Sunteți pe pagina 1din 49

Government of Nepal

Machine Fabricated
Gabions – Nepal

Rural Access
Programme (RAP)
Phase 3

State-of-the-Industry
Report

June 2016
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes) Report

Machine Fabricated Gabions - Nepal


CONTENTS

DOCUMENT CONTROL ............................................................................................... iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................... iv

1. Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

2. Introduction and Background ............................................................................... 2


2.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Industries in Nepal ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. Desk Study.............................................................................................................. 4
3.1. Maccaferri ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2. Historical Development - Nepal .................................................................................................... 5

4. Factory Inspection ................................................................................................. 6


4.1. Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 6
4.2. Programme ................................................................................................................................... 6
4.3. Summary Table ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.4. Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 9

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 10
5.1. Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2. Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 11

Annex 1: Field Visit Reports ...................................................................................... 12

Annex 2: Meeting Notes ............................................................................................. 13

Annex 3: Inspection Data Sheets .............................................................................. 14

Annex 4: Case Study .................................................................................................. 15

Page i
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes) Report

TABLE OF FIGURES

Table 1: Combination of mesh type, mesh wire and box size: ............................................................. 3
Table 2: List of Factories visited by CMS.............................................................................................. 4
Table 3: Weight of Wires for Machine woven and Hand woven gabion boxes .................................... 5
Table 4: Diameter of wires in Standard Specifications ......................................................................... 6
Table 5: Factory Inspection Plan........................................................................................................... 7
Table 6: Summary Table ....................................................................................................................... 8

Page ii
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes) Report

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Document revisions and


Details Signature and Date
authorisation

Version 30th June 2016

Summary of revisions made Main Report Submission

Revisions prepared by Mahendra Kumar Shrestha

Revisions checked by William Seal

Version authorised by Michael Green

Page iii
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes) Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CMS Contract Management Specialist


DC District Coordinator
DFID Department for International Development
DoLIDAR Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads
DoR Department of Road
DRSP District Road Support Programme
DTMP District Transport Master Plan
GI Galvanised Iron
JV Joint Venture
LEP Labour based Environmentally friendly Participatory approach
LRBP Local Roads Bridge Programme
Ltd Limited
Kg Kilogramme
Km Kilometre
mm Millimetre
N Newton
NS Nepal Standard
PVC Ploy Vinyl Chloride
Pvt Private

RAP Rural Access Programme


SWG Standard Wire Gauge
T Tonne
TMO Technical Management Office
UK United Kingdom
Yr Year

Page iv
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

1. SUMMARY

Rural Access Programme – Phase 3 (RAP3) is a 4-year DFID funded project covering 14 Districts
in Nepal. It aims to improve people’s incomes and resilience through employment, sustainable
access to markets and improved access to economic opportunities. Expected outputs include
improved and sustainable access due to climate resilient rural transport infrastructure,
maintenance, upgrading and road/trail-bridge construction.

New road construction projects have been commenced in 4 core districts – Humla, Mugu, Bajura
and Kalikot, prioritised as per DoLIDAR’s DTMP procedures. For these new construction roads
huge quantities of gabion boxes are required. As planned, procurement of gabion boxes and its
delivery were performed in Yr-I and Yr-II. However, during February 2016 on a DC field visit note
(Refer Annex1: FIELD VISIT REPORTs) to Kalikot (03rd - 15th January 2016) and later to Bajura
(12th -19th February 2016), some quality issues had been raised regarding gabion boxes supplied
by Hulas Wire Industries Ltd. The quality issues were: mechanical connections of end panels to
main body and size of diaphragms and end panels of the gabion boxes.

TMO held a meeting on 27th January 2016 and 25th February 2016 (Refer Annex2: Meeting Notes)
with Hulas. Meeting discussed on quality issues, possible solution, resumption of supply for
balance quantities and field visits. Meeting on 25th decided that a cost reduction in the invoices is
acceptable to Hulas for rectification done by RAP-3 on already delivered items. Similarly, a pro-
rata basis cost reduction in the invoices was agreed for undersized diaphragms and end panels. It
was agreed that RAP-3 would not continue receiving additional poor quality gabion boxes and
would only resume receiving goods if RAP-3 had the assurance that Hulas can supply gabion
boxes according to RAP-3 standards. In addition, it was decided that, RAP3 would send CMS to
carry out factory visit to see if there are scopes to improve the production technique. CMS visited
six numbers of mechanical weaving suppliers to understand the status and capability of the
industries in Nepal and to explore to what extent Hulas and other factories were following the
standard specification.

CMS visited six factories in which four viz Hulas Wire Industries Limited (Hulas), Kamal Rolling
Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Kamala), Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Pioneer) and Premier Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Premier)
are based at Biratnagar, Morang and two viz Super Wire & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Super Wire)
and Gabionet Environment Solution Pvt. Ltd. (Gabionet) are based at Hetauda, Makwanpur.

Based on the findings from factory visit, a meeting was organised with Hulas on 11th April 2016.
RAP-3 suggested the Supplier to add Cut-Edge selveding machine in their armoury so that the
product substantially matches to the standard specification. However, to re-start ongoing supply
RAP-3 asked Hulas to improve the tightness of mesh to selvedge wire connection by stringent

Page 1
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

manual means and shall use a common selvedge wire for joining end panels to the main body.
After remedying the defects, RAP-3 allowed the suppler to re-start the supply with extended time
up to 17th June 2016.

Key recommendations are:

 Adjust specification to acknowledge that bulk of Nepal factories are not equipped with
Mechanical Selvedging Machine and also cannot mechanically join end panels to main
body. However should use a common Selvedge to join the end panels to main body.
 Incorporate incentives to seek to improve the industry, e.g. a financial preferences in
evaluation for those equipped and using mechanical selvedge machine. Thereafter once a
base of factories are equipped, make this mandatory.

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1. OVERVIEW

What is a gabion? A meaning of gabion in Wikipedia is ‘A gabion (from Italian gabbione meaning
“big cage”, from Italian gabbia and Latin cavea meaning “cage”) is a cage, cylinder, or box filled
with rocks, concrete, or sometimes sand and soil for use in civil engineering, road building, military
applications and landscaping’.

In Standard Specification for Road and Bridge works under a Gabion heading it has been
described as ‘Gabion shall consist of steel wire mesh crates. The steel wire shall be mild steel wire
complying with NS 169-2045. All wires used in the manufacturing crates and diaphragms, binding
and connecting lids and boxes shall be galvanised with an heavy coating of zinc by an electrolytic
or hot dip galvanising process. The weight of deposition of zinc shall be in accordance with NS
163-2045. Zinc coating shall be uniform and be able to withstand minimum number of dips and
adhesion test specified as per NS 163-2045. Tolerance of diameter of wire shall be +/- 2.5%
percent. The tensile strength shall be 380 to 500 N/mm2’.

However, there are Special clauses used similar to RAP3 and Maccaferri’s product specification.
SP 200: Specification for machine made gabion wire net (Matches with Maccaferri’s product
speciation) describes:

Gabion definition: Gabions are boxes made of hexagonal double twisted woven wire
mesh, divided into cells by means of diaphragms which helps to reinforce and strengthen
the structures. They are interconnected with other similar units and filled with stones at the
project site to form flexible, permeable and monolithic structures such as gravity retaining
walls, channel linings, weirs etc.

Page 2
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

Manufacturing: All gabions shall be machine woven rectangular units made from double
twist hexagonal mesh of heavy galvanized mild steel wire.

Selvedging:

 Main body: All edges of standard gabion should be mechanically selvedged in such
a way as to prevent unravelling of the mesh and to develop the full strength of the
mesh.
 End panels and internal diaphragms: Alll sides of end panels and internal
diaphragms, except the bottom should be mechanically sevedged in such a way
as to prevent unravelling of the mesh and to develop the full strength of the mesh.

Connection of end panels to main body: The end panels in Box gabions should be
mechanically connected with the main body at the manufacturing site by selvedging both
to a common selvedge wire in such way to prevent the separation of the end panel from
main body even in extreme conditions.

Connection of internal diaphragm with main body: All the gabions having length equal
or more than 2.0m must have internal diaphragms at a distance not more than 1.0m. All
the diaphragms of the gabions should be connected with spiral wires.

Wire Specification: The wire used for the manufacturing of gabions and mattresses shall
be annealed mild steel complying with BS 1052:1980 or NS 169:2045 with an average
strength of 380-500 N/mm2 and shall be galvanized before weaving as specified in BS
443:1982 or NS 163:2045.

