A presentation by Lalit Mohan Sharma
Dept of Civil Engineering

RELEVANCE OF THE TOPIC IN CURRENT SCENARIO

OVER THE YEARS, INDIA HAS SEEN RISING INVESTMENTS IN
INFRASTRUCTURE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
4.5%
5.2% 5.1%
4.7% 4.5% 4.4%
4.9%
5.5%
6.2%
7.3%
6.8%
8.3% 8.5%
4.0%
4.5% 4.3% 4.1% 3.9%
3.3% 3.5%
4.0% 4.3%
4.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7%
0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6%
1.1%
1.4% 1.5%
1.9%
2.5% 2.2%
3.7% 3.8%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total GFCF in Infrastructure as % of GDP
Public Investment component of Infrastructure GFCF (as % of GDP)
Private Investment component of Infrastructure GFCF (as % of GDP)
GFCF- GROSS FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION

… SPORADIC SUCCESS STORIES ACROSS VARIOUS SUB-SECTORS
Initial success in PPP
►PPP model a major success in development of roads, ports and
airports – bridging the funding gap
►Model concession agreements in place along with provisions for
viability gap funding
Telecom success story
►Massive adoption of mobile telephony – Teledensity jumped
from 3% in 1999 to 76% in 2012
►Strong regulatory support and initial progressive policies
Improvement in rail
operating performance in
last two decades
►Big improvement on all operating characteristics like wagon
turnaround, axle load, operating ratio and utilisation
►Introduction of initiatives like dynamic pricing, incentives for
faster unloading, multiple unloading etc.
These examples have shown that with government focus, regulatory interventions and funding, India is
capable of making progress on infrastructure front
Delhi metro rail
►One of the few metro systems in the world to turn in an
operating profit
►Constructed in time and within budget – world class rolling
stock, signaling and safety systems
13 18
26
36
52
71 76
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
11
9 7 6 5
5
21
24 27 36 38 37
1990-91 1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11 2011-12
Wagon Turnaround time (Days)
Gross Tonne-km / Engine hr (thousands)
1678
1278 843 883 2489
5363 4865
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Growthinteledensity(%)[Source:TRAI]
Railwayoperatingparameters[Source:IRstatistics]
Roads(kms)awardedunderPPP[Source:NHAI]

EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE INCREASED PACE OF INFRASTRUCTURE CREATION,
THERE HAS BEEN A DEFICIT IN ACHIEVEMENT AGAINST FIVE-YEAR PLANS
16.4
10.6
14.5
20.4 19.7
9.3
3.5
9.6
12.2
16.9
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Target vs Actual Generation Capacity Addition (GW)
Target Addition Acutal Addition
Note: The original 11th plan target of 78.7 GW was revised to 62.4GW after poor
achievement in the first year of the plan
2885
3519
3165
2500 2500
1685
2203
2693
1780
2247
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Target vs Actual in National Highway development (km)
Target Addition Actual Addition
500
350
250
1021
1300
156
350
258
709 727
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Target vs Actual new railway line addition (kms)
Target Addition Acutal Addition
Physical achievements have consistently lagged behind five-year plan targets, creating an
infrastructure deficit
Source: Planning Commission documents
Total deficit (FY08-12): 36% Total deficit (FY08-12): 31%
Total deficit (FY08-12): 27%

RESULTANTLY, INDIA LAGS BEHIND OTHER NATIONS ON INFRASTRUCTURE
INDICATORS…
Compared to other countries, India lags behind on some of the key indicators of infrastructure development
Country
Infrastructure
Ranking1
Logistics
Ranking2
Timeliness
Ranking3
1- Quality of Trade & Transport Infrastructure
2- Competence & Quality of Logistics Services
3- Frequency with which shipments reach consignees with scheduled or expected delivery times
Source: Logistics Performance Index, World Bank 2012
Overall rank
Brazil 46 41 49
45
Australia 18 16 17
18
India 56 38 44
46
China 26 28 30
26
S. Africa 19 24 20
23
Russia 97 92 94
95
Philippines 97 92 94
52
Malaysia 27 30 28
29
Thailand 44 49 39
38
Indonesia 62 39 69
59

…LARGELY DUE TO POLICY, PROCEDURAL AND FUNDING RELATED ISSUES…
Stage in infra development
lifecycle
► Multiple gates and approvals before even bidding starts
► Slack quality and viability checks lead to project cost overruns later
Pre-tendering and bidding
► Rising budget deficit crowding out funds for infrastructure
► Norms for banks’ exposure to infrastructure limiting funds available for infrastructure
► Tightened RBI credit policies and global credit crunch reducing investments
Funding
► Land acquisition delays and Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) issues
► Weak/absent regulatory structures
► Lack of skilled manpower
Construction and operations
► Absence of integrated planning and lack of coordination between agencies
► High AT&C losses in electricity, large % of non-revenue water
► Low allocation of funds for maintenance
Infrastructure productivity
Perceived issues faced currently by infrastructure
Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C)

Policy Reforms
Planning
Implement
ation
• A general introduction to the Infrastructure sector and Investment trends
• Gathering information on current status of Infrastructure in the country
• Literature review to understand potential delay reasons to include study of various papers on Indian prospective as
well as on International arena.
 Reports from various organizations working in the field .
 Interaction with senior management of funding agencies like Asian Development Bank , consultants,
executing agencies like NBCCL and some prominent Govt Organizations
• Use of AHP technique to prioritize potential delay causes
• How delay can be negated , by taking in to account the experience shared by various organizations and Post Project
Audit reports
Under
utilization of
allocated
funds
Implications
Delay in
delivery of
much sought-
after
infrastructure
Delayed
delivery of
infrastructure
Price
Escalation
Deterrent for
economic
growth
PREVIEW OF PAPER

BROAD HEADINGS OF THE STUDY

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Investment pattern in infrastructure sector
1.3
Infrastructure development a prerequisite for
economic growth
1.4 Delay in fund utilization
CHAPTER-2 DELAY IN EXECUTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
2.2 Introduction
2.3 Delay analysis
CHAPTER-3 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Introduction
3.2 International scenario
3.3 Literature review in Indian context
CHAPTER-4 PROBLEM DEFINITION
4.1 Prominent delay factors
4.2 Aim and objective

CHAPTER-5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Preview of study
5.2 Technique adopted
5.3 Brief Introduction to Analytical hierarchy Process
5.4 Relative Importance of Criteria
5.5 Conduct of survey
CHAPTER-6 MITIGATION
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Inappropriate Formulation of Project
6.3
Delay in Land Acquisition and obtaining
environmental clearances
6.4
Adoption of inappropriate project procurement
model
6.5 Lack of project monitoring
6.6 Resource constraint
6.7 Use of obsolete technology
CHAPTER -7 SCOPE FOR FUTURE STUDIES
CHAPTER-8 CONCLUSION

