Review observations on plan and profile

Development Period

• During the development period, the IE shall undertake a detailed review of the drawings to be furnished by the concessionaire along with supporting data, including the following:
• Geo-technical and hydrological investigations,
• Characteristics of materials from borrow areas and quarry sites
• Topographical surveys and traffic surveys.
• The IE must complete such a review and send its comments and observations to the Highway Authority and the concessionaire within 15 (fifteen) days of receiving such drawings.
• In particular, such comments shall specify the conformity or otherwise of such drawings with the scope of the project, specifications, and standards.
• As per CA The IE have to review any modified drawings or supporting documents submit to it by the concessionaire and furnish comments upon within  seven days of receiving such drawings or documents.
• The independent engineer shall review the drawings sent to it by the safety consultant in accordance with Schedule L and furnish its comments thereon to the highway authority and the concessionaire within seven (seven) days of receiving such drawings.
• The  Engineer shall also review the Safety Reports and share its comments thereon to the Highway Authority within fifteen days of receiving such a report.
• The independent engineer shall review the detailed design, construction methodology, quality assurance procedures, and procurement, engineering, and construction time schedule sent to it by the concessionaire and furnish its comments within 15 (fifteen) days of receipt thereof.
• Upon reference by the Highway Authority, the Independent Engineer shall review and comment on the EPC Contract or any other contract for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project Highway and furnish its comments within 7 (seven) days from receipt of such reference from the Highway Authority.

Construction Period

• In respect of the drawings, documents, and safety report received by the independent engineer for review and. comments during the construction period, the provisions of the above shall apply mutatis mutandis.

The Concessionaire,

Sub: Review observations on Plan and Profile drawings from km 0.000 to km 60.000-Reg

Dear Sir,

In connection with the above-mentioned submission, We would like to share that our highway design engineer had an initial look. And has feedback. Here are our key remarks:

Review observations on the plan and profile drawings

There are seven notable issues:

1. Submission: Your submissions lack structure, i.e., bear no signatures of the concerned person.
2. The toe line shape is inconsistent: From Km 0.000 to Km 60.000, it is observed that the toe line drawn in the drawing for both the left and right carriageways is in a zigzag shape. As such, it is observed that in a 10-meter interval, it is going up and down by LM or more. This certainly does not represent the actual ground condition. It needs explanation, and survey data needs review for this stretch.
3. Median width: In the typical cross-section types 4A and 4B, the median width is adopted as 3 m. Which appears contrary to the provision of min. 4.5 m as stated in Schedule D of C.A., which needs to be clarified.
4. The design speed was altered to 80 KMPH at various locations, contrary to the provision given in Schedule D C.A. Para 2.2.1 as 100 KMPH. It needs clarification and justification for reducing the design speed from 100 km/h to 80 km/h.
5. The plan and profile show decreased sight distance on vertical curves, against the CA’s criteria. It is observed from the plan and profile that while designing the vertical curve, sight distances have been reduced to SSD. Which is contrary to the provision of Schedule D of C. A manual para. 2.10.1, which is proposed to be the minimum ISD value, It needs justification for reducing the vertical curve length at various locations. And it may not be acceptable in general except in a in a few extreme conditions.
6. The service road plan and profile as supplied by Concessionaire are repeated for km 30 to 45 in the present submission. Further, the service road design profile does not correlate to the main carriageway profile; however, they are always located adjacently.
7. Drainage plans need to meet standard drainage criteria: The drainage plan and profile need to be submitted by the concessionaire in order to fulfill the minimum drainage criteria along the longitudinal drain. It is observed that Concessionaire has adopted the overlay criteria on the exiting road without due consideration to the drainage aspect.

The above-mentioned points are preliminary comments without any information about pavement design traffic volume or the CBR value of subgrade soil. In order to firm up our comments, we require the following information at the earliest from the concessionaire:

1. Signed copy of the technical schedule of CA, namely Schedules A, B, C, and D, in addition to the relevant technical part of CA.
2. Pavement design report with BBD analysis and results.
3. Subgrade soil test report and CBR test results.
4. Traffic report and projections.
5. Soft copy of both drawings and designs.
6. Design basis report as prepared by the design consultants.
7. Constraints regarding ROW and land acquisition are not mentioned in the technical schedule.
8. Longitudinal drainage design and drawings along the road.

