, the Executive. Committee approved the
following:
~
a, Construction of S + 10 storey buildings for Chennai Ph-III project on the same rates as
quoted by M/s. Srico Projects the agency and approved vide 63rd meeting of the Executive
Committee meeting held on 24.02.2005 with appli~able esct~ations and supplementation
of variations etc strictly as per the contract agreement: j I
b. 11
Announce the scheme immediately after obtaining revised pl~ approval by the Chemlai
Metropolitan Development Authority.
Item no.v) To review the turnkev housin!! Droiect at Navi Mumbai and decide further
course of action :
The matter }"egarding taking up turnkey housing project at Navi Mumbai for which LOI
has already been issued was discussed in detail in the 87th EC meeting held on 04.03.2011 and
EC advised that the issue may be resubmitted after due certification that proposed land in the
agenda item is part of the same for which the LOI was issued to the agency.
2. To recapulate the project, the CEO apprised that in the 71 sI m~eting held on 091h Feb '07,
EC approved awarding a turnkey housing project to M/s. Klassici Constructions Pvt Ltd on
turnkey basis in 20 Acres of land at Navi Mumbai. CGEWHO su ~ isequentlY issued a LOI on 28.02.2007 to M/s. Klassic Constructions Pvt Ltd. CEO intimate! the EC that though major
r~\ctivitie~ toward~ tran~fe~ of !2.5 Ac:e~ out of the ~o Acres w~s J ! plete.d, o~ examination of
the detaIls, certaIll varIatIon III descrIptIon of locatIon of land III th detaIls gIven to EC were
noted. The variations are as under:
The location of the land is approx. 2000 mtrs away from RA F HQ in place of200 mtrs
as mentioned in the details submitted to the EC.
a.
b. Though the description of land is shown as abutting to the CIDCO boundary, it is
observed that it is actually 300 mtrs away from the CIDCO boundary.
3. As per the advice of EC, in its 87th meeting, a committee of officers constituted by CEO,
CGEWHO went through the details and certified that the proposed land measuring approx. 12.5
Acres to be transferred, falls within the 60 Acres of land offered by t~e agency while subm j ;ti ng
I '!j