1.INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
Indian economy has grown
many folds since independence.
Over a period of time
substantial amount of funds
have been allocated for
development of Infrastructure
5.3
6.2
7.1
8.1
9.2
10.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Investment
in
100
Thousand
Cr
Fin Year
Investment Trends
So far Anticipated
5.20%
7.50%
10.00%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
10th Plan(2003-07) 11th Plan(2008-12) 12th Plan (2012-17)
% Share of GDP Linear (% Share of GDP)

4.10%
4.20%
4.80%
4.90%
5.00%
5.10%
1.70%
2.20%
2.40%
2.60%
2.90%
3.30%
6.40%
7.20% 7.50% 7.90%
8.40%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR AS % OF
GDP
Public Private Total
2885
3519
3165
2500 2500
1685
2203
2693
1780
2247
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
TARGET VS ACTUAL IN NATIONAL HIGHWAY
DEVELOPMENT (KM)
Target Addition Actual Addition
500
350 250
1021
1300
156
350 258
709 727
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
TARGET VS ACTUAL NEW RAILWAY LINE ADDITION
(KMS)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Electricity Roadways Railways Telecom Oil & Gas
10th FYP Planned 10th FYP Actual
11th FYP Planned 11 FYP Actual
A sizable percentage of GDP is being allocated for infrastructure sector
There is 100% increase in private investment in infrastructure sector against 24.4%
increase in Government share
contribution of private sector has been lopsided. Telecom, Oil and Gas received the
maximum share where as other sectors got marginal or no increase
Much essential infrastructure sectors like Roadways, Railways and Electricity have
shown a prominent decrease in fund allocation/utilization.
Decreased funding in development of basic infrastructure facilities like Highways,
Railways is a cause of concern
Investment in these sectors is not being utilized due to some reasons resulting in
surrender of funds
The share of infrastructure investment in GDP is planned to be increased to more
than 10% by the end of 12th five year plan
5.20%
7.50%
10.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
10th
Plan(2003-07)
11th
Plan(2008-12)
12th Plan
(2012-17)
% Share of GDP

Delay in Fund
Utilization
• Causing undue delay
in availability of
facilities
• Poor satisfaction level
of the population
• Physical achievements
in last couple of years
have not matched the
aggressive investment
targets set
Why Delay in
Execution ?
• Poor conception
• Inapt planning
• Non performing
executing agencies
• Lacunas in
Government policies
• Lateral flow of
experience and
information

2. DELAY IN EXECUTION OF
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Infrastructure
Projects
Influence larger
section of the
society
Have direct
impact on the
economic growth
and living
standard of the
population
Time consuming
both in terms of
planning and
execution
Require colossal
amount of
funding
Characteristics

SECTORS
NOS
OF
PROJECT
DELAY
%
COMPONENT
WRT
TOTAL
NOS
OF
PROJECTS
TOTAL AMOUNT IN CRORES Rs
%
INCREASE
wrt
TO
ORG
AMT
AVERAGE COST PER
PROJECT ( CRORES Rs)
DELAY
%
COMPONENT
AS
PER
REVISED
AMOUNT
ORIGINAL
REVISED
ORIGINAL
REVISED
Atomic Energy 1 2.00% 13171.00 17270.00 31.12% 13171.00 17270.00 12.92%
Coal 2 4.00% 2500.56 3733.99 49.33% 1250.28 1867.00 2.79%
Highways 10 20.00% 2216.29 3156.89 42.44% 221.63 315.69 2.36%
Petroleum 5 10.00% 7292.94 12100.4 65.92% 1458.59 2420.08 9.05%
Power 9 18.00% 22285.19 33421.29 49.97% 2476.13 3713.48 25.00%
Railways 19 38.00% 10989.99 49765.22 352.82% 578.42 2619.22 37.23%
Shipping and
ports
1 2.00% 150.00 600.00 300.00% 150.00 600.00 0.45%
Steel 1 2.00% 8692 12291 41.41% 8692.00 12291.00 9.19%
Tele
Communication
1 2.00% 149.15 158.72 6.42% 149.15 158.72 0.12%
Water Resources 1 2.00% 542.9 1187 118.64% 542.90 1187.00 0.89%
Total 50 67990.02 133684.51 96.62%
DATA ANALYSIS OF 50 PROJECTS COSTING MORE THEN 150CR RUNNING BEHIND SCHEDULE
: SOURCE MSOPI

% OF DELAYED PROJECTS ( IN NOS)
Atomic
Energy, 2.00
Coal, 4.00
Highways,
20.00
Petrolium,
10.00
Power,
18.00
Railways,
38.00
Shipping
and
ports,
2.00
Steel, 2.00
Tele
Communica
tion, 2.00
Water
Resources,
2.00
Atomic
Energy,
12.92
Coal, 2.79
Highways,
2.36
Petrolium,
9.05
Power, 25
Railways,
37.23
Shipping and
ports, 0.45 Steel, 9.19
Tele
Communicati
on, 0.12
Water
Resources,
0.89
% OF DELAYED PROJECTS ( FIN SHARE)
DELAY ANALYSIS OF 50 SAMPLE PROJECTS
38% of the Railway 20% Highway 18% Power
projects are behind schedule
Railways has a fin share of 37.23% (max) followed
by Power sector at 25.00% which is otherwise at
third place as per as numbers of delayed project
and Atomic Energy with 12.92% share is at third
place ( with meager 2% delayed projects as per
numbers of projects)
Highway Projects which are otherwise at second
place ( 20% delayed projects) as per number
concern, but only have a meager financial
percentage (of delayed projects are 2.36%
Average revised cost of the Highway projects is the
least ( Rs-315.69 crores) as compared to Atomic
energy projects ( Rs-17270.00 crores). Average
revised cost of the Railway projects is ( Rs-2619.22
crores)

• Major infrastructure
sectors which are
adversely affected by
time and cost overrun
have been identified as
– ATOMIC ENERGY
– COAL
– HIGHWAYS
– PETROLEUM
– POWER
– RAILWAYS 92.00%
89.35%
Nos
Fin Share
0.00%
100.00%
200.00%
300.00%
400.00%
% Increase in Cost
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mar-93
Mar-94
Mar-95
Mar-96
Mar-97
Mar-98
Mar-99
Mar-_2000
Mar-01
Mar-02
Mar-03
Mar-04
Mar-05
Mar-06
Mar-07
Mar-08
Mar-09
Mar-10
Sep-11
Delayed
Projects
Year
Delay Trends so far
These sectors contribute towards 92% of the total numbers of delayed projects. Total revised amount of these projects is
89.35% of the total revised amount.
Railway projects have shown a maximum price escalation trend at
352.82 % followed by shipping and ports at 300% with Tele
Communication Projects at the least trend of 6.42% against average
escalation trend of 96.62%.
Highway projects have shown an escalation trend of 42.44% almost
50% less than the average trend.

