Vantage — Official Site
Skip to content

Rajkot's 40-crore flyover project: How better management could have caught the problems earlier

Devesh S. is an industry researcher and writer who specializes in translating complex industries into clear, trustworthy, and actionable knowledge. His work…

Summary

Rajkot's ₹40 crore flyover project: How better management could have caught the problems earlier Three Rajkot flyovers were reported as 90% complete but found to be only about 40% done, while an inspection also flagged rusted reinforcement steel. The episode raises a basic question: how did problems of this scale remain undetected until a Project Management Unit review? Three flyovers being built under Rajkot's RR 2 Phase I road expansion project have come under scrutiny after a Project Management Unit PMU review found a wide gap between reported and actual progress.

Published on

5 min read3 views
Rajkot's 40-crore flyover project: How better management could have caught the problems earlier

Three Rajkot flyovers were reported as 90% complete but found to be only about 40% done, while an inspection also flagged rusted reinforcement steel. The episode raises a basic question: how did problems of this scale remain undetected until a Project Management Unit review?

Three flyovers being built under Rajkot's RR-2 Phase-I road expansion project have come under scrutiny after a Project Management Unit (PMU) review found a wide gap between reported and actual progress.

The three structures — BR-2, BR-3 and BR-4 — were reported to be around 90% complete, but the PMU found actual progress at only about 40%. The review also identified rusted steel reinforcement and other construction-quality concerns, according to The Indian Express.

The project has an estimated cost of ₹40 crore and forms part of the expansion of the road between the Jamnagar Road and Kalavad Road intersections from two lanes to four lanes. The original two-lane road was completed in 2016.

The findings prompted Rajkot Municipal Corporation to suspend Deputy Executive Engineer Vijay C. Kariya and Assistant Engineer Vishal M. Vagadia. Deputy Municipal Commissioner Chetan Nandani and Executive City Engineer Kuntesh Mehta were issued show-cause notices.

The ₹40-crore question

The reported cost makes the gap between paper progress and physical progress more significant.

A project that is genuinely 90% complete should have most of its major construction work substantially finished. Finding the work at around 40% means the difference was not a minor accounting discrepancy. It points to a serious breakdown in how progress was being measured, reported or independently verified.

The available reporting does not establish exactly how the 90% figure was recorded or who certified it. That needs to be established through the civic body's records and the subsequent investigation.

But the situation highlights why infrastructure projects cannot be managed simply through percentage reports.

Physical verification has to match the numbers.

The bigger concern: rusted reinforcement

The PMU review also found rusted steel reinforcement at the site.

Reinforcement bars are a critical component of reinforced-concrete structures. Their condition, placement and protection therefore need to be checked during construction rather than after substantial work has already been completed.

The Indian Express reported that the inspection found rusted reinforcement and poor construction quality.

That does not, by itself, prove that the completed flyovers would have been structurally unsafe. Nor does it establish whether the steel had been exposed for an unusually long period, whether storage conditions caused the problem, or whether the affected material was ultimately intended for use.

Those are questions the technical investigation needs to answer.

How proper project management could have caught this earlier

The most obvious safeguard is independent physical verification of progress.

If a contractor reports 90% completion, an engineer or project-management team should verify that figure against measurable milestones: foundations completed, piers constructed, girders installed, deck work completed and other defined items in the approved work schedule.

A simple site visit would not replace technical inspection, but it could expose a major mismatch between paperwork and physical progress.

The second safeguard is material inspection and storage control.

Steel reinforcement arriving at a site should be checked, documented and stored in conditions that minimise exposure to moisture and contamination. Where material remains on site for an extended period, its condition should be reassessed before it is incorporated into the structure.

The third is stage-wise quality approval.

Concrete and reinforcement work should not simply move from one construction stage to the next without inspection and documentation. Photographs, measurements, test records and engineer sign-offs create a trail showing what was actually built.

The fourth is early escalation of delays.

If a project is materially behind schedule, the issue should reach senior management before the gap becomes large. A project dashboard that shows reported progress without independently verified physical progress can give decision-makers a misleading picture.

The management failure to avoid

The lesson from Rajkot is not that every delay or rusted steel bar means a project is unsafe.

It is that quality control and progress monitoring have to operate continuously.

By the time an external or higher-level review discovers that reported progress is roughly 90% while physical progress is closer to 40%, the opportunity for early correction has already been lost.

A better-managed project would have had multiple points at which the discrepancy could have surfaced: during material inspections, monthly progress verification, stage-wise structural checks, payment certification and site audits.

That is where proper management can make a difference. It does not eliminate every construction problem. It makes it much harder for a problem to remain hidden until it becomes expensive, politically embarrassing or potentially dangerous.

For a ₹40-crore public infrastructure project, that distinction matters.

The immediate action in Rajkot has been disciplinary: two engineers were suspended and two senior officials were issued show-cause notices. The more important question now is whether the civic body can identify how the monitoring system allowed the reported progress and actual progress to diverge so sharply — and fix that system before the next project runs into the same problem.

Sources https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/rajkot-flyover-delay-engineers-suspended-poor-workmanship-10870226/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/rajkot/two-civic-engineers-suspended-over-lapses-in-three-bridge-projects/articleshow/133981876.cms

https://offbeatstories.in/news/rajkot-ring-road-bridge-work-negligence-engineers-suspended-5222589431

vantage

From TatvaOps

Residential Construction

Building or extending your home?

Run your residential build with verified contractors and daily progress tracking.

Free quotes · Verified contractors · tatvaops.com

Discuss this article

Join the conversation

Continue this discussion on Forums. A board named like this Radar article is filed under Radar.

Was this helpful?

Let us know what you think