Counting extra cost on delayed projects

A power transmission grid development programme has unsurprisingly hit a snag. That it will cost an extra 18 per cent over its original estimate of Tk 17.14 billion to push up the amount to Tk20.18 billion is also nothing unusual. What is so naïve about the whole project is that its implementation started before a proper feasibility study. Evidently credit goes to the Power Grid Company of Bangladesh Ltd (PGCB) for putting the cart before the horse in the first place. Now it confirms that the lengths between certain points have increased by six kilometres, eight kilometres and two kilometres respectively. This has forced changes in the design of the project leading to enhancement of costs in some of its components. However, the story does not end here. All because transparency in such project implementation in most cases becomes a casualty. In this particular project the substations have luckily become cheaper. Originally each unit was priced at Tk 12.58 billion but now it can be procured at Tk11.57 billion. Also depreciation of the US dollar against the local currency brings down the total cost, saving Tk 1.54 billion for the PGCB.
Then what really necessitated the escalation of the cost is not quite clear. There is no reflection of such cost reductions. However not all other projects or mega projects are always equally fortunate to gain either the benefit of depreciation of the US currency or the price decline of machines and equipment. Usually delay that is caused in implementation of projects escalates their expenditures and when a mega project like the proposed Padma bridge is concerned, the extra cost is bound to be a cause for serious concern. Soaring prices of construction materials alone can raise the expenditure to double the amount or even more. Even smaller projects when delayed and made costlier for no strong reason add up to the drainage of staggering amount of money from the exchequer. Then the intangible losses on account of the implementation delay, if taken into account, indeed make it incumbent on policy-makers and planners to review the very culture and practice now prevalent in development works in the country.
Why not make the ground work to the satisfaction of experts in the areas of development works concerned? The highly qualified and competent people and companies should be assigned the responsibility for selection, implementation and monitoring of the projects undertaken. How can a company seek any amount of money for power transmission projects even before it has properly completed a feasibility study? Something is fishy about the matter. It is exactly where things go wrong. Right persons and companies are not given the job. Pulls and pushes from various quarters decide the matter and the less than qualified get the assignments. After all it is public works and hence scopes are naturally left for manoeuvring either with quality of works and cost of the projects. Attitudes such as this are at the root of all evils in case of most, if not all, development works in the country. It is time the authorities broke up with this deplorable work ethics and culture.