In order to formulate a viable strategy to handle Time and Cost
overrun of the affected infrastructure sectors, it is imperative to
identify various attributes responsible for delay.
A project passes through various stages. Each stage has to be
planned meticulously.
Delay at one stage has a compounding effect on the subsequent
stages, like wise time saved in one stage also has a compounding
effect.
Approval from competent authorities, designing, resource
planning, fund flow, risk analysis, project procurement, and
project management organization are few of the stages which
need attention.
Depending on the versatility of the Project Management
Organization various activities can commence simultaneously
thus resulting in overall time saving – less chances of Time
overrun – less chances of Cost overrun.

3: LITERATURE REVIEW

Characteristics of Infra Projects
• one firm can supply a market’s entire demand for a goods or service at a price
lower than two or more firms can.
• Many infrastructure facilities have a significant component characterized by
declining cost associated with increasing output throughout the range of the
possible demand.
Natural monopoly.
• A tradable goods or service can be sold in another location distant from where it
was produced
• Most infrastructure services are non-tradable in nature. In some cases carriage
may not be tradable but the content may
Non-tradability
• Sunk costs are investment costs which cannot be immediately recovered by the
possible sale of the assets that were invested in
• High sunk cost makes an investment irreversible which impacts the level of
investment by industry
High-sunk costs or asset
specificity.
• Public good is normally characterized by two factors – non-rivalness and non
excludable. This means that consumption of the good by an individual does not
reduce availability of the good for consumption by others and that no one can be
effectively excluded from using the good. The characteristic of non-rivalness
implies zero marginal cost of providing benefit of a public good
Non-rivalness (up to
congestion limits) in
consumption.
• Infrastructure creates external benefits or positive externalities
• A road could lead to an increase in the value of adjoining land
Presence of Externalities

Developing Countries
Political situation,
Award Project to Lowest bid price.
Progress Payment Delay by Owner.
Shortage of Equipment
Delay in approval of drawing,
Inadequate early planning
Delay in owner’s decision making
process.
Developed Countries
Decision making and planning are often multi-
actor processes with conflicting interests.
Technology is often not standard.
Often the project scope or ambition level will
change significantly over time.
Statistical evidence shows that such unplanned
events are often unaccounted for, leaving budget
contingencies sorely inadequate.
Misinformation about costs, benefits, and risks is
the norm.
The result is cost overruns and/or benefit
shortfalls with a majority of projects.
Causes of Delay in

Lack of commitment by client, contractor and vendors leading to accidents.
Improper or obsolete construction methods.
Delay in material delivery.
Inefficient site management due to ambiguous specifications.
Unskilled labour.
Ineffective supervision.
Inadequate experience of contractor.
Poor site coordination due to lack of coordination between site and design office.
Non-availability of drawings/designs on time.
Unrealistic time schedule built in the contract, improper planning in ignoring extreme weather conditions which lead to low labour
productivity and therefore lead to errors in time estimation.
Improper planning for recruitment of skilled operators for specialized equipment.
Improper planning the requirement of equipment and their utilization.
Lack of clarity of project scope resulting in rework or scope creep due to misunderstanding by the contractor or project manager.
Lack of communication with local authorities resulting in delays in permissions, lack of communication between contractor and
client results in delay in approval of stages.
Selection of contractor with inadequate experience or skill.
Optimistic cost and time duration built in the contract
Causes of Delay in Indian Scenario

Executing agencies are often not ready for project implementation when the loan is approved. Thus,
commencement of project implementation can be delayed up to two or more years.
Project approval by the government or a competent authority such as Expenditure Finance
Committee (EFC), Cabinet Committee on Economic Affair (CCEA) or Fiscal Responsibility & Budgetary
Management (FRBM) clearance.
Agreement on the fundamental purpose or intent of a project between the State Government,
executing agencies and municipal bodies.
Establishing and staffing Project Management Units (PMU) and Project Implementing Units (PIUs).
Timely preparation of quality Detailed Project Reports (DPR), firming-up of cost estimates and
acceptance of DPRs by the competent authorities.
Preparation of Standard Bidding documents (SBD) and Request for Proposal (RFP) for procurement of
goods, works and consulting services and delay in tendering and evaluation of bids.
Statutory matters such as land and right-of-way acquisition, resettlement, obtaining forest and
environmental clearances, removing encumbrances and securing no-objection from affected parties.
Point of View of Funding Agencies

Land Acquisition as a Major Constraint
The genesis of land acquisition in India lies in the Bengal regulation act ( land
acquisition act ) of 1824
The provisions of the act empower government to acquire any part of the land with
or without consent of the owner
A large part of the land mass is held by households who earn their livelihood from
land.
Agriculture sector contribute over 15 % in the national GDP and 10% in foreign
earnings. As per World Bank report, it has a share of over 45% in the available job
opportunities.
Transition to an industrial or service economy from an agrarian economy is not easy
Land acquisition process as a major deterrent of the progress of infrastructure
project development.

4: PROBLEM DEFINITION

•Improper justification of the project.
•Justification is influenced by other reasons than need based.
•Political reasons
During Conception of the Project
•In adequate early planning.
•Unrealistic time schedules.
•In appropriate formulation of project.
•Lack of viable contingency plan/ inadequate risk analysis and risk management.
•Land Acquisition and Environment clearance.
•Lack of clarity in design and drawing resulting in frequent clarification during execution
During Planning Stage
•Award project to lowest bidder.
•Lack of availability of capable executing agencies.
•Capacity constraints of the contractors.
During Project Procurement Stage
•Inappropriate project management by the client and contractor.
•Constraint of availability of skilled labor / Supervisor.
•Inadequate availability of basic quality construction material like aggregate, bricks etc.
•Improper /obsolete construction methods.
•Frequent change in project scope during execution.
•Lack of commitment by client (Timely release of payments etc), contractors and venders.
•Delay in decision making.
•Insufficient coordination.
During Execution

AIM AND OBJECTIVE
THE AIM OF THIS STUDY IS TO
IDENTIFY MAJOR CAUSES OF
DELAY IN INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS IN INDIA AND SUGGEST
REMEDIAL MEASURES TO
MINIMIZE TIME OVERRUN THUS
MINIMIZE COST OVERRUN.

