The decision of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority to revise the cost of construction of five iconic towers of the state secretariat in Amaravati capital city has raised many eyebrows.
The decision to reduce the cost of construction of these five towers was taken at the meeting of the APCRDA chaired by chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu and attended by state urban development minister P Narayana, and APCRDA Commissioner Kanna Babu.
When tenders were called in April, the state government fixed the cost of construction of five towers at Rs 4,668.82 crore, which comes to more than Rs 9,500 per square feet, which is abnormally high.
Though the tenders were finalised on May 2 itself, the process of awarding contracts to the firms – NCC, Shapoorji Pallonji and L&T – was repeatedly delayed, following criticism that the cost of construction was highly escalated.
On Monday, however, at the APCRDA meeting, it was decided to reduce the cost of construction to Rs 3,673.44 crore – a staggering difference of Rs 995 crore, which means the revised tenders were called nearly Rs 1,000 crore less than originally projected.
The GAD (General Administration Department) Tower, originally estimated at Rs 1,126 crore, has now been awarded to NCC for just Rs 882 crore; Towers 1 and 2, initially projected at Rs 1,897.86 crore, have been handed over to Shapoorji Pallonji for Rs 1,487 crore and Towers 3 and 4, estimated at Rs 1,664 crore, are now being constructed by L&T for Rs 1,304 crore.
Now, the question is why the cost of construction of the Secretariat towers was originally fixed at Rs 4,668 crore and why it was brought down to Rs 3,673 crore now.
The answer obviously is the criticism from various quarters about massive corruption involved in the project cost escalation.
If no one had raised these questions, the escalated cost to the extent of Rs 1,000 crore would have been swindled.
Comparing the initial and final rates alone is enough to expose the scale of mismanagement, sources said, adding a proper investigation could implicate not only the officials but also senior leaders in the government.