Combination of mesh type, mesh wire and box sizes: Gabions and mattresses shall be
of the mesh type, wire diameter and box sizes as shown on the table below:

Table 1: Combination of mesh type, mesh wire and box size:


S. N. Mesh Mesh Selvedge Lacing Box Size Tolerances
type Wire wire wire in Box sizes
1. 100mmx 3.0mm 3.9mm 2.4mm L=1.5m, 2m, 3m, 4m +/- 5% on
120mm each
B= 1m, 2m
H= 0.5m, 1m

Nowadays, Gabion structures are being used in various Civil Engineering structures. A gabion
wall is a retaining wall made of stacked stone-filled gabions tied together with wire. Gabion walls
are usually battered (angled back towards the slope), or stepped back with the slope, rather than
stacked vertically.

Gabions have been used from ancient times but only recently it has been used widespread. In
Nepal both handmade and machine made gabion boxes are in use. However, the Standard

Page 3
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

specifications for Road and Bridge works, mentions about handmade gabion boxes and its wires
requirement for fabrication but nothing has been mentioned about the machine made gabion
boxes. CMS had carried out an extensive study on machine made v/s handmade gabion boxes
about two years ago and came into conclusion that machine woven gabion boxes are superior in
terms of uniformity, strength, looks and are easily available which has been producing by 6/7
suppliers in Nepal. However, it is very costly to be transferred to the district like Humla and thus
recommend as a special case in inaccessible districts to use the hand woven gabion boxes as
gabion wires manual transportation is easier than machine made gabion box manual
transportation.

2.2. INDUSTRIES IN NEPAL

Initially, only handmade gabion boxes were in use in Nepal. Maccaferri initiated for machine
fabricated gabion box production and first production of gabion boxes was in 1996. Since then
many gabion box factories are in operation. Following are the list of factories that were visited by
CMS for his study. Though Maccaferri was approached for factory visit on several occasion
(verbally and in writing), but researcher did not receive authorization from Maccaferri.

Table 2: List of Factories visited by CMS


S. N. First Production
Name of Factories Address
date
1. Hulas Wire Industries Ltd. Tankesunwari, Biratnagar, Morang 2011
(Hulas)
2. Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. Tankesunwari, Biratnagar, Morang 2010
(Pioneer)
3. Kamala Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Tankesunwari, Biratnagar, Morang 2009
(Kamla)
4. Premier Wire Pvt. Ltd. Tankesunwari, Biratnagar, Morang 2011
(Premier)
5. Super Wire & Steel Industries Industrial Area, Hetauda, 2010
Pvt. Ltd. (Super Wire) Makawanpur
6. Gabionet Env. Solution Pvt. Ltd Newapani, Hetauda, Makawanpur 2014
(Gabionet)

3. DESK STUDY

3.1. MACCAFERRI

Maccaferri is an International pioneer and world leader in the production of gabions and retaining
structures used for river training, earth control, soil conservation etc. It was established in 1879 in
Italy. Over the last 130 years Maccaferri has been producing mechanically woven hexagonal
shaped double twisted steel wire mesh products. Over the time, it has developed technically

Page 4
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

efficient and economic combination of mesh wire, mesh sizes and box sizes. Now it’s a global
company, with more than 70 subsidiaries operating in 5 continents, with an on-site presence in
more than 100 countries, and nearly 3000 employees. It has highly-specialized professionals
trained in designing and developing complex solutions in the civil engineering, geotechnical and
environmental construction markets. It has environmentally-friendly products and applications.

Maccaferri (Nepal) Pvt. Ltd. established in 1997 in Nepal is an associated company of Officine
Maccaferri, Italy. Its product machine made mechanically selvedged double twist gabion boxes are
being widely used in Nepal, but whether it is made in Nepal or imported from India is doubtful. It’s
a pioneer in Nepal and other agencies in Nepal followed its specification for the production of
gabion boxes. Now, apart from gabion boxes, Maccaferri has other products in market such as
geotextiles, geosynthetics, geo-grids to geomembranes, etc.

Recently upon RAP3’s request Maccaferri conducted a workshop in RAP3, TMO, Lalitpur, which
was brief but was able to provide knowledgeable information on machine fabricated gabion boxes
such as mechanical connection in between selvedge and mesh connection. In fact this workshop
was very valuable for conducting research on gabion producing factories in Nepal.

3.2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT - NEPAL

When did gabion structures start in Nepal? Perhaps, there is no concrete answer for it. Years
before Maccaferri was established in Nepal, handmade gabion boxes were used for civil
engineering retaining structures. For example Lamosangu-Jiri feeder road (110Km) was first build
under LEP approach in 1985 that extensively used handmade gabion structures. There are many
heavy coated machine fabricated gabion box factories now in Nepal. In parallel to machine
fabricated boxes, handmade gabion boxes are also extensively being used in the Civil Engineering
structures. The researcher carried out extensive study for machine fabricated v/s handmade
gabion boxes about two years ago. The result of the study was the hand weaving gabion boxes
require extra thickness of wire to compensate for equivalent retaining force. Additionally, machine
made gabions are considered better due to tightness of twisting, uniformity of mesh which is good
for uniform load distribution, stronger than handmade gabions whatsoever big size of the mesh
wire is used, high productivity, etc.

Table 3: Weight of Wires for Machine woven and Hand woven gabion boxes
Weight in Kg per box for Hand Weight in Kg per box for Hand
Gabion box woven woven

3x1x1m 39.41 29.64

2x1x1m 27.26 20.96

1.5x1x1m 19.88 15.73

Page 5
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

However, in a wider context, a gradual move to machine fabricated gabion boxes by projects is
taking place in Nepal. RAP-3 has given emphasis on machine fabricated gabion boxes and it is
procuring it in all districts except Humla. In Humla, machine fabricated gabion boxes transportation
is costly through air lift and it is near impossible by other means. Hence, in district like Humla where
road is not accessible, handmade gabion boxes shall be a better solution as GI wire transportation
is easier.

DoR specification (as of July 2001) is related to the hand woven gabion boxes and it does not
speak about machine woven gabion boxes. The specification for machine woven gabion boxes
shall be included in DoR specification. The difference in DoR specification and standard machine
fabrication gabion boxes in use are as in table 4:

Table 4: Diameter of wires in Standard Specifications


Mesh Opening DoR Specification Machine made specification
Selvedge Mesh Binding Selvedge Binding
Mesh Wire
Wire Wire Wire Wire Wire
100mmx120mm 7 swg 10 swg 12 swg 3.9mm 3.0mm 2.64mm
(4.47mm) (3.25mm) (2.64mm)

4. FACTORY INSPECTION

4.1. PROCEDURE
A data sheet was developed (Refer Annex 3: Factory Inspection Data Sheets) for a number of
variables checked during factory inspection to know whether gabion box product matches to the
standard specification or any difference therein.

In general, all the factories produce mesh by mesh weaving machines and its edges being
mechanically connected with selvedge wire. However, all factories except Kamala Rolling Mills
have manual connection of Selvedge wire to mesh in cutting edge portion. Interestingly, Hulas
Wire Industries uses two separate selvedge wires for end panels to main body joint but all other
factories uses only a common sevedged wire in this connection.

4.2. PROGRAMME
A factory inspection plan was as shown in the following table. On 16th to 18th March, CMS inspected
Biratnagar based factories on companion with Morang DTA team [On 16th: Harihar Bhandari (DTL),
Dristi Lamichnaney (Graduate Engineer), on 17th: Hem Bahadur Thapa (SAME) and on 19th: Ram
Ratan Yadav (SAME)] and on 9th April, he inspected Hetauda based factories on companion with
GE, Biraj Adhikari.

Page 6
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

Table 5: Factory Inspection Plan


S. N. Name of Factories Time (2016)
16 Mar 17 Mar 18 Mar 9 Apr
1. Hulas Wire Industries Ltd.
2. Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd.
3. Kamala Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.
4. Premier Wire Pvt. Ltd.
5. Super Wire & Steel Industries
Pvt. Ltd.
6. Gabionet Env. Solution Pvt.
Ltd

4.3. SUMMARY TABLE


Table 6 shows a summary table of the factory visit inspection. Four factories produces wires and
use it for gabion boxes production. Two factories imported wires from these factories for gabion
boxes production.