5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

F-1
•In appropriate formulation of project with unrealistic timeframe, lack of viable contingency
plan resulting in changes in scope of work during execution and delay in decision making
F-2
•Delay in Land acquisition and obtaining Environmental clearance
F-3
•Adoption of inappropriate project procurement model and acceptance/appointment of
lowest bidder for execution / as consultant
F-4
•Lack of Project monitoring on part of client and contractor
F-5
•Resource constraint- Non availability of skilled manpower and quality construction material
F-6
•Use of obsolete technology
Prominent factors responsible for delay

Technique adopted
Each sector will be analyzed using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model with respect to
relative importance of various factors/Criteria
During the analysis it is presumed that Project conception / Planning and execution only
commences when availability of funds is ensured by the client / administrative authorities.
Fund allocation is an administrative subject thus not taken as a constraint while analyzing the
execution part of the infrastructure projects.
Fundamentals of AHP
• Intelligence
(finding occasions for making a decision).
• Design
(finding possible courses of action).
• Choice
(choosing among courses of action).

GOAL
CRITERIA
SUBCRITERIA
ALTERNATIVE
S

Problem definition :-The first step of the decision process involves two
components:-
• Identify the problem and opportunities.
• Identify the criteria and alternatives having a direct or indirect impact or the problem or
the opportunities.
Eliminating infeasible alternatives; - As part of problem definition, an array
of variables are taken in to account. Each variable is studied in isolation
with respect to the objective. Variable which falls within the preview of
the study are taken in to account for further development of the model
and rest all are discarded. This prioritization simplifies further analysis.
Structuring a decision model :-After selecting a sizable number of criteria /
alternatives the first step is, pair wise comparison and assigning a relative
importance factor on a scale of 1 to 9. The process of formulation is
explained with the help of a small example. Let there are three criteria’s
namely ‘X’ , ‘Y’ and ‘Z’

X
Extreme
Favor
Very
strong
favor
Strongly
favor
Slightly
favor
Equal
Y
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
X
Extreme
Favor
Very
strong
favor
Strongly
favor
Slightly
favor
Equal
Z
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Y
Extreme
Favor
Very
strong
favor
Strongly
favor
Slightly
favor
Equal
Z
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
X Y Z
X 1 5 6
Y 1/5 1 3
Z 1/6 1/3 1
X Y Z
AHP Matrix

n= 3
Number of criteria (3
to 10) Scale: 1 Linear
N= 1
Number of Participants (1
to 20) a: 0.1
Consensu
s: n/a
p= 0
selected Participant
(0=consol.) 2 7 Consolidated
Objective OPTIMIZATION
Author LALIT
Date 17-Mar-
14 EVM check: 4.931E-06
Table
Criterion Comment Weights Rk
1 X 71.7% 1
2 Y 19.5% 2
3 Z 8.8% 3
Result
Eigen
value
lambda
: 3.094
Consistency
Ratio 0.37 GCI:
0.2
8
CR: 9.8%

A BRIEF ON IMPORTANCE OF DELAY FACTORS

IN APPROPRIATE FORMULATION OF PROJECT WITH UNREALISTIC TIME
FRAME, LACK OF VIABLE CONTINGENCY PLAN RESULTING IN CHANGES IN
SCOPE OF WORK DURING EXECUTION AND DELAY IN DECISION MAKING (F-1)
Project formulation at times, is based on other factors then the importance or necessity or feasibility
itself.
Planners resort to very optimistic time schedule, without taking in to account the complexity of crafting a
plan in to an executable mechanism. Something akin to an automobile manufactures clamming fuel
efficiency of the vehicle with a rider in fine prints ‘under ideal conditions’. The performance under
working conditions divergently differs from ideal conditions.
The improper formulation leads to a chain reaction. The site requirements during execution may go
haywire then as planned with no viable contingency.
If there are no viable contingencies planned, to further push the project at envisaged bottlenecks, may be
the scope needs to be altered, in terms of design, in terms of funding, in terms of time frame and so on so
forth.
All above delay factors can be negated effectively and overall effects can be minimized if timely decisions
are taken in the interest of the work, keeping aside the unwarranted hurdles and resistance at various
levels in the organisational hierarchy

DELAY IN LAND ACQUISITION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (F-2)
Infrastructure Projects are very large projects. As per the basic characteristics of the Infrastructure projects, these
projects by nature itself affects large populations .
The affected people, who have been deprived of their sole source of income, and the generation old lineage
have been severed, may not get direct benefit of the project.
More than a century and a half old, land acquisition laws still carry the legacy of ‘British Raj’. The Regulation Act (
Land Acquisition Act ) of 1824 supports the anarchical psychology of the ruler with little or no room for the
grievances of the sufferers.
The provisions of the act empower government to acquire any part of the land with or without consent of the
owner. The compensation is paid based on the least rate paid on the sale deeds of the land in neighboring areas
in recent past, leaving the owner in a lurch who has been deprived of the sole source of livelihood.
Environmental impact :-All raw materials for the construction industry are obtained from one or the other from
of quarrying. Starting from iron ore for manufacturing structural steel, to gypsum for cement and sand &
aggregate etc there is dependency on natural resources. It is not only obtaining environmental clearances
required for the project which is a small project in itself, but environmental aspects associated with the raw
material also poses a potential delay factor for the progression of Infrastructure Projects.

ADOPTION OF INAPPROPRIATE PROJECT PROCUREMENT MODEL AND
ACCEPTANCE/APPOINTMENT OF LOWEST BIDDER FOR EXECUTION / AS
CONSULTANT (F-3)
Selection of appropriate project procurement model is a function of various
independent variables like fund requirement , fund generation model , size and
extend of the project , technical knowhow , socio – political environment ,
Government policies etc . Right selection of the executing agency will
considerably reduce the probability of time /schedule over run.
Selection of appropriate procurement model as per the need of the project will
ensure availability right kind of contractors /executing agencies with requisite
qualifications in terms of technical knowhow, financial capabilities etc.
Improper selection of executing agency not only delays the work beyond
permissible limits but also affects the quality of the work.
India is also facing a shortage of good Engineering Procurement and
Construction ( EPC) contractors that are capable of executing complex
infrastructure projects. There are few companies in India with desired
experience of executing large and complex Infrastructure projects. Availability
of these contractors is a challenge as their order books are already overbooked.

LACK OF PROJECT MONITORING ON PART OF CLIENT AND
CONTRACTOR (F-4)
Lack of planning and coordination.
Poor communication between members of the project team and the
project sponsor.
Failure to identify problems and institute necessary design and
programming changes.
Lack of control over time and cost inputs.
Improperly planned fund flow resulting in irregular/delayed payments.

RESOURCE CONSTRAINT - NON AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED
MANPOWER AND QUALITY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL (F-5)
1.Manpower constraint
No amount of automation, use of latest technology and labour
saving devices can undermine the importance of skilled manpower
A large nos of tradesman are required
Availability of skilled man power is restricted
Traditional systems of mustering manpower – through labour
mates / Lamberdars

2.Material constraint
Planners over look availability of basic raw materials
Supply of basic raw materials like sand , aggregate , bricks etc is
controlled by local influential's
Gap in demand and supply
Highly unpredictable rates
RESOURCE CONSTRAINT - NON AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED
MANPOWER AND QUALITY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL (F-5)

USE OF OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY (F-6)
Infrastructure projects cover a very large arena.
Effective planning and execution entails use of state of art technology.
Working with conventional methods may get desirable results for conventional
projects.
Infrastructure Projects are different from traditional construction projects in all
aspects be it size of the project, quantum of work, number of agencies involved,
extend of the project, affect on society etc.
To ensure correct formulation and execution of Infrastructure project, uses of latest,
innovative technology is a must.

