ASSIGNMENT NO.

COMMONWEALTH GAMES COMPLEX

SELECTED TOPICS IN CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

SUBMITTED BY ARAVIND ANIL KUMAR ARVIND N BALOORAGI VINAY K VAISAKH S M

13CM03F 13MS04F 13CM24F 13MS23F

COMMONWEALTH GAMES 2010 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The 19th Commonwealth Games (CWG) was held at New Delhi,India. The event was planned to be held during the month of October (3-14). The makeover includes a massive overhaul of infrastructure, public transport and security services in Delhi. But the CWG was mired in controversy, inefficiency, bureaucratic infighting and delays in construction. The delays in construction lead to the crashing of timelines and bunching of decisions carried along with it the heightened risk of compromising transparency, accountability and structural safety of the venues. The situation was like that the slackness in addressing these challenges may create major embarrassments for the country not being able to achieve the overriding objective of successful staging of the Games. The bid document for CWG-2010 envisaged a four phase approach, as shown in the figure below :

But actually, the project implementation did not follow the phase-wise approach envisaged . Both planning and execution commenced only from late-2006. These delays inturn had a cascading effect on subsequent activities. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) under the Host City Contract (HCC), several plans like General Organization Plan (GOP),test event strategy and plan ,schedule etc. needed the approval of Commonwealth Federation (CGF) within a stipulated time frame. However, none of these plans were prepared or submitted for approval within the originally stipulated timeframes.. Delays in preparation of the planning documents resulted in delayed or unplanned and ad hoc execution of related activities. .

ISSUES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO DELAY

Planning Issues

The time window from Nov 2003 to mid 2006 which could have been effectively used for planning, clearance and approvals was wasted. The OC itself was registered only in February 2005, while EKS was appointed by the OC as the consultant for preparation of venue briefs and site plans only in July 2006.This led to cascading delays in all subsequent activities, since the return briefs ,concept designs and detailed designs and drawings for venues could be prepared only thereafter. Even thereafter, specifications and designs for venues continued to be revised by the OC and International Sporting Federations till late stages.

The finalisation and approval of the two key planning documents for the GamesGeneral Organization Plan and Games Master Schedule -were delayed by more than three years. Operational plans for different Functional Areas as well as other planning documents of the OC were also delayed substantially.

The delays at planning stage were primarily attributable to lack of internal expertise and complete reliance on the consultant. The GOP scoped the Games Project into 34 Functional Areas , with clearly demarcated activities and objectives. Operational plans had to be prepared for each of these functional areas.

Many of the Operational Plans underwent subsequent revisions and some plans were finalised only after the conclusion of the games. Further, in many FAs, these plans were not actually operationalised and remained theoretical inputs, and the actual activities of the FA differed significantly from the indicated in the Operational Plans.

The bunching of contracts towards 2010 and purported urgency, on account of limited time available to the games , was used to facilitate serious deficiencies in tendering and award of contracts. This compromised transparency, economy and compliance with stipulated procedures and favoured selected vendors.

Selection of consultants were delayed by 5 to 6 months in some projects coming under the CWG.

General Execution Issues

Many venue owners and executing agencies had appointed consultants for technical guidance and support for various items of work. However, it was found that the consultants failed to submit the required deliverables in time (preliminary designs, structural drawings and tender documents) , which resulted in cascading delays in venue development.

There were conflict of interest between the consultant and contractor recommended for providing services. Technical sanction and detailed estimates/ designs, which ensure structural soundness and accuracy and reliability of estimates, were delayed. In many cases, press notices for works were issued even before receipt of draft estimates and tender documents from the consultants. This resulted in subsequent revisions of cost and eligibility criteria etc. through corrigenda.

Infrastructure Project Issues

Delay in getting clearance and NOCs from different government agencies. Delay in acquisition, shifting of services, removal of encroachment. Modification of alignment design in case of roads. Inadequate deployment of manpower and machinery on the part of contractor

Issues with the Organisation Structure The internal control environment and decision making structures within the OC were highly inadequate. The state of documentation in the OC was so inadequate that we are unable to derive assurance as to either the authenticity or the completeness of records. Contract management by the OC was irregular and deficient. The state of contract documentation is such that we are neither sure of the entire sequence of events leading to award of contracts, nor about the total number of contracts and work orders awarded. We were also unable to ascertain complete contract-wise payments and outstanding liabilities. .

The MYAS which was entrusted with the overall responsibility of reviewing and monitoring various arrangements of the games could not establish a stable, long term mechanism for discharging this tremendous responsibility. There were numerous changes in the functionaries at various levels in the MYAS associated with the Games which include Ministers, Secretaries etc. This further contributed to the lack of effective and consistent monitoring by the MYAS. An Apex Committee (AC) which was formed under the chairmanship of Minister of YAS had similar powers compared to the OC. Given the overlapping nature of responsibilities, and without a clear hierarchical reporting relationship between AC and the OC, there were conflicts between them .The AC remained dormant for one and half years due to resistance from the OC. There was a lack of government control over the functioning of the OC and the absence of a systematic arrangement to ensure reasonableness of expenditure and greater public accountability. This was of critical importance, in view of the OC being an asset-less organization funded entirely by the GoI through an unsecured loan.

The constitution of 400 plus general body of members of the OC which was not envisaged in the bid document, did not result in any significant benefit or value addition to the Games Project.

Solution The unique challenge of managing and monitoring the activities of multiple agencies for delivering the Games Project should have been met by entrusting its stewardship to a single point of authority and accountability, with adequate mandate to ensure all deliverables in time, to cost and to specified quality standards. Further, in view of Government guarantee for meeting the cost of the games , it is essential for such stewardship to be fully under government control. Model of governance adopted for CWG-2010, in which authority was dissipated, accountability was defused and unity of command was not provided for or followed. It was inadvisable to have placed such huge public funds at the disposal of non-government officials, who were not willing to heed any advice from informed government officials.

The organizational structure in case of CWG 2006 at Melbourne shows a hierarchical structure of command/control with specifically assigned responsibilities. Such an organizational structure could have been adopted in case of CWG 2010.

IOA, GoI

Executive Board

Project Management Group

Event Management Consultancy (EKS)

Venues

Marketing group

Infrastructure

Commercial Group

Village

Games Support Group

Games Operation Group

Proposed Organization Breakdown Structure for CWG 2010 The proposed OBS is a much more centralised one having an Executive Board (EB) at the top. The EB may consists of people from CGF, GoI, MoYS and other technical experts. Under the EB, Event Management consultancy and Project Management Group would be present. A group of PMCs may be procured for different projects like venue , infrastructure and village. Each project would be headed by Project managers who would be held responsible for achieving the milestones during execution. Representatives of the Project Management group would be present in the EB. Such an OBS would reduce the chances of conflicts between various groups. The problem of pending clearances/ NOCs from various agencies should be addressed on top priority at the highest level .In such an OBS, risk could be allocated among different parties involved in construction of projects.