Page 7
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

Table 6: Summary Table


S Description Hulas Wire Industries Ltd. Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. Kamala Rolling Mills Pvt. Premier Wire Pvt. Ltd. Super Wire & Steel Gabionet Env.
N Ltd. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Solution Pvt. Ltd
1 First Production Date 2011 2010 2009 2011 2010 2014
2 Mesh Weaving Machine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 Cut-Edge Sevedging Machine No No Yes No No Yes (2m width but
not used)
4 QA/ QC Facilities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 Factory Laboratory yes yes yes yes No Yes
6 Where do they perform test In House, In India In House In House In House In Kathmandu (4 times a In House
month)
7 What test do they perform For GI: Tensile strength, For GI: Zinc coating, For GI: Zinc coating, For GI: Zinc coating, For GI: Zinc coating, For GI: Zinc coating,
Elongation, Zinc coating, Tensile test, Uniformity, Tensile test, Diameter, Tensile test, Diameter, Diameter, For boxes: Diameter,
Uniformity, Diameter, Diameter, Adhesion, Uniformity, Adhesion, Uniformity, Adhesion, Physical test such as Uniformity,
Adhesion, Wrapping etc., Wrapping, For boxes: Wrapping, For boxes: Wrapping, For boxes: dimensions, mesh Wrapping, For
For boxes: Physical test Physical test such as Physical test such as Physical test such as opening etc. (Note: boxes: Physical test
such as dimension of box dimensions, mesh dimensions, mesh dimensions, mesh receives wires with test such as dimensions,
mesh opening etc. opening etc. opening etc. opening etc. certificates) mesh opening etc.
8 Capacity of Output 10 tonnes/day ~18 tonnes/day (by two 14.4 tonnes/day 20 tonnes/day ( with 6 tonnes/day 8 tonnes/day
machines) (4.8T/8hrs and machine three machines)
operates for 3 shifts)
9 Major Clients Rural Access programme - Hazama corporation, Rural Access programme - Kalika Construction Pvt Rural Access programme - Kalika Construction
Phase 3, Local Roads 1,000,000m2 gabion Phase 3, District Road Ltd, Rasuwa -SBA JV, Phase 3, Kalika Pvt Ltd, Rasuwa
Bridge Programme (LRBP), boxes to Indian Projects Support Programme Arun-Kabeli Power Ltd, Construction Pvt Ltd, Construction Pvt
Kalika-Rasuwa JV, Arun- India, Lama and Nagarjun (DRSP), Nana Construction Mahadev Khimti Nirman Tundi Construction Pvt Ltd, GIZ, Shrestha
Kabeli Power Ltd, Nepal JV, Bajraguru Construction Pvt Ltd, Gauri-Parbati Sewa, K S Construction Pvt Ltd, GIZ, Sapana Construction, Lama
Hydro Developer Pvt Ltd Pvt Ltd, Marushin Shitaka Construction, Mahadev Ltd. Construction Pvt Ltd Construction Pvt
Construction Company Khimti Nirman Sewa Ltd, Ank-Lumbhini
Inc, Japan JV
10 Sources of Wires In house ( Self-made) In house ( Self-made) In house ( Self-made) In house ( Self-made) Domestic supply Domestic supply
11 Product Specification referred Maccaferri and NS 163 Maccaferri and NS 163 Maccaferri and NS 163 ASTM A641, Maccaferri Maccaferri and NS 163 Maccaferri and NS
and NS 163 163
12 PPE used Hand gloves only Hand gloves only Hand gloves only Hand gloves only No No
13 Literature / Promotional Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
materials
14 No of labours for Gabion box 100 140 120 (in 3 shifts) 140 48 73
production

Page 8
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

4.4.PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs 1 & 2: A meeting before factory Inspection between RAP team (Premier) and
factory team and a mesh weaving machine (Pioneer)

Photographs 3 & 4: Cut-Edge selvedging machine (Kamala Rolling) and mostly women
group working for cut edge selveding and end panel connection to main body (Hulas)

Photographs 5 (Premier) & 6 (Superwire): RAP-3 team inspecting the size of Gabion box
and two selvedge ends

Page 9
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

Photographs 7 & 8: Tensile strength testing machines (Hulas) and a factory lab for zinc
coating test (Pioneer)

5. CONCLUSION

5.1.FINDINGS
Total six numbers of machine fabricated gabion box factories were visited by the researcher.
Interesting findings of the Inspection are:
 All factories have mesh weaving machines producing mesh size of 100mmx120mm but
Gabionet can also produce mesh size 60mmx80mm using mesh wire 2.2mm and selvedge
wire 2.7mm.
 Kamala has cut-edge sevedging machine. Gabionet has small 2m width cut-edge selveding
machine but has not used till the date due to its short length.
 No factory except Kamala complies the standard International / RAP3 specification
(Maccaferri) in totality such as mechanical connection of end panels with the main body.
 All factories except Hulas use a common selvedge wire for the connection of end panels to the
main body.
 End panels and diaphragms shall be 1mx1m size with respect to the standard specification,
but it is found that all the manufacturers are using the size 0.95mx1m. It is due to the mesh
size is of 100mm x120mm and diaphragms or end panels used 9 mesh + ½ mesh =9x100 +
1x50 = 0.95m.
 All factories uses mesh wire (3mm), Selvedge wire (3.9mm) and binding wires (2.4mm) for
mesh size 100mmx120mm.
 Four Biratnagar based factories produces GI wire and uses the same wire for gabion box
production. Two factories Super wire and Gabionet uses domestic wires produced by these 4
factories.
 All factories have lab facilities in its factory premises except Superwire who conducts test on
lab at Kathmandu four times a month and received wires with test certificates.
 Kamala Rolling only uses male workers whereas other factories uses about 70% women as
factory workers.
 All factories use labours between age group 18 to 55 years.
 Factories like Hulas, Pioneer supplies GI wires and gabion boxes to India.

Page 10
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

 Apart from zinc coating gabion boxes PVC coating gabion boxes are also being produced by
some factories which can be used in corrosive climate or under water gabion structures!

5.2.RECOMMENDATION
The factory inspection was a very relevant and important means to understand about the gabion
boxes that are being producing in Nepal and whether these match to the standard specification or
not. This inspection gave ideal knowledge to the researcher. He shall review bidding document
and amend the specification in upcoming procurement of gabion boxes to make sure there is
correlation in what RAP-3 can practically accept such as size of diaphragms and end panels i.e.
0.95mx1m instead of 1mx1m.
Further, we can encourage the factories to produce the gabion boxes that more closely match the
standard specification. For that the factories shall add cut-edge sevedging machine to their
armoury so that the product matches to the standard specification which stresses that ‘The end
panels in Box gabions should be connected with the main body at the manufacturing site by
selvedging the both to a common selvedge wire in such a way to prevent the separation of the end
panel from main body even in extreme condition’. RAP proposes to amend its bid document giving
preference to the factories which provides mechanical cut edge selvedging.

Page 11
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

ANNEX 1: FIELD VISIT REPORTS

Page 12
FIELD VISIT REPORT

Visit to: KALIKOT Dates: 03 to 15 Jan 2016

Reported by: Hom Nath Lamsal

Purpose: Engineering Monitoring Visit from TMO on two district roads in Kalikot: Sanighat-Shipkhana (SS)
and Jarkot-Ramnakot (JR)

Visit Team: Hom Nath Lamsal, Bishnu Ram Bista (DTL), Sunil Tandukar (RE), Mahesh Bhattarai (NGO
PC) along with 3 IoWs and all STSs on their respective road sections (IoW of JR was on
leave, who was met on the way back to site)

SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION

1. Overall Impression
The physical progress is encouraging on SS and construction is on full swing with
mobilisation of almost all RBGs. However, quality of works is not satisfactory at all. What
was observed at sites indicates that there has not been much senior level (RE, EO and
DTL) interventions towards quality assurance of works. The lower tier of supervising
staffs (STSs and IoW) does not seem to have been guided and backstopped in a proper
and timely manner as part of engineering control from DTA management. Whatever was
achieved seems to have been merely from the effort of STSs. The major noticeable
deficiencies pinpointed during last TMO’s visit by BS and HNL (March 2015) still
continues to appear till now. Even though there has been noticeable progress in settling
issues like land disputes in some sections, relocation of electric poles; one cannot see
progress on quality management of works. DTA management should put well thought-
out plans and strategies in place to rescue from current haphazard and ad-hoc site
management. Adequate orientation and training to field technicians (especially IoWs
and STSs), regular field supervision and monitoring by RE and EO, standard work
procedures (method statements) as defined by the specifications and necessary
checklists for supervision of major works needs to be immediately in place so as to
streamline construction procedures in pursuit of quality throughout the length of the
road.
The physical progress on JR is not as encouraging as on SS mainly because of one year
late start of work and harsh/steep/rocky terrain. It is likely that this road may still remain
incomplete by the time all other RAP’s 6 new roads are completed. Even with full efforts
in place, it looks challenging to complete the road in three working seasons including
this year.
2. Issues on Quality and Work Management
2.1 Gabion work (lacing, bracing and stone filling)
The proper method of gabion crates filling, lacing and bracing (horizontal) does not EO/RE/IoW/STS
seem to have been followed. The lacing of gabion boxes with each other is found only
on the front face sides and not on the inner sides, and in some cases there is no lacing
even on front face. Horizontal bracing also lacks many things. It was so frustrating that
selvedge wires of adjacent boxes have been twisted each other to tie one box to other
in many cases. Selection and laying of stone inside the box looks good on the front face
whereas the inner part of the box has been packed so carelessly as if it is a simply heap
of stone made in a haste. (ref: photo 7)
Discussed with field team and explained the proper method. Field team needs to refer
to LRN training manual and road specifications as well to develop a “method
statement”. Continuous spiral lacing with three turns at approx. 15 cm on all sides of

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
two adjacent boxes is the standard method. Horizontal bracing needs to make loop
covering two meshes and should adequately tightened between inner and outer faces
of the box. In addition, proper straightening for removal of creases and bends to form a
straight-edged boxes, installing to specified line and level at prepared foundation base
and lacing one box to other along all edges prior to filling stones are the basic
requirements of gabion wall construction.
It was observed that the diaphragm of 1.5*1*1 sized box has been installed not at
equidistance from the end panels – at one meter from one end and at 0.5 m from the
other end. The diaphragm should be tied at the centre of the boxes i.e. at 0.75 m from
either end.