CONDUCT OF SURVEY
Government
Agencies
EPC
Contractors
Financiers
Project
Affected
Communities
and NGOs
Insurance and
Guarantee
Providers
Regulators
NHAI, IRCON ,
DMRC,IR,DEF
INFRASTRUCTURE
NBCCL , WADIA TECH ,
EPI , L&T
NATIONAL BANKS ,ADB ,
INTERNATIONAL
AGENCIES ,GOVT
GOVT , INDUSTRY ,
COMMON MAN , NGOs
PROJECT VEH
NHRA , TRAI

Factor Importance on numerical scale
F-1
In appropriate formulation of project with
unrealistic timeframe, lack of viable contingency
plan leading to frequent changes in scope of work
during execution and delay in decision making
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2
Delay in Land acquisition and obtaining
Environmental clearance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3
Adoption of inappropriate project procurement
model and acceptance/appointment of lowest
bidder for execution / as consultant.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-4
Lack of Project monitoring on part of client and
contractor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-5
Resource constraint- Non availability of skilled
manpower and quality construction material
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-6 Use of obsolete technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
QUESTIONNAIRE-1- TIME OVER RUN ANALYSIS
•Six factors (F-1 to F-6) have been short listed; relevant to majority of infrastructure projects as a major
reason for Time over Run.
•1 to 9 numbers are written in front of each factor. ‘1’ stands for least importance and ‘9’ stands for
maximum importance.
•Please tick (√ ) one number in front of each factor expressing your opinion on its importance

A B
A
to
B
or
B
to
A
Equally
important
Marginally
important
Slightly
more
important
Important
Very
important
Most
important
F-1 F-2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3 F-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-4 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-4 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-5 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
QUESTIONNAIRE-2 - RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS
Please tick (√) one number in front of each comparison.
Scale – 1 = Equally important, 2 to 3= Marginally important, 4 to 5= Slightly more important, 6 to
7= Important 8= Very important 9 = Most important
e.g. F-1 # F-2 , if F-1 is as important as F-2 , the value is ‘1’
if F-1 # F-3 F-1 is very important as compared to F-3 , the value is ‘8’
Likewise for each comparison corresponding numerical value to be ticked
Please also write whether you are comparing A →B or B→A

Factor Importance on numerical scale
F-1
In appropriate formulation of project with
unrealistic timeframe, lack of viable contingency
plan leading to frequent changes in scope of work
during execution and delay in decision making
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2
Delay in Land acquisition and obtaining
Environmental clearance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3
Adoption of inappropriate project procurement
model and acceptance/appointment of lowest
bidder for execution / as consultant.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-4
Lack of Project monitoring on part of client and
contractor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-5
Resource constraint- Non availability of skilled
manpower and quality construction material
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-6 Use of obsolete technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
QUESTIONNAIRE-1- TIME OVER RUN ANALYSIS
•Six factors (F-1 to F-6) have been short listed; relevant to majority of infrastructure projects as a major
reason for Time over Run.
•1 to 9 numbers are written in front of each factor. ‘1’ stands for least importance and ‘9’ stands for
maximum importance.
•Please tick (√ ) one number in front of each factor expressing your opinion on its importance

0% 5%
17%
78%
In Appropriate
formulation of
project with
unrealistic time
frame, Lack of
viable contingency
plan leading to
frequent changes
in scope of work
during execution
and Delay in
decision making
4%
7%
22%
67%
Delay in Land
acquisition and
Environmental
clearance -
25%
56%
11%
8%
Adoption of
inappropriate
project
procurement
model and
acceptance/appoin
tment of lowest
bidder for
execution / as
consultant
67%
27%
6% 0%
Use of Obsolete
Technology
2%
32%
63%
3%
Resource
constraint- Non
availability of
skilled manpower
and quality
construction
material
43%
49%
8% 0%
Lack of Project
monitoring on
part of client and
contractor
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE -1
1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 8 9

A B
A
to
B
or
B
to
A
Equally
important
Marginally
important
Slightly
more
important
Important
Very
important
Most
important
F-1 F-2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-1 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-2 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3 F-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-3 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-4 F-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-4 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F-5 F-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
QUESTIONNAIRE-2 - RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS
Please tick (√) one number in front of each comparison.
Scale – 1 = Equally important, 2 to 3= Marginally important, 4 to 5= Slightly more important, 6 to
7= Important 8= Very important 9 = Most important
e.g. F-1 # F-2 , if F-1 is as important as F-2 , the value is ‘1’
if F-1 # F-3 F-1 is very important as compared to F-3 , the value is ‘8’
Likewise for each comparison corresponding numerical value to be ticked
Please also write whether you are comparing A →B or B→A

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process n= 6 Input 1
Objective: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DELAY FACTORS
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9
as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.
n Criteria Comment RGMM
1 F-1 Correct formulation of Porject 24%
2 F-2 Land Acquisition and Enviromental issues 48%
3 F-3 Project Procurment Model 13%
4 F-4 Project Monitoring 4%
5 F-5 Resource constranit -HR and Material 8%
6 F-6 Technology 3%
7 -
8 -
9 for 9&10 unprotect the input sheets and expand the -
10 question section ("+" in row 66) -
1 1 3/17/2014 a: 0.1 CR: 9% 1
Name Weight Date
Consistenc
y Ratio Scale
Criteria
more
important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 F-1 F-2 B 3 0.33 0.00
13 1 3 F-3 A 3 3.00 0.00
14 1 4 F-4 A 6 6.00 0.00
15 1 5 F-5 A 4 4.00 0.00
16 1 6 F-6 A 7 7.00 0.00
0 1 7 1.00 0.00
0 1 8 1.00 0.00
23 2 3 F-2 F-3 A 7 7.00 0.00
24 2 4 F-4 A 8 8.00 0.00
25 2 5 F-5 A 8 8.00 0.00
26 2 6 F-6 A 8 8.00 0.00
0 2 7 1.00 0.00
0 2 8 1.00 0.00
34 3 4 F-3 F-4 A 4 4.00 0.00
35 3 5 F-5 A 3 3.00 0.00
36 3 6 F-6 A 7 7.00 0.00
0 3 7 1.00 0.00
0 3 8 1.00 0.00
45 4 5 F-4 F-5 B 3 0.33 0.00
46 4 6 F-6 A 2 2.00 0.00
0 4 7 1.00 0.00
0 4 8 1.00 0.00
56 5 6 F-5 F-6 A 6 6.00 0.00
0 5 7 1.00 0.00
0 5 8 1.00 0.00
0 6 7 1.00 0.00
0 6 8 1.00 0.00
0 7 8 1.00 0.00