Conclusion

Further, review and approval of design levels will be subjected to verification of invert levels and sizes of culverts as proposed in the CA. Also, the design levels at bridge locations as proposed in the plan and profile drawings should be derived from the general arrangement drawings of bridges and hydraulic calculations prior to approval of the plan and profile.

Thank you, and we assure you of our best service at all times.

The concessionaire

Subject: Submitted Plan & Profile from km 0.000 to Km 60.000- reg

Dear Sir,

In connection with the above mentioned submission, related to the Plan & Profile and two referred letters, We would further like to request that you submit the detailed cross sections at 20-metre intervals for the whole length of the project. This is required for the processing of your submissions.

Thanking you,

The Concessionaire,

Subject: Final Review Observations of Plan and Profile-Reg.

Dear Sir,

Following your submission of the plan and profile, our inspections, and subsequent discussions with the highway authority on xx/xx/2024, we have completed our review of the same.

We would like to inform you about our final observations. which is in addition to our previous observations via the two abovementioned letters,

1. You have adopted the SSD criteria while designing the vertical profile, which is against the provisions of the Concession Agreement, Schedule D.

2. Where it is categorically mentioned, only the ISD criteria have to be adopted in vertical alignment design, except in exceptional circumstances. The present submission of the plan and profile does not corroborate the following provisions:

   1. Concession Agreement clause 2.1(a),
   2. Schedule B, paragraph 5.
   3. Schedule D, clause 2.10.1

    

3. While designing the vertical alignment, changes in grade have been adopted too frequently, sometimes even at 50 to 60 m, violating the provisions of Schedule D, Clause 2.11.1, which recommends that the same should be 150 m.
4. The proposed vertical profile does not support Schedule B, paragraph 7, where the requirements are mentioned as the bare minimum.
5. The overlay requirements, as mentioned in Table 8.4 of Schedule B of the Concession Agreement, have not been fulfilled in the submitted P&P’s.

Thanking you,

To

The concessionaire,

Subject: Request for Submission of Plan and Profile with the appropriate authorised signatory -Reg.

Dear Sir,

In connection with all the submissions in general and the abovementioned submissions in particular, we have told you a number of times that all the submitted drawings, manuals, etc. must contain the signature of the authorised person of the concessionaire on each sheet or page, but unfortunately, rarely does that get complied with.

Often, they contain the signatures of unknown persons who are neither authorised nor whose names or designations are clearly stated.

Since the plan and profile drawings are vital documents, it is not agreed to accept any signatures other than the authorised person’s signature.

Hence, we are returning the following plan and profile drawings for their resubmission with the signatures of the authorised person.

This is for immediate compliance only.

Thanking you,

To

The concessionaire,

Subject: submission of Plan and Profile Drawings for GFC stamping etc- Reg

Dear Sir,

In connection with your abovementioned submissions and our consecutive final scrutiny, we are glad to release the Plan and Profile Drawings with Good for Construction certifications, for the under mentioned chainages:-

You are being allowed to use them as standard drawings in all future works.

Thanking you

Subject: Submission of Detailed Cross Sections-Reg.

Dear Sir,

With reference to the above mentioned letter, the drawings submitted for the Cross Section of Ch.17+000 to 18+000, in the Project Highway have been reviewed and following are the observations:

•  The offset points do not demarcate the main carriageway, paved shoulder and shoulder end separately which are mandatory.
• The earthen drain dimensions must be added.
• At Super elevation Portion both Left & Right median edge FRL value being shown as same, which is wrong.
• Side slopes are not being shown.
• R.O.W. lines are not being shown.
• Designed Layers with crust thickness, are not being shown.

So, you are being requested to incorporate the above points and resubmit the same for our final review.

Thanking you,