2.2 Dry Stone Wall


Stone block selection and laying seems very poor in most of the dry walls built. No bond EO/RE/IoW/STS
stones was seen. Selection and making of appropriate size stone is vital in dry wall
construction. RBGs should be advised and instructed to use hammer dressed stone for
bonding. A set of “bond stones” (for details please refer LRN training manual) is
mandatory at specified interval to form interlocking between front and back face in
random masonry wall construction. Inconsistent and inadequate width of wall was
observed in many locations, especially in case of composite wall (ref: photo 9). Guiding
threads on both sides of the wall is essential to make the wall to specified line and slope.
Field team needs to be fully oriented about the standard method statement of dry wall
construction. The height of soil fill above the top of dry wall differs largely case by case,
so, it is advised to maintain an optimum height of 30 cm above wall top on the inner
side decreasing to zero to front side for stability of the backfill.

2.3 Laying of Geotextile


Field team seems to be ignorant about the proper method as to how geotextile is laid EO/RE/IoW/STS
on the back of retaining wall. Adequate lapping and joints lack in most of the cases. It
was found that in majority of cases there is no geotextile laid throughout the whole
length and height of the wall. Field technicians repeatedly say that geotextile theft is
rampant and any un-buried part is likely to be stolen all the time. SC and NGO staff
should work together to overcome this situation by having consultations/meetings with
LRUCs/LRCCs to investigate who is stealing and what appropriate actions could be taken
at local level. Necessary instructions was given in the field during the visit as to where
and how this material needs to be laid. In almost all cases, there is no continuation of
geotextile up to top of dry wall in case of composite wall, as a result there seems sink
holes formed due to loss of fine particles of backfill (ref: photo 8). It should be kept in
mind that the geotextile should extend the whole height of both dry and gabion portion
in case of composite wall. (refer to RAP3 guideline on retaining wall foundation drain
and geotextile laying circulated by TMO on 11 Feb 2011.)

2.4 Use of Wheelbarrows


On SS, majority of wheelbarrows are out of orders. Use without repairing deflated tyre DTL/RE
and loose nut/bolts are common. It is surprising to mention here that this problem had
been flagged up during TMO’s visit in March 2015. No diligent efforts seem to have been
taken to bring all barrows into good conditions though some of the barrows have been
repaired. DTA management needs to quickly assess the requirements for spare parts and
then proceed with procurement in order to deliver to sites at the earliest possible. (ref:
photo 11)

2.5 Retaining Wall Drainage


Although all IoWs and STSs seem to be aware of mandatory provision of foundation EO/RE/IoW/STS
drainage for retaining walls, they are reluctant to build it citing various reasons such as
difficulties in excavating drain canals due to hard rocks etc. Works have already been

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
initiated at first seven hairpin bends. Field team is not considering to build sub-soil drain
for retaining wall foundation, two bends (out of seven) in the initial 2 km have already
had two layers of gabion. Necessary rectifications need to be made by dismantling few
gabion boxes for transverse drains. The question has now arisen as to who shall bear the
cost of dismantling and re-building the gabion crates for such rectifications. It is the
SIDeF who should be held liable for the money wasted. At almost all places where
foundation drainage system has been built, either the outlet of transverse drain is not
extended sufficiently to discharge the water or it is buried under the fill soil mass coming
from foundation excavation. Field team was fully explained about the right method of
lay out of drains for its proper functioning. For further details, refer to RAP3 guidelines
mentioned in Para 2.3 above. It is instructed to field team to compulsorily take
photographs of foundation drainage for all locations prior to laying gabion boxes.

2.6 Backfilling and Compaction


Use of rammers was not widely seen at backfill sites but RBG members say they have IoW/STS
been using rammers. There seems no sign of compaction in many cases. Even if there is
compaction, the proper method of doing it in 15 cm horizontal layers has not been
followed. The supervising staffs should be strictly instructed to adequately
guide/instruct RBGs on the right method of backfilling and compaction since TMO has
been repeatedly putting emphasis on the need of compaction of fill behind every
retaining wall.

2.7 Breast Wall and Side Drain


In water logged and swampy area where breast walls have been proposed to protect RE/IoW/STS
cut slope, dry stone side drain has to be compulsorily built to intercept water
irrespective of the steepness of road’s longitudinal gradient. There is a need to build side
drains almost throughout the length after ch 15+300 on SS where the alignment falls in
wet paddy fields. In areas requiring breast wall on such wet land, It is instructed to build
breast wall together with the side drain forming an integrated unit.

2.8 Provisions for Spoil Management


Attempts seem to have been taken to safely manage spoils by building toe walls at many IoW/STS
locations in SS corridor. However, the quality of dry stone walls built to serve this
purpose is of very poor quality at some places. Such toe walls should be equally of good
quality as of retaining wall. (ref: photo 6)

2.9 Quality of Tools


There are cases of poor quality of tools, especially hammers, chisels and shovels. The TMO
early breakage of hammers is the most striking (ref: photo 12). There are around 10 to
15 hammers observed to be broken and brought back at each site stores. This is very
uncommon in the history of RAP that branded (TATA) stuffs have so inferior quality.
TMO will explore if there is any liabilities left with the suppliers under the previous
contract. This is a lesson learned for TMO procurement unit that hammers should also
undergo destructive field tests just like chisels prior to approval of sample.

2.10 Quality of Gabion Weaving (on-going contract)


There are some quality issues in currently Hulas-supplied gabion boxes. The end panels TMO
of a box have not been mechanically connected with the bottom panel by selveding to
a common selvedge wire. Instead, the end panel appears to be a separate unit of
1m*1m size with selvedge wires on all four sides and attached to the main body by
loosely lacing its selvedge wire with that of bottom panel. Even though our
specifications do not fully cover the weaving pattern in greater details, the boxes woven
and fabricated in that pattern will not have adequate strength to prevent bulging. Other
deficiencies found are dimensions of diaphragm mostly being 96-97 cm*96-97 cm and

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
selvedge wire of one side of main body not knotted tightly with the selvedge wire of
other side. TMO will hold meeting with Hulas to seek clarifications and take further
actions.

2.11 Rock Drill Operation


There are three rock drills mobilised for rock breaking (two in SS and one in JR). They
had temporarily come to stoppage due to fuel shortage for a couple of weeks. Now, all
machines are set to resume after arrangements of fuel.

2.12 Land Disputes


There still remain disputes distinctly at two locations viz. 10+650 to 10+810 and 14+617 NGO/SC
to 14+800 where DTA and field staffs are making efforts to resolve. RAP may have to
show some flexibility regarding the demand of landowner to do construction by
themselves if issues remains unresolved for a protracted period. If there is commitment
on equal and transparent distribution of wages within the group, we should not have
objection to allow land owner’s separate groups. If resolution of disputes for these two
cases sows the seed for emergence of disputes in other areas, it would be worth holding
up for some couple of months because there is not big volume of work in these disputed
sections.

2.13 Relocation of Private House, Toilets and Public taps


There is a private house lying within the road width at ch 14+740 (SS) for which DTA/SC/NGO
necessary processes have already been initiated by DTA. The task now is to get the
landlord agreed on RAP proposal for relocation (it is heard that landlord’s demand is
not fulfilled by RAP’s proposal, his demand is to build RCC house). DTA/SC/NGO should
continue negotiating with him by clearly explaining RAP’s policy of reinstatement and
relocation of private and public property. There are some private toilets that are to be
dismantled during road construction. Necessary actions need to be initiated to relocate
these in coordination with the respective owners. Likewise, some few public taps also
fall on the road which have to be relocated in consultation with the concerned users.