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process n= 6 Input 2
Objective: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DELAY FACTORS
Only input data in the light green fields!
Please compare the importance of the elements in relation to the objective and fill in the table: Which element of each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a scale 1-9
as given below.
Once completed, you might adjust highlighted comparisons 1 to 3 to improve consistency.
n Criteria Comment RGMM
1 F-1 Correct formulation of Porject 12%
2 F-2 Land Acquisition and Enviromental issues 49%
3 F-3 Project Procurment Model 23%
4 F-4 Project Monitoring 8%
5 F-5 Resource constranit -HR and Material 5%
6 F-6 Technology 3%
7 -
8 -
9 for 9&10 unprotect the input sheets and expand the -
10 question section ("+" in row 66) -
1 3/17/2014 a: 0.1 CR: 8% 1
Name
Weight Date
Consistenc
y Ratio Scale
Criteria
more
important ? Scale A
i j A B - A or B (1-9) B
12 1 2 F-1 F-2 B 7 0.14 0.00
13 1 3 F-3 B 2 0.50 0.00
14 1 4 F-4 A 2 2.00 0.00
15 1 5 F-5 A 3 3.00 0.00
16 1 6 F-6 A 4 4.00 0.00
0 1 7 1.00 0.00
0 1 8 1.00 0.00
23 2 3 F-2 F-3 A 4 4.00 0.00
24 2 4 F-4 A 6 6.00 0.00
25 2 5 F-5 A 7 7.00 0.00
26 2 6 F-6 A 9 9.00 0.00
0 2 7 1.00 0.00
0 2 8 1.00 0.00
34 3 4 F-3 F-4 A 5 5.00 0.00
35 3 5 F-5 A 6 6.00 0.00
36 3 6 F-6 A 8 8.00 0.00
0 3 7 1.00 0.00
0 3 8 1.00 0.00
45 4 5 F-4 F-5 A 3 3.00 0.00
46 4 6 F-6 A 5 5.00 0.00
0 4 7 1.00 0.00
0 4 8 1.00 0.00
56 5 6 F-5 F-6 A 3 3.00 0.00
0 5 7 1.00 0.00
0 5 8 1.00 0.00
0 6 7 1.00 0.00
0 6 8 1.00 0.00

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process (EVM multiple inputs)
K. D. Goepel Version 12.08.2013 http://bpmsg.com
Only input data in the light green fields and worksheets!
n= 6 Number of criteria (3 to 10) Scale: 1 Linear
N= 20 Number of Participants (1 to 20) a: 0.1
Co
ns
en
su
s: 75.3%
p= 0 selected Participant (0=consol.) 2 7 Consolidated
Objective RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DELAY FACTORS
AuthorLALIT
Date 17-Mar-14 EV
M
ch
ec
k: 2.4E-10
Table Criterion Comment Weights Rk
1F-1 Correct formulation of Porject 35.0% 1
2F-2 Land Acquisition and Enviromental issues 25.2% 2
3F-3 Project Procurment Model 13.7% 4
4F-4 Project Monitoring 7.5% 5
5F-5 Resource constranit -HR and Material 14.3% 3
6F-6 Technology 4.3% 6
7 0
8 0
9 for 9&10 unprotect the input sheets and expand the 0
10 question section ("+" in row 66) 0
Result Eigenvalue lambda: 6.126
Consistency Ratio 0.37 GCI: 0.07 CR: 2.0%

35.0%
25.2%
13.7%
7.5%
14.3%
4.3%
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE -2
Resource
constraint- Non
availability of
skilled manpower
and quality
construction
material
Lack of Project
monitoring on part
of client and
contractor
Adoption of
inappropriate
project
procurement
model and
acceptance/appoin
tment of lowest
bidder for
execution / as
consultant
Delay in Land
acquisition and
Environmental
clearance
Use of Obsolete
Technology
In Appropriate
formulation of
project with
unrealistic time
frame, Lack of
viable
contingency plan
leading to
frequent changes
in scope of work
during execution
and Delay in
decision making

CHAPTER-6 MITIGATION

1
IN APPROPRIATE FORMULATION OF PROJECT WITH UNREALISTIC TIMEFRAME,
LACK OF VIABLE CONTINGENCY PLAN LEADING TO FREQUENT CHANGES IN SCOPE
OF WORK DURING EXECUTION AND DELAY IN DECISION MAKING
2 DELAY IN LAND ACQUISITION AND OBTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
3
ADOPTION OF INAPPROPRIATE PROJECT PROCUREMENT MODEL AND
ACCEPTANCE/APPOINTMENT OF LOWEST BIDDER FOR EXECUTION / AS
CONSULTANT
4 LACK OF PROJECT MONITORING ON PART OF CLIENT AND CONTRACTOR
5
RESOURCE CONSTRAINT- NON AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED MANPOWER AND
QUALITY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
6 USE OF OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY
PROMINENT DELAY FACTORS

1-IN APPROPRIATE FORMULATION OF PROJECT WITH UNREALISTIC TIMEFRAME,
LACK OF VIABLE CONTINGENCY PLAN LEADING TO FREQUENT CHANGES IN SCOPE
OF WORK DURING EXECUTION AND DELAY IN DECISION MAKING
Type, Size and Location of the Infrastructure must be based on one and only one criteria i.e. ‘Actual need
‘Time spend in planning is directly proportional to time saved in execution.’ Planning in detail, in depth study of
various options available will help in selection of the most viable option.
Detailed study for identification of risk factors associated with the project and preparation of contingency plans.
All contingencies must form part of the contract agreement between the client and execution agency so as to
minimize time delay in decision making during execution.
Technical design must be prepared with utmost caution. For large projects, authenticity of design to be ascertained
by executing a pilot project. Lacunas noticed in pilot project will help in refining the design both from safety point of
view and execution point of view. Design team must work in unison with execution agency, should act as facilitator.
Design must encourage palletisation and modular construction for economy of resource and time.
Database to be maintained for similar kind of projects executed in past with transparency. Database to be shared or
available to agencies working on similar kind of projects.
Formulation of realistic execution plan taking in to account all contingencies
Actual Need based
Detailed Planning
Risk analysis and
contingency
Execution of Pilot
projects for Large
Infrastructure
projects
Maintenance of
Data base
Realistic Execution
plan

