Bangladesh Defense
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 22,262
- Likes
- 9,869
- Nation
- Axis Group
Warranty for rural road construction
That rural roads fall into disrepair soon after construction or repair is a familiar experience. The resulting sufferings of villagers, especially farmers who depend on these roads to carry their produce to markets, are obviously enormous. Against this backdrop, the parliamentary standing committee
Warranty for rural road construction
That rural roads fall into disrepair soon after construction or repair is a familiar experience. The resulting sufferings of villagers, especially farmers who depend on these roads to carry their produce to markets, are obviously enormous. Against this backdrop, the parliamentary standing committee on the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (LGRD & C) has reportedly recommended retaining contractors' security deposits for three years as warranty to ensure quality of rural roads they build. The recommendation made at the committee's first meeting on Sunday (October 11), following Prime Minister Tarique Rahman's directive in this regard, is eminently well-taken. For the dilapidated condition of rural roads, many of which develop potholes and broken surfaces long before their expected service life, calls for a serious rethink of the prevailing construction and maintenance practices. Hopefully, the prime minister's direct intervention would help expedite implementation of this long overdue move to protect public resources.
Unlike in the case of roads in urban areas, construction of remote rural roads seldom comes under the scrutiny of higher authorities or media glare. Small wonder that contractors engaged in such works often find greater opportunities to compromise on the quality of materials, road foundations, carpeting and drainage. Such defects remain unnoticed until heavy rains expose the poor workmanship. The common people who have little say in the selection of contractors or supervision of their work are then left to suffer, while the public exchequer has again to bear the cost of fixing the broken down roads. So, the proposed three-year warranty provision, if properly enforced, can act as a deterrent against such malpractice. Knowing that their security money would remain at stake for three years, the contractors are expected to be more careful about the quality of work they deliver. But the provision alone cannot guarantee quality roadwork.
For poor construction cannot also be entirely blamed on the contractors. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. In fact, there are other quarters who play no less a part in the irregularities that have long plagued rural infrastructure projects. Local musclemen enjoying the blessings of politically powerful quarters, sometimes even public representatives, are known to interfere with tenders, demand their share of project funds or pressure contractors into accommodating their interests. Add to that a section of corrupt government officials who award work orders, certify completion of work and clear bills also allegedly demand bribes at different stages. What then remains of the funds originally earmarked for building a durable road? Evidently, an honest contractor, too, may find it difficult to maintain standards when forced to meet such illegitimate demands. Therefore, the parliamentary committee should also issue clear directives to local administrations, ruling party functionaries and public representatives so that no vested quarters can interfere in road construction. At the same time, officials found soliciting illegal payments must face the consequence.
In this connection, the committee's call for stronger monitoring of road construction is equally well advised. But monitoring should not mean merely visiting a project site after work is over and signing a certificate of completion. The Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) needs to ensure regular inspection of materials, measurements and work at every stage, preferably with independent verification. Villagers should also have a channel to report irregularities without fear of reprisal. Where defects occur during the proposed warranty period due to substandard work, the contractor should be made to rectify those before the security deposit is released. Damage from floods or abnormal loads, however, needs to be distinguished from faulty construction through technical assessment. In fine, the proposed warranty will serve its purpose only if all those associated with awarding, supervising and executing rural road projects are held accountable. The government would do well to ensure that no undue political influence or official dishonesty defeats the initiative.
That rural roads fall into disrepair soon after construction or repair is a familiar experience. The resulting sufferings of villagers, especially farmers who depend on these roads to carry their produce to markets, are obviously enormous. Against this backdrop, the parliamentary standing committee on the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (LGRD & C) has reportedly recommended retaining contractors' security deposits for three years as warranty to ensure quality of rural roads they build. The recommendation made at the committee's first meeting on Sunday (October 11), following Prime Minister Tarique Rahman's directive in this regard, is eminently well-taken. For the dilapidated condition of rural roads, many of which develop potholes and broken surfaces long before their expected service life, calls for a serious rethink of the prevailing construction and maintenance practices. Hopefully, the prime minister's direct intervention would help expedite implementation of this long overdue move to protect public resources.
Unlike in the case of roads in urban areas, construction of remote rural roads seldom comes under the scrutiny of higher authorities or media glare. Small wonder that contractors engaged in such works often find greater opportunities to compromise on the quality of materials, road foundations, carpeting and drainage. Such defects remain unnoticed until heavy rains expose the poor workmanship. The common people who have little say in the selection of contractors or supervision of their work are then left to suffer, while the public exchequer has again to bear the cost of fixing the broken down roads. So, the proposed three-year warranty provision, if properly enforced, can act as a deterrent against such malpractice. Knowing that their security money would remain at stake for three years, the contractors are expected to be more careful about the quality of work they deliver. But the provision alone cannot guarantee quality roadwork.
For poor construction cannot also be entirely blamed on the contractors. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. In fact, there are other quarters who play no less a part in the irregularities that have long plagued rural infrastructure projects. Local musclemen enjoying the blessings of politically powerful quarters, sometimes even public representatives, are known to interfere with tenders, demand their share of project funds or pressure contractors into accommodating their interests. Add to that a section of corrupt government officials who award work orders, certify completion of work and clear bills also allegedly demand bribes at different stages. What then remains of the funds originally earmarked for building a durable road? Evidently, an honest contractor, too, may find it difficult to maintain standards when forced to meet such illegitimate demands. Therefore, the parliamentary committee should also issue clear directives to local administrations, ruling party functionaries and public representatives so that no vested quarters can interfere in road construction. At the same time, officials found soliciting illegal payments must face the consequence.
In this connection, the committee's call for stronger monitoring of road construction is equally well advised. But monitoring should not mean merely visiting a project site after work is over and signing a certificate of completion. The Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) needs to ensure regular inspection of materials, measurements and work at every stage, preferably with independent verification. Villagers should also have a channel to report irregularities without fear of reprisal. Where defects occur during the proposed warranty period due to substandard work, the contractor should be made to rectify those before the security deposit is released. Damage from floods or abnormal loads, however, needs to be distinguished from faulty construction through technical assessment. In fine, the proposed warranty will serve its purpose only if all those associated with awarding, supervising and executing rural road projects are held accountable. The government would do well to ensure that no undue political influence or official dishonesty defeats the initiative.