2.14 Relocation of Electric Pole


It is good to report that long-standing problem of electric poles relocation after 15 km
(SS) has now been resolved. All poles within the road width have now been shifted away
from the road.

2.15 Taking Photographs and Maintaining Records


As reported by field staffs, there is no systematic way of taking photographs of major RE/IoW
works in stages. SC is instructed to take photographs of key stages in case of major works
like foundation base preparation with installation of sub-surface drains, installation and
filling of every layer of gabion retaining walls etc.

2.16 Use of Pipe Level of Auto Level


Field staffs seem to have put only eye judgement to fix slope, line and level without aid RE/IoW
of any equipment. As field staffs are equipped with Pipe Level/Auto Level, they should
make us of these equipment to achieve accuracy in measurement such as in foundation
slope, sub-soil drain’s slope, fixing outward road surface slope etc.

2.17 Stores, Record Keeping and Verifications


Store record keeping is not satisfactory in all sit stores of SS. There are a lot of RAP OM/
overwriting and corrections making it difficult to read and verify the tools/materials storekeeper
records. Stock book registers and bin cards need to be thoroughly checked and verified.

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
It is instructed to transfer all records in a new register with clean hand-writing.
Furthermore, periodic verification of all tools and materials should be done time to time
(at least twice a year) by RAP’s OM.

2.18 Preparation of EMP


No EMP has been prepared yet. However, field staffs are collecting field data to feed EO/RE
into EMP. DTA is instructed to expedite the task of EMP based on the approved IEE
reports for both roads as it is an important document to monitor the site specific
environmental mitigation measures planned for implementation during road
construction.

3. Consultant Staffing and Coordination in Work Supervision/Management


There had been a long absence of RE (more than 6 months) in the district, on account RE
of which team building and coordination among SC staffs seem to have been severely
affected. SIDeF has now mobilised its RE to the district. It is clearly visible and
understandable that there is no coordination between IoWs and STs. It is felt that IoWs
have been deployed for only RBG bill preparation and it is the only STS who is solely
responsible for line/layout and supervision of works. If that is really the case, why to
have 3 IoWs for 18 km road only for billing purpose, one quantity surveyor can deliver
the task of measurement and bill preparation for the whole road. Measurement and
billing is only the part of IoWs’ tasks and responsibilities, they have to devote larger
proportion of their input in supervision of works and they are in-charge of site for a
specified length. They are responsible for overall day-to-day management of sites under
their jurisdiction.
RE’s immediate task is to coordinate all of his staffs, maintain effective and efficient
communication within them and develop the team as a well-integrated and coordinated
unit. He needs to provide adequate coaching and orientation to his staff on the standard
method of works in order to standardise the construction procedures and make all field
activities happen in a consistent manner to achieve desired quality.

4. Site Safety and Safeguards


4.1 Site Safety
When asked, RBG members said they were aware of safe working methods. They bring IoW/STS
the safety checklist card at sites. But, it is not convincing that the designated safety
officer do safety checks every day prior to work start. Field staffs need to be constantly
vigilant on whether RBG members are following safe working procedures or not and ask
them to bring the card every day and to perform necessary checks before and during
work by the designated safety officer.
There is a high risk of stacked stone (up to 3 m height) over temporary wall in the first 2
km section of SS having a serpentine of seven loops. If one stack collapses, the stones
will roll down the hill and will induce disastrous accidents to the RBGs working below on
the lower part of serpentine. Discussed with the field team and advised to spread the
broken stone over full width of road and not to make pile of more than 1 m height.

4.2 Use of Safety Gears


Majority of RBG members were seen wearing hard hat and gumboot. The use of these IoW/STS
two safety wares - helmet and gumboots needs to be made compulsory for all RBGs
irrespective of nature and location of sites. Other safety gears such as gloves and
goggles shall be used depending on the nature of work. Provide gloves and goggles to
all stone breaking RBG members as none of them are wearing these safety gears.

4.3 Condition of First Aid Materials


For additional RBGs formed this year who have been working for last three months, no DTL/NGO
first aid materials have so far been provided. DTL is making attempts to procure first aid

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
kits after taking approval from TMO as there is no provision of first aid materials for
newly formed RBGs under the current NGO contract. For old RBGs as well, NGO need
to assess the need for timely replenishment because some RBGs are likely to run out of
some items soon.

4.4 Use of Latrines


Almost all RBGs build temporary latrines last year for which NRs 500 was paid. A few DTA/SC
latrines can be seen this year which do not seem to be used. We need to urge all RBGs
to build latrines nearby their sites. The amount of NRs 500 is too insufficient. We used
to pay 500 during RAP2. This amount now needs to be increased to 1000 to cover the
cost of local materials and labour.

5. Design Vs Site Implementation


In case of SS, even though design were finalised after thorough verifications at site, the RE/EO/DTL
work actually implemented differs much in many cases. Variations in design are
inevitable only when site condition changes. Not all staffs have copies of final design,
some staffs seem to be using older versions as well. No attempts seem to have been
taken by senior supervising staffs as to whether the site implementation is matching the
design or not. In case of deviations and alterations in designs, such changes should be
properly documented by updating estimates. RAP allocates funds based on the final
design. If any changes need to be made, these have to be properly documented and
reported to TMO.
There are some cases of retaining wall’s base width being inadequate. The retaining
walls are of sub-standard quality both in terms of design and quality after 15 km (SS)
compared to earlier sections. RE needs to adequately backstop IoW and STS in this
section.
As for the design of JR, a lot of changes still need to be made as reported by field staffs.
It is questionable what site verifications of design were previously carried out and what
comments were furnished to the design engineer. To overcome this situation, RE is
instructed to look into details of design and gather information from the field and then
coordinate with the design engineer to finalise the design. DTA to follow up.

6. Layout of Hairpin Bends


Majority of hairpin bends have just been started on SS. It is known from discussions with RE/EO/DTL
the field staffs that STSs set out the curve by making references to key points (BC, MC
and EC) previously surveyed, without proper guidance from IoWs and engineers. It is
realised that the whole process of line/layout and supervision seems to have been
undertaken solely by the respective STSs. In this backdrop, RE and EO are strongly
instructed to check the curvature and gradient for all hairpin bends with a view to
confirming that bends have been set out with adequate radius and within acceptable
gradient. DTL to follow up this.

7. Some Specific Issues on Jarkot-Ramnakot


7.1 End Point of Road
The track opened length of 5.5 km has now become 5.9 km after stage 2 survey/design DTA/SC
because of the need to relocate some hairpin bends. SC has produced design only up to
5 km. Despite RAP’s commitment being only 5 km, it would be logical to take the road at
least nearby the VDC centre which is not far away from the surveyed end point of road.
So, it is advised to undertake construction for whole 5.9 km.

7.2 Construction Difficulties – first 3.4 km


The first 3.4 km section encompassing nine hairpin bends in steep terrain poses SC
tremendous challenges in construction. Not all the sections can be worked on
concurrently because excavated boulder may fall down even under controlled

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
conditions of excavation. Construction has already been started on some initial sections,
where significant attempts seem to have been taken to stack the excavated rock within
road width, there is still likelihood of some rock pieces being rolled down to the foot hill
on the farm land where there is a main trail passing through. There is already some
damages to the farmland which is likely to be further destroyed as the construction
progresses. Existing foot trail should be diverted further away to minimise/eliminate the
risks to pedestrians. Necessary cautionary flags and signboards needs to be erected at
appropriate locations to warn the outsiders passing through this zone. Furthermore,
necessary reclamation and reinstatement of farm land should be done at RAP’s cost. (ref:
photo 13)

7.3 Irrigation Canal


An irrigation canal runs along the road from ch 3+500 to 4+100 posing difficulties with DTA/SC
positioning of road in relation to the canal. DTA is required to check design as to how
this has been dealt with in the design.

7.4 Land Disputes


There is a land dispute in the initial section (ch 1+00 to 1+120) at 2nd hairpin bend. There SC
is a room for relocation of the bend to avoid the land. Site conditions permits to shift
the loop without any compromise on the gradient.

7.5 Spoil Management


Despite most of the section falling on steep terrain, utmost attention needs to be paid SC
to safely dispose surplus materials by building catch (toe) walls at appropriate locations
to the extent possible.

8. Visit to DDC/DTO
A courtesy visit was paid to acting LDO (DTO chief). He was briefed about the current
changes made to the implementation arrangements of SED. He requested to speed up
the process for DTO building construction. Nothing was assured in this regard, however
he was informed that Design of the building is still underway. He also requested RAP for
support to revise/update DTMP because DDC thinks that it does not address fully the
need of the district.

