Original June 2024 completion deadline extended to May 2028 in four stages; RTI activist Anil Galgali seeks disclosure on contractor liability, liquidated damages and financial impact
By: Anant Nalawade
Mumbai : The deadline for completion of the Versova-Bandra Sea Link has been extended by a cumulative 1,421 days, pushing the project’s scheduled completion from June 21, 2024 to May 17, 2028, according to information obtained from the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) under the Right to Information Act.
The project commenced on June 24, 2019 and was originally scheduled for completion on June 21, 2024.
According to the RTI information obtained by activist Anil Galgali, MSRDC subsequently granted extensions in four stages, citing reasons ranging from non-availability of land for a casting yard and the Covid-19 disruption to restructuring within the EPC contractor’s joint venture and changes in the scope of work. The four extensions together add up to 1,421 days.
Four extensions: From 2024 to 2028
According to the information provided under RTI, the first extension of 250 days was granted due to non-availability of land required for the casting yard. A further 180 days were granted citing disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The project subsequently received an extension of 483 days on account of restructuring within the EPC contractor’s joint venture. Another 508 days were added citing changes in the scope of work and additional works. Together, these extensions shifted the scheduled completion date by nearly four years.
Galgali seeks details of contractor liability
While MSRDC has provided reasons for the extensions, Galgali has raised questions over how responsibility for the different periods of delay was determined. He has sought disclosure on whether the Liquidated Damages provisions contained in the contract were invoked for any delay attributable to the Webuild-Apco JV.
If such provisions were invoked, Galgali has sought details of the amount recovered. If they were not invoked, he has asked MSRDC to explain the reasons. The distinction is significant because an extension of time does not, by itself, establish that the contractor was responsible for the entire delay. The reasons cited by MSRDC include circumstances ranging from land availability and the pandemic to changes in project scope and restructuring of the contractor JV.
Determining the financial liability would therefore require establishing responsibility for each period of delay and examining the relevant contractual provisions.
What is the financial impact of the delay?
Galgali has also sought transparency on the financial implications of the extensions. A project running beyond its original completion schedule can potentially have financial consequences arising from additional work, contractual obligations, manpower, machinery or changes in scope. However, the RTI information cited so far does not establish the extent of any cost escalation attributable specifically to the 1,421-day extension.
Galgali has therefore demanded that MSRDC disclose the financial impact, if any, arising from the extensions and identify the party responsible for each period of delay. He has also sought details of the implementation of contractual penalty provisions and any recovery made from the contractor.
The RTI disclosures have consequently raised three separate questions: why each extension was necessary, who was responsible for the respective periods of delay, and whether any additional financial burden arising from attributable delays is being recovered under the contract.
With the original June 2024 deadline now pushed to May 2028, disclosure of these details would help establish whether the extensions were necessitated by circumstances beyond the contractor’s control or whether any portion of the delay attracts contractual liability.
How 1,421 days were added
Original start date: June 24, 2019
Original completion date: June 21, 2024
Current scheduled completion: May 17, 2028
Extension 1 — 250 days
Non-availability of land for casting yard
Extension 2 — 180 days
Covid-19-related disruption
Extension 3 — 483 days
Restructuring of EPC contractor JV
Extension 4 — 508 days
Change in scope and additional works
Total extension: 1,421 days
Questions that remain unanswered
1. Contractor responsibility
Which portions of the 1,421-day extension were attributable to the contractor?
2. Liquidated Damages
Were contractual LD provisions invoked against Webuild-Apco JV?
3. Recovery
If damages were imposed, how much has MSRDC recovered?
4. Financial impact
What additional cost, if any, has arisen because of the extended project timeline?
5. Public disclosure
Will MSRDC publish extension approvals, responsibility assessments and details of any penalties or recoveries?
