Almost three weeks after the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) implicated senior officials of the department of roads (DoR) and Singye Construction for serious lapses in the construction of the Thimphu expressway, Singye Group of Companies responded to the media refuting the ACC findings.
In a written submission, signed by the vice chairman, Ugen Tsechup Dorji, they said that the investigation report compiled by ACC and publicised in the media was absolutely “absurd, false and immoral”.
“We’re not only concerned with ACC officials distorting unilaterally the results found from the joint investigation, but also their engineering competency and qualification to undertake and publicise engineering problems suffered by the expressway in a manner, that is misinforming and misleading the nation,” said the letter.
The ACC report revealed that the road thickness was not done as per the tender specifications and had found the final layer’s average thickness on the entire stretch to be only 79.70 mm, while it was supposed to be 100 mm.
The letter, however, stated that, out of 50 random samples taken jointly, the minimum thickness was found to be 35.43mm while maximum was 200mm, with majority falling within the range of 75 mm to 100 mm.
Singye Company earlier wrote to the government, cautioning the envisaged variation of pavement thickness, and recommended an additional investment that was denied which led to the compromising of quality.
“The extreme southern stretch of expressway at Babesa was problem-free, sturdy surface where the thickness of the pavement was found the least, measuring only average of 35.43 mm, which clearly indicated that failure suffered by expressway was not the function of the thickness of the flexible pavement but something else,” said the letter.
It was also stated that, on engineering essence, the flexible pavements were designed for negligible flexural strength and were rather flexible in their structural action under the loads.
The company also cited reasons defending the accusation made by ACC that proper compaction was not achieved, leading to the failure of the road and blacktop peeling off.
They stated that they could conclude from the approach of the ACC investigating team that they had come with predetermination to go out of their way to find fault in the work, but not try and look at the problem for future solutions.
They also said that ACC refused the suggestion to adopt standard code of practice and procedure to determine the very basic and inevitable compaction, displacement and wear and tear, that the work had undergone during 75 percent sustained duration of its designed life of five years.
The company claimed that all the quality tests were performed and verified by authorities concerned and ACC had their copies in hand but, despite the fact, ACC reported the work quality to have suffered due to non-conduct of tests, poor supervision and probable corruption.
The letter stated that, considering the facts, it was inappropriate to blame the contractor squarely.
An ACC official said that they did not receive any letter from the company, but said that their findings were clear and that they would stick to it.