9. Gabion Boxes Provided to DDC


Previous DTA had provided 20 nos. of gabion boxes to DDC at their repeated requests DTL
for urgent use in local hydro power canal rehabilitation. Nothing had been reported to
TMO in this respect. This was known to TMO only when present DTA reported the stock
of gabion to TMO citing some crates given to DDC during the tenure of earlier DTL. This
is actually against RAP code of ethics that DFID’s grants whether in the form of cash or
kind shall not be used for the purpose other than specified by the programme policies.
LDO seems positive to return the boxes if asked by RAP. It is yet unclear under what
conditions gabion boxes were given to DDC by then DTL. Present DTL needs to make
efforts to bring back this materials in consultation with the previous DTL.

10. Progress on Karnali Corridor Road


It is a good news for RAP that the initial section of Karnali Corridor being undertaken by
Nepal Army since last year has seen significant progress on steep rocky sections and it
can be believed that the road may be tractor passable up to Sanighat by the end of this
working season.
Attention for further action (Tick appropriate box)
Management Engineering SED Finance Resilience PMV Audit Admin
√ √ √

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
Distribution: SMT, All DCs, DTA KAL, SIDeF

Photographs:

Photo 1: Retaining wall in progress at 8th hairpin Photo 2: Retaining wall in progress at 10th hairpin
bend ch 2+640 - SS bend ch 3+000 - SS

Photo 3: 11th hairpin bend is nearing completion Photo 4: Spoil management by building toe walls
- SS plus bioengineering (brush layers) ch 3+380 - SS

Photo 5: A recently finished section with Photo 6: A poorly built toe wall to contain spoils,
composite retaining walls and toe walls ch at least top portion needs to be rectified with
11+760 - SS larger stones ch 14+850 - SS

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


Photo 7: A badly constructed gabion wall with no Photo 8: A sinkhole formation resulting from loss
box-to-box lacing and haphazardly filled rubble of fine particles of backfill due to wrong laying of
stone needs correcting before laying next layer geotextile - SS
above ch 14+920 - SS

Photo 9: Insufficient width of foundation base of Photo 10: Reinstatement of foot trail ch 16+000 -
retaining wall already built (in water-logged area), SS
which needs to have adequate base width and
foundation drain for the remaining part 16+470 -
SS

Photo 11: Damaged wheelbarrows dumped at Photo 12: Surprisingly broken sledge hammers -
store yard- SS SS
Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016
Photo 13: Farmland destroyed by debris from Photo 14: RBG members engaged in retaining
road construction which needs to be properly wall construction ch 2+280 - JR
reclaimed/reinstated ch 2+120 to 210 - JR

Photo 15: A steep section encompassing four Photo 16: Jarkot village, the zero point of the
hairpin bends in steep slope is difficult to work road starts right from the suspension bridge – a
on concurrently from ch 2+550 to 3+340 - JR long bridge (>100m) is required as the Karnali
Corridor Road is on the other side (right side) of
the river

Field visit report (KAL) – 03 to 15 Jan 2016


FIELD VISIT REPORT

Visit to: BAJURA Dates: 12 to 19 Feb 2016

Reported by: Hom Nath Lamsal

Purpose: Engineering Monitoring Visit from TMO on two district roads in Bajura: Maure-Kailashmandu (MK)
and Maure-Toli-Chhatara (MTC)

Visit Team: Hom Nath Lamsal, Ramesh Neupane (DTL), Kamal Bhandari (EO), Janak Kharel (GE),
Rukmini Maharjan (GE), along with all IoWs and STSs on their respective road sections.

SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION

1. Overall Impression
The physical progress is encouraging on MTC despite some bottle-neck sections being
still remained un-started. There seems noticeable improvements on quality aspects of
works. However, field team needs to make further attempts to improve quality as
pinpointed in the subsequent Paras.
MK has seen less physical progress as compared to MTC, mainly because of having a
large of nos. of hairpin bends (21 nos.) on 11 km length, around one third of the bends
not being started yet. The period from the last few months onwards has witnessed a
tangible improvements in the quality of works.

2. Physical Progress, Quality and Work Management


2.1 Review of Last Field Visit Notes
The various areas of weaknesses and lapses depicted in the last field visit notes (26 Nov-
05 Dec 2015) have been attempted to overcome by DTA. However, DTA needs to pay
more attention to the following areas:
 Revision of Design and Estimates (sec. 1.1)
 Retaining Wall Drainage (sec. 2.5)
 Identification of Critical Sections (sec 3.2)
 Start-up of Work at Hairpin Bends (sec 3.3)
 Site Safety and Safeguards (all sub-sections under section 5)
The detailed observations made during this visit and the recommendations provided
have been discussed and presented in the subsequent sections.

2.2 Recovery Plan and Overall Progress Tracking


The recovery plan of BAJ stipulates the need of having 14 and 6 nos. of SBGs (local) on
top of existing 26 and 45 nos. of RBGs on MK and MTC respectively. Owing to present
shortage of some tools, only 5 SBGs have been mobilised so far. Nonetheless, when
looking at the progress charts in the recovery plan, MK has cumulative actual progress
marginally below the target line, while MTC has the progress above the target line by
cushion of approx. 4 million. In absence of full mobilisation of all SBGs, the contribution
to the progress may have resulted from increased efficiency of existing RBGs. This does
not imply that we do not need more SBGs after assessment of progress for this short
period of time. So, we should continue having all SBGs to compensate any unforeseen
backlog of progress in future.

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
2.3 Inventory of Critical Sections and Progress Tracking
DTA has not yet finalised an inventory of critical sections, which is needed for micro-
level construction planning and progress tracking. We have been emphasising on this
sort of planning requirement to see whether some difficult-to-build sections might
remain incomplete or not even at the end of stipulated time. If yes, we need to devise
appropriate strategies to timely cope with such situations. So, DTA needs to urgently
work out this, start mobilising resources and take remedial measures to overcome the
constraints, if required.

2.4 Physical Progress


Even though construction is gaining momentum and a noticeable physical progress is
seen on MTC in this season, there is still a need to prioritise the works. Few hairpin bends
and some other sections like 3+000 to 4+000 km, the forest section after 13+800 and
the last bottle-neck section after 16+000 has yet remained un-touched. DTA should set
equal priority to these section as in other critical sections.
MK is critical in terms of achieving physical progress. Out of 21 hairpin bends, only a 14
bends have hardly been initiated leaving 7 nos. of bends (requiring high walls and heavy
DTA/TMO
cutting) has remained un-attempted so far. Efforts need to be made to mobilise newly
formed local SBGs. DTA has cited the reason of shortage of some tools (like spade,
mason hammers) as a constraint for mobilisation of SBGs. As a contract for bulk
procurement of tools from TMO is already in place, TMO will chase up early delivery of
some items to BAJ as far as possible; and if it is not possible TMO will advise DTA for
direct procurement of some items o tools for immediate mobilisation of newly formed
local SBGs.
Besides, DTA needs to put top priority to re-assign works to existing RBGs/SBGs only at
those sections having high volume of works e.g. hairpin bends.

2.5 Gabion work (lacing, bracing and stone filling)


DTL/EO
There has been noticeable changes in lacing, bracing and filling of gabion boxes over the
last few months. Straightening the boxes and laying to the desired line/level still need
to be improved. Field team should always be strict to tight filling of gabion with
appropriate sized stones and proper lacing/bracing. The binding wire procured so far is
not sufficient to effect the lacing and bracing as per our standard. DTA to calculate
additional quantities and send to TMO for variation under the current contract. There is
no need to have horizontal bracing over the entire width of the wall, only the outer
compartment (exposed) needs to be braced horizontally with 4 nos. of wires for an
exposed area of 1m*1m, each bracing wire wrapping two meshes on both side of the
compartment.

2.6 Dry Stone Wall


Even though there has been tangible improvements seen in the making of dry wall, EO/GE/IoW/STS
there still needs to have more efforts to improve the quality of laying stones. Some dry
walls were observed in which no improvements are being made. (Ref: photo 9). IoWs
and STSs are to be instructed strictly that in the event of failure to comply with the
specifications, they shall be held responsible and necessary actions may have to be
initiated from DTA management if they are still negligent. Besides, necessary re-work or
deductions may have to be made from RBG bills if it is the lacking on the part of RBGs
disobeying technician’s instruction.

2.7 Laying of Geotextile


EO/IoW

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
Field team needs to constantly inspect that geotextile is laid for all cases of gabion and
composite wall. In some cases no geo-textile was found to have been placed citing the
reason of shortage, where the wall should not have been started. Now, district has
sufficient stock of the material from the current lot of procurement.