1-IN APPROPRIATE FORMULATION OF PROJECT WITH UNREALISTIC TIMEFRAME,
LACK OF VIABLE CONTINGENCY PLAN LEADING TO FREQUENT CHANGES IN SCOPE
OF WORK DURING EXECUTION AND DELAY IN DECISION MAKING
Timely decisions during execution will resolve all above discussed issues,
even if over looked during planning stage. All Infrastructure projects are
unique; have their own set of problems and solutions.
Risk analysis and contingent planning will definitely iron out most of the
hurdles of execution, but cannot relieve the executives/ managers /
directors, the complete hierarchy of their responsibility to act as
facilitators by taking timely decision.
All infrastructure projects at all levels at every stages of execution will
encounter unforeseen problems, may be related to design, environment,
material, workers etc. Timely decision on part of the concern executives
will help in considerably reducing the time over run.
Decision making
Accountability of
the Hierarchy
Flow of information
top to bottom and
bottom to top

2-DELAY IN LAND ACQUISITION AND OBTAINING
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
Adoption of single window clearance system and appointment of central coordination agency with full
powers even in the jurisdiction of the different states, specifically appointed for facilitation of infrastructure.
Speedy and acceptable rehabilitation of the affected
Cost of rehabilitation must form part of the project itself.
Layout / Siting to be done very meticulously to identify disputed pockets
Use of modern technology like Remote Sensing and GIS for selection of most suitable alignment of linear
projects.
Conduct of in detail Environment Impact Analysis (EIA) dovetailed with initial planning to ensure mitigation,
well before actual commencement of the project.
Award of contract only when adequate workable sites are available
New construction techniques to be adopted, where ever possible to minimize use of land*.
Environmental degradation by means of tree cutting, damage to flora and fauna must be minimized. Large
scale plantation must form part of the project as a green initiative from infrastructure sector
DMRC has been instrumental in adoption of new construction technique / suitable modifying the design to minimize land requirement. During Delhi metro
construction DMRC adopted single segment construction for two tracks which reduced the land requirement per pier to 4m against 6 to 7 m for two separate girders
Single Window
Clearance
Rehabilitation
Cost of
rehabilitation form
part of the project
Siting
Environmental
Impact Analysis
New construction
techniques
Minimum damage
to the
environment

3-ADOPTION OF INAPPROPRIATE PROJECT PROCUREMENT MODEL AND
ACCEPTANCE/APPOINTMENT OF LOWEST BIDDER FOR EXECUTION / AS CONSULTANT
Involvement of execution agency at the planning stage along with the consultants. All works
which are to be executed through contract must form part of the contract in correct quantities
with right specifications.
Evolve a system where Detailed Project Reports are reviewed before the commencement of
tendering process so as to avoid large variations, adoption of non- uniform specifications for
similar site conditions, sub-standard construction quality and inefficient project management on
account of insufficient and inaccurate information / data contained in the DPRs
The difference between client’s assessment of work and contractors quoting if more that 10% on
the lower side, Client should insist on additional performance guarantee from the contractor,
which can be enchased in the event of failure of compliance of contractual obligation.
Financial institutions also must desist from dolling out easy loans on the name of the project to
such contractors who quote non workable rates.
Ensure standardization and uniformity in contract provisions and approval process which would
enhance efficiency and help, avoid lapses; this would result in less contractual complications
during project implementation
Early involvement
of execution
agency
Emphasis on DPR
Correct
Assessment
Responsibility of
Funding agencies
Standardization
of contract
provisions /
specifications

3-ADOPTION OF INAPPROPRIATE PROJECT PROCUREMENT MODEL AND
ACCEPTANCE/APPOINTMENT OF LOWEST BIDDER FOR EXECUTION / AS CONSULTANT
Performance of the executing agency to be judged keeping all environmental parameters in to
account after reaching each time line objective
Punitive actions to be taken on missing every time line objective. Recurring incidents of time line
violation must be dealt firmly.
Fix bidding capacity / handling capacity of consultants and contractors to ensure they are not over
loaded and only take works as per their capacity.
Incentive for timely completion may be initiated to encourage contractor to abide by the time
schedule.
In case of linear projects, the segmental approach of hiring more number of contractors, working on
feasible small stretches and simultaneous commencement of work will help in meeting the time lines.
Time period should be realistic. Optimistic scheduling must be avoided.
Pre qualification bid must be encouraged for selection of eligible bidders.
Periodic
performance
evolution
Punitive action-
Bidding capacity
Incentives
Segmental
Approach
Realistic Time
schedule
Prequalification
bid

3-ADOPTION OF INAPPROPRIATE PROJECT PROCUREMENT MODEL AND
ACCEPTANCE/APPOINTMENT OF LOWEST BIDDER FOR EXECUTION / AS
CONSULTANT
Lateral flow of information on performance of various contractors must be shared
among all agencies.
Non performing contractors must be barred from participation in bidding in all
departments.
Mobilization advance is given to the executing agency as a soft loan with an intend to
ease out initial funding requirement. Utilization of the mobilization advance must be
closely monitored. Preferably mobilization advance must be released in installments
after satisfactory progress and utilization of initial installment released.
Possibility to be explored to make direct payment of standard items like cement and
steel procured by the contractors to the suppliers , to ensure proper utilization of
money.
Performance
of
contractors
Ban on non
performing
contractors
Utilization of
Mobilization
advance
Direct
payment by
client to
suppliers

4-LACK OF PROJECT MONITORING ON PART OF CLIENT AND
CONTRACTOR
Set up of well defined Project Monitoring Organization with specific responsibilities and
accountability with specific targets.
Timely flow of information from top to bottom in terms of targets and solution to specific problems
of execution and, from bottom to top in terms of feedback and problems encountered during
execution must be ensured.
Periodic updates and review of targets.
Lateral coordination among various agencies working at site must be ensured through a nodal
agency. No team should work in isolation; all activities should be well synchronized.
Quality control organization work as part of the Project Monitoring Organization should be
proactive, and ensure quality work execution. This will save lot of time and trouble of rejection /
demolition of defective work which may lead to litigations and thus impinge delay.
Monitoring is not enough to ensure timely completion of projects it must be supported with action
oriented solutions and also it will require improving system and procedures.
Accountability
Communication
Review and
Updates
Coordination
Proactive
attitude
Improved
Procedures

5-RESOURCE CONSTRAINT- NON AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED
MANPOWER AND QUALITY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
Shortage of Skilled man power
Establishment of a well defined Project Management Organization, formulation of working
guide lines, unambiguous targets for core appointments and effective management &
monitoring can, up to some extend help in negating the effects of shortage of manpower at
management and supervisory level.
Encourage use of labour saving devices. This aspect will be discussed in detail under ‘Use of
obsolete technology’ heading.
Motivation, performance related incentives, welfare and release of timely payments to the
construction workers will ensure enhanced performance.
Roll of ‘Labour Mates’ or ‘Lamberdars’ as sole employment agency for construction workers
must be scrutinized. These so called employment agencies not only blackmail the contractors
but also exploit the construction workers.
Well defined
strategies
Use of labour
saving
devices
Motivation
Organized
sector for
labour