2.8 Conditions of Wheelbarrows


It was reported that about 40 barrows (out of 138 procured) have broken legs and EO/IoW
handle making them unusable at all. Discussed with field team about how repairs could
be done and advised to transport all such wheel barrows to electric welding shops down
to feeder road nearby Maure. Field team should take necessary measures to preserve
this valuable equipment and strictly instruct RBGs for its proper use. In case of careless
handling by RBG members, they need to be clearly warned that a deduction shall be
made from their bills.

2.9 Retaining Wall Drainage


The field team now seems to be aware of mandatory provision of wall foundation EO/IoW
drainage even though there were serious lacking in cases of some high retaining walls
already started last year. There are still some ambiguities on the layout of the drains,
such as longitudinal drain not being aligned just behind the wall at the bottom because
of some rocks encountered in excavation (even if it is breakable ) (Ref: photo 10). In
almost all cases, the outlets of the transverse drain have not been extended up to the
exposed ground line to facilitate the flow of water. It is to be clearly understood by the
field team that layout and spacing of drains should follow the standard pattern as far as
possible, however only in case of unavoidable difficult site conditions, the layout and
spacing could be adjusted to suit the specific sites. In addition, the transverse drains
should be sufficiently extended beyond the front face of retaining wall for free passage
of ground water out of the structure foundation.
There have been discussions and instructions at length on many occasions, any lapses
found from now onwards will not excusable and someone shall be held responsible as
part of performance evaluation of field staffs.

2.10 Backfilling and Compaction


IoWs and STSs should be strict on compaction of backfill in horizontal layers of 15 cm. IoW/STS
RBGs could be asked to make local wooden rammers if externally procured metallic
rammers are insufficient. There is still more instruction required to be given to RBGs
with regard to proper method of backfilling and compaction.

2.11 Provisions for Spoil Management


Attempts seem to have been taken to safely manage spoils by building toe walls at many EO/IoW
locations. However, there are still some sections requiring toe walls to contain spoils
such as in forest areas after 13+800 on MTC. Only appropriately located and designed
walls can serve the purpose of retaining spoils. So, field technicians should wisely select
location and design of wall to contain the excess mass to the maximum extent possible.

2.12 Quality of Gabion Weaving (on-going contract)


Just like in KAL, there are some quality issues in currently Hulas-supplied gabion boxes. TMO/DTA
The end panels of a box have not been mechanically connected with the bottom panel
by selveding to a common selvedge wire. Instead, the end panel appears to be a
separate unit of 1m*1m size with selvedge wires on all four sides and attached to the
main body by loosely lacing its selvedge wire with that of bottom panel. The boxes
woven and fabricated in that pattern will not have adequate strength to prevent
bulging. Other deficiencies found are dimensions of diaphragm and end panel mostly
being 91-95 cm*100 cm and selvedge wire of one edge of main body not knotted tightly
with the selvedge wire of other edge, defective mesh (large and unevenly woven) . TMO

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
is holding meetings with Hulas and further supply has been stopped until the issue is
settled down.
The defects of loose end panel connection have now been agreed to rectify by properly
lacing for which certain amount of labour input shall be deducted from the supplier’s
invoice. A separate circular will be sent by TMO to the concerned districts to this effect.
The boxes having very big and uneven meshes which looks unfit for our work even after
minor repairs should be kept aside for replacement by the supplier.

2.13 Rock Drill Operation


As discussed in the field DTA will initiate the process for mobilising rock drill groups for DTL/EO
some hard rock/boulder sections, for which DTA needs to select the operators and
provide them necessary training. DTA needs to coordinate with KAL DTA and TMO to fix
timing for the training because we have only one drill mechanic to look after all 4 new
construction districts.

2.14 Relocation of Private House and Public Utilities


There are a few houses that seem to fall within the road width on MTC. Most visible is DTL/EO
a house at around 2 km and other houses need to be confirmed whether these lie within
the road width or not based on the current alignment and the road design. DTA then
need to start up the relocation process for the confirmed houses by first preparing
drawing and estimates and then seek TMO consent to move forward. Likewise,
necessary process need to be initiated for public utilities like public tap, irrigation canal,
water supply line etc.

2.15 Taking Photographs and Maintaining Records


As reported by field staffs, there is no systematic way of taking photographs of major EO/IoW
works in stages. Field team is instructed to take photographs of key stages in case of
major works like foundation base preparation with installation of sub-surface drains,
installation and filling of every layer of gabion retaining walls etc.

2.16 Use of Pipe Level of Auto Level


Field staffs seem to have put only eye judgement to fix slope, line and level without aid EO/GE/IoW
of any equipment. As field staffs are equipped with Pipe Level/Auto Level, they should
make us of these equipment to achieve accuracy in measurement such as in foundation
slope, sub-soil drain’s slope, fixing outward road surface slope etc.

2.17 Field Staffing and Frequency of Site Visits


After having assessed the field situation, it seems supervision input is still not at the DTL
desired level as evidenced from very common lapses in construction. It is strongly
advised to increase the frequency of visits of IoWs/GEs and EO. Adequate time has to
be spent at sites to dig out the problems and to find out best possible solutions instead
of walking through the sites in haste. DTL is required to coordinate and manage all
supervising staffs on how often each individual staff should go to the sites and what to
inspect at what frequency. DTL himself needs to visit site at required interval to make
sure that things are moving well over the entire alignments.

2.18 Change in Design


There have been numerous cases of changed design found when checking the existing DTL/EO/GE
design with the actual site implementation. The budget TMO has allocated for BAJ roads
is based on the original design and the district recovery plan is also based on the quantity
derived from that design. In this backdrop, DTA needs to produce necessary
documentation on design reflecting the requisite changes in the estimate so that we can
achieve timely cost and time control of these road projects.

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
2.19 Layout of Hairpin Bends and Sequence of Work
There are some hairpin bends on both roads set out by IoWs and STSs only and no DTL/EO/GE
substantive input from EO and DTL seems to have been provided. EO is instructed to
check the curvature and gradient for all hairpin bends with a view to confirming that
bends have been set out with adequate radius and within acceptable gradient. DTL to
follow up this and have to provide inputs for critically located loops.

Furthermore, the there is no proper sequence of works followed at hairpin bends,


mainly in the second half length of MK, where significant volume of box cuts have
already been executed without erecting retaining wall on the lower arm of the bend,
apparently resulting in the wastage of excavated mass which could have been utilised
in the backfill. Both retaining wall and box cut should go simultaneously, which make it
easy to backfill behind the wall with the soils from roadway excavation from the upper
arm of the loop.

2.20 Hydropower Canal Crossing


The initial section of MK crosses a canal of local hydropower plant. DTA verbally DTL/EO
reported that they have now changed the original design and proposed diverting canal
for some length on the inner side in order to ease the construction of crossing structure.
The proposed design has to be discussed with the hydropower operation committee
and make necessary coordination with them prior to initiating the implementation. The
detailed design and estimates need to be finalised soon.

2.21 Sub-soil Drain


There is good attempt to build a sub-soil drainage system covering entire cutting and EO/GE/IoW
filling area at 11th hairpin bend of MK (5+200) lying in wet/waterlogged land. Discussed
in the field that branch drains need to be uniformly spaced, and size of both main and
branch drains should be kept adequate to collect and facilitate flow of ground water.
Please see LRN Training Manual as a reference for the design.

2.22 Retaining Wall Base Width


A few cases of composite wall (e.g. at 10+340 - MTC) being of inadequate base width in EO/IoW
proportion to wall height were also observed, where instructions were given to rectify
to the maximum extent possible. EO should be more watchful whether the standard
design is being followed or not. IoW should be held responsible for checking every
retaining wall with regard to height/base width ratio right at the stage of foundation
base preparation and should report to EO in case ambiguities arise.

3. Site Safety and Safeguards


3.1 Site Safety
When asked, RBG members said they were aware of safe working methods. They do EO/IoW/STS
not bring the safety checklist card at sites. But, it is not convincing that the designated
safety officer do safety checks every day prior to work start. Field staffs do not seem to
be vigilant enough whether RBG members are following safe working procedures or not
and ask them to bring the card every day and to perform necessary checks before and
during work by the designated safety officer.
DTA management needs to instruct all field staffs whether RBGs are adopting safe
working procedure or not and EO need to constantly check how IoWs and STSs are
seriously taken this matter, and then he may have to give warning to those staffs who
do not seem to give adequate advice and instruction to RBGs in respect of safety.

3.2 Use of Safety Gears


Not all of RBG members were seen wearing hard hat and gumboot. The use of these IoW/STS
two safety wares - helmet and gumboots needs to be made compulsory for all RBGs

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


SUBJECT: Observations/ Issues/ Recommendations ACTION
irrespective of nature and location of sites. Other safety gears such as gloves and
goggles shall be used depending on the nature of work. Provide gloves and goggles to
all stone breaking RBG members as none of them are wearing these safety gears (if DTA
has some quantity in stock).