5-RESOURCE CONSTRAINT- NON AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED MANPOWER AND QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
Shortage of Skilled man power
Entry of organized sector to look in to the need of human resource requirement at
all level in infrastructure sector must be explored.
Implementation of Government schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) must be in synchronization with
Infrastructure Project implementation. As per data available from the official
web site of NREGA, ‘nrega.nic.in’ , during the financial year 2013-14 , a total of
644 districts comprising of 6576 blocks , 247643 Gram Panchayts and 778134
villages were covered under this scheme with a total expenditure on payment of
wages as Rs 37648 crores. As evident from the data, NREGA has a very vast
network across the country, this agency if synchronized with infrastructure
project implementation, will not only ensure availability of construction workers
for infrastructure development but also ease the Government of it financial
burden of Rs 37648 crorers as welfare funds. The financial liability will
automatically shift to concern infrastructure sector. This synchronization will also
abolish the monopoly of so called labour employment agencies.
Entry of
Organized
sector
Synchronization
with Govt
Policies

Shortage of quality construction material
Encourage scientific quarrying methods by bringing in reforms in auction/allotment procedures for
quarrying of earth resources.
Standardization must be bring in, to the supply chain of noncore construction material.
Inventory management takes precedence over all activities. Adequate funds must be allocated to maintain
minimum inventory level. Availability of material during lean period of supply must be planned to ensure
availability for sustenance of work and also to minimize the fund requirement which needs to be blocked
for bulk procurement.
Standardization of raw material supply by encouraging entry of organized sector and bring in more
transparency in the system.
Design and technical planners must make an endeavor to encourage use of locally available material to
ensure timely availability and cut down cost.
Recycling of construction waste to be encouraged to cut down cost and also as a green initiative on part of
infrastructure sector.
Encourage use of alternate construction materials.
5-RESOURCE CONSTRAINT- NON AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED MANPOWER AND QUALITY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
Reforms
Supply chain
management
Entry of
organized
sector
Encourage use
of local
materials
Recycling of
construction
waste
Alternate
construction
materials

Use of GIS , latest planning and designing software for at planning stage
Use of moduler construction tech , Use of precast concrete system , Tunnel form
work , Hybrid Concrete construction
Use of correct T&P to save time and labour
Recycling of construction waste
Use of latest less time consuming non destructive techniques for quality control (
Acoustic Emission techniques)
6-USE OF OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY
Planning
stage
Modern
contr Tech
Use of
T&P
Recycling
of waste
Non
destructiv
e testing

7-SCOPE FOR FUTURE STUDIES

Implication of extra time and cost incurred during planning and its cost benefit
analysis on the overall Time – Cost schedule of the project.
Need for land reforms – formulation of viable policies for land acquisition,
compensation to the affected population in order to reduce long delays.
Study on environmental impact of Infrastructure Projects, mitigation techniques
and impact on Cost-Time schedule of the project.
Standardization of noncore construction material like sand, bricks, aggregate
etc. Socio economic impact and Cost benefit analysis.
Cost effective recycling of construction waste.
Basic frame work for introduction of organized sector in the field of construction
workers – Single window HR solutions for Infrastructure projects.
Modern construction techniques to reduce time and cost.

8-CONCLUSION

WHILE INDIA HAS THE 2ND LARGEST ROAD NETWORK, SUBSTANTIAL (85%)
FREIGHT MOVEMENT IS CONFINED TO 6% OF THE NETWORK. FURTHER, THE
ASPIRATION OF 20 KM/DAY HAS NOT EVEN PENETRATED INTO PLANNING
85
63 53
15
37 47
Passenger Freight (BT) Freight (BTKM)
Road Rail
Source: Annual Report 2011‐12, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
Source: Planning Commission
Substantial freight is carried through roads, however, lead
distance for road transport is much shorter
Despite being one of the largest road network in the world,
the NH constitutes only 2% of the total road network in India
2% 4% 6%
88%
NH/Expressway
State Highways
Major District
Roads
Other District
Roads & Rural
Roads
National highways (2% of the total road length) carry 40% of the
total road traffic in India
State highways constitute 4% of the total road length
National highways and State highways capacity (considering
equivalent to single lane – 3.5m width) are around ~ 5% and ~ 6%
respectively of total equivalent lane km in India
The aspiration of 20 km /day of construction has never been
considered in the planning process
%
Modal
Share
%
of
Road
to
Total
Network
1,035
817
2,885
3,519
3,165
2,500 2,500
724 636
1,685
2,203
2,693
1,780
2,247
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Target km Achievement km Target km/day
Actual km/day Planned km/day
Missing the physical targets of NH regularly
Source: Planning Commission, EY analysis
Road Rail Ports Airways & IWT Urban Rural Infra Construction
Power

28%
46%
24%
2%
Below Standard Single Lane Standard Single Lane
Standard Double Lane Standard Multi Lane
HIGHWAYS DEVELOPMENT IS SUBDUED BY POLICY AND FINANCIAL
IMPERATIVES; SUBSTANTIAL REFORMS ARE REQUIRED
Widening of NH has created
substantial capacity
► Congested highways require significant width & length expansion
► 60% of State Highways are single lane or less and 75% of National
Highways are 2-lane (one lane in each direction) or less
► Construction lagging behind aspirations (5 km/day vs 20km/day)
► Lack of institutional capacity and delays due to land acquisition,
utility shifting & environmental clearance leading to time and cost
overrun (7% of the projects)
► No clear plans for maintenance of highways
► Inadequate fund allocation for maintenance leading to premature
failure of highway sections
► Private sector willing to contribute but remains cautious
► 40% of XIth plan investments (~USD 30 bn) came from private
sector
► USD 3.2 bn of equity locked in earlier projects needs to be released
to allow existing players to bid for new projects (report of BK
Chaturvedi Committee)
Source: MORTH
Source: MORTH
2007 2012
2007
7%
53%
36%
4%
2011
33%
55%
12%
Single Lane 2 Lane 4/6/8 Lane
21%
54%
25%
Majority of SH are still single lane,
some states have started SH
development programs
Road Rail Ports Airways & IWT Urban Rural Infra Construction
Power

• WHERE DO WE STAND ?
• WHAT IS WRONG ?
• HOW TO RECTIFY ?
• HOW TO ENSURE TIMELY
DELIVERY OF MUCH
NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE?
AS PER THE
STATISTICS
AVAILABLE ON
INFRASTRUCTURE
THIS PAPER IGNITES
THOUGHT PROCESS
OF ALL ENGINEERS ,
MANAGEMENT
WIZARDS AND
FINANCERS

Its a beginning