3.3 Condition of First Aid Materials


Most of the RBGs have already run out of first aid materials. DTA management needs DTL/NGO
to arrange for immediate replenishment seeking consent from TMO.

3.4 Children at Sites


Some RBG members usually bring their children at sites. When asked, they reply saying DTL/NGO
that they do not have other family members to take care of their kids at home. DTA
needs to get SMs involved to find out the reality of the problems and how many such
cases exist in our construction sites. DTL shall consult with TMO’s SED unit once the
actual field situation is assessed.

3.5 Use of Latrines


No temporary latrines were seen being made at construction sites. DTA to instruct field EO/IoW
staffs to have RBGs/SBGs build latrines at their respective sites in line with the recent
circular issued by TMO.

Attention for further action (Tick appropriate box)


Management Engineering SED Finance Resilience PMV Audit Admin
√ √ √

Distribution: SMT, ETL, SED TL, All DCs and DTA KAL

Photographs:

Photo 1: A gabion retaining wall recently built Photo 2: A recently finished road section with
with significant improvement in quality 8+0660- reinstatement of approaches of an existing foot
MTC trail 8+910 - MTC

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


Photo 3: RBG members engaged in road Photo 4: A gabion retaining wall in progress in
widening works-MTC an unstable section 11+100 - MTC

Photo 5: Improvements are being made in lacing, Photo 6: The initial section of MK just before the
bracing and filling of gabion boxes-MTC 1st hairpin bend

Photo 7: Laying gabion boxes just started at 13th Photo 8: Women RBG members in hauling the
hairpin bend 5+480 - MK excavated soil with wheelbarrow - MK

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


Photo 9: A poorly laid dry stone retaining wall Photo 10: Improperly laid foundation drains
which was instructed to rectify approx. 9+500 - needing re-work at 5th hairpin bend 1+040 - MK
MK

Field visit report (BAJ) – 12 to 19 Feb 2016


State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

ANNEX 2: MEETING NOTES

Page 13
Meeting Notes

Meeting Notes
Date, Time: 27 January 2016, 15:00-15:45
Location RAP3 Meeting Room
Subject Quality Issues in Fabrication of Gabion Boxes
(Supply of Heavy Coated Machine Fabricated Gabion Boxes and GI Wires to
Kalikot – Contract No: RAP3/2015/006)
Present RAP:
Bill Seal (BS)
Mahendra Shrestha (MS)
Hom Nath Lamsal (HNL)
Hulas:
Keshab Timilsena (KT)
Raju Khadka (RK)
Reported by: HNL

Ref. MATTERS ARISING ACTION


1. Background / Purpose
Meeting was called to discuss the quality concerns in weaving of the gabion boxes supplied under
the above-mentioned contract.
2. Quality Issues - Gabion Fabrication
BS briefed on RAP’s concerns on the quality of weaving in recently supplied boxes. He pointed out
two major lapses in the weaving – one is end panels of the box being loosely connected to the
bottom panel as a separate panel not forming an integrated unit and the other is connection of
selvedge wire of one edge to another being very week such that two pieces of selvedge are likely
to come apart. It is a matter of serious concern that the end panel connected in that pattern is
susceptible to separation from the main body even under normal loading conditions. The photos of
both defects were presented in the meeting. In general the gabions do not have the overall
appearance of a proper fully machine-fabricated product (as demonstrated in photos shown of other
supplier’s products).
He added that RAP expects a good quality product from reputed company Hulas and the standard
of weaving should be equivalent to internationally recognised specifications of Maccaferri Gabions,
which states that “the end panels shall be attached by mechanically twisting the cut ends of the
mesh wires at the bottom of the panel to the selvedge wire on the base of the gabion”. The
specification under the current contract also says that gabion boxes shall be manufactured with all
KT
components mechanically connected at the production facility.
KT put forward his views that he is also concerned with the quality of weaving after having looked
at the photos. As he himself is not a technician, he will consult with his technical personnel at the
factory, and then will report to RAP on how to deal with these issues. He also assured that no
consignments will be despatched to KAL until these issues are settled. RAP
KT requested to make available e-copy of the photos presented in the meeting. HNL confirmed that
RAP will send immediately to Hulas after this meeting via e-mail. Hulas will provide a comprehensive
written response on the issue as a matter of urgency.
3. AOB
MS reported that there is a typo error in the BoQ of Humla contract. There is no separation of RAP
quantities for Piplang and Shreenagar sites. It was agreed that quantities be separated for each

Page 1 of 2
Meeting Notes

delivery site based on the original bids received and an amendment be issued by RAP to this effect.
However this issue was discussed with the Supplier (KT) just after the contract concluded and it was
informally agreed with the Supplier that he supplies the quantities as per bid document i.e. delivery
of SN A and B items to RAP3 Store, Piplang, Humla and SN C and D items to RAP3 Store,
Shreenagar, Humla
NEXT MEETING: To be called as required

Page 2 of 2
Meeting Notes

Meeting Notes
Date, Time: 26th February, 2016, 11:00 hours

Location RAP3 Meeting Room

Meeting for
Subject
Supply of heavy coated machine fabricated gabion boxes and GI wires for Bajura and
Kalikot (RAP3/2015/005 and 006 respectively)
Supplier( Hulas )
Attendees 1. Keshav Timilsina, Managing Director, KT
2. Raju Khadka, Sales Officer, Kathmandu Branch -RK
3. Sanjeev Kr. Jha , Marketing Manager+ Chief Technical Officer-SKJ
RAP-3
1. Bill Seal, ETL - BS
2. Ram Prasad Thapaliya , LRN CS – RPT
3. Hom Nath Lamsal, LRN CS - HNL
4. Mahendra K Shrestha, CMS – MS
5. Ashrika Sharma, Graduate Engineer –AS

Reported by: AS

Ref MATTERS ARISING ACTION

Background/Purpose
1.
Hulas is responsible for supplying machine made gabion boxes to RAP-3 new construction
districts like BAJ and KAL. One of the field visit from HNL, the District Co-ordinator’s (DC)
identified that the gabion boxes that had been dispatched in the site do not comply with the
technical specifications of RAP-3. As a result of which, RAP-3 instructed the supplier to stop
further supply and withheld any kind of payment in regard to the above mentioned contract
packages.
As a follow up to the meeting held on 27th January, 2016 held with RAP-3 and Hulas, today’s
meeting was called to find possible solutions to the issue.

2.1) Quality issue on the delivered gabion boxes:


2
As discussed in the earlier meeting, the technical expert from Hulas, SKJ participated in the
meeting.
Referring to the pictures from DC’s last visit, MS pointed out the major lapses that RAP-3 had
observed in regard to the gabion boxes:
a) Mechanical Selvedging and end panel connection to the main body:
 All edges of the gabion seem to be manually selvedged with loose connection of mesh
wire with the selvedge. As per the specifications stated in the contract, gabion boxes
should be manufactured with all components mechanically connected with each other.
 end panels of the box being loosely connected to the bottom panel as a separate panel
not forming an integrated unit
 Connection of selvedge wire of one edge to another being very weak such that two
pieces of selvedge are likely to come apart (appears to be not mechanically selvedged).
b) Size of diaphragms and end panel:

Page 1 of 3
Meeting Notes

 Most of the gabion boxes were found to be undersized.


HNL explained that the gabion meshes were found to be have non-uniform dimensions
giving the mesh an overall tapered appearance. When measurement were done in the
field, he found major lapses on the length of the end panel A height and the width of
the end panel is expected to be 1m. Even with an acceptable tolerance of 3% as per the
technical specification, the end panels were found to be much shorter i.e, extreme to
extreme width was found to 95cm, and inner to inner width of 91 cm. This would result
in deviation in the overall volume of work related to gabion boxes.
c) Mesh Opening
 HNL pointed out that the boxes observed in the site were found to have large and
uneven openings. He also informed that in case of machine made gabions,
manufacturing defects like these are very common. However, the supplier should have
prevented the dispatching of such defective items.
After raising the above concerns, SKJ responded by saying that the issues that RAP-3
highlighted are very much true and that Hulas agrees its flaws without any dispute.
He agreed that the mesh were all machine weaved but the selvedging was being done manually
and were indeed loose. SKJ also informed that when a technician was sent to site for verification
on these issues after the last meeting, RAP-3’s concerns were found to be legit.
BS pointed out that when the technical specification states machine made, it means that both
weaving and selvedging be done by machines. And therefore, the samples have been
dispatched are unacceptable to RAP. On enquiring on why wasn’t Hulas able to deliver
mechanically selvedged boxes, KT responded by saying that, he wasn’t aware of such practices
and asserted that no gabion boxes manufacturer was doing it. Regardless of these matters it is
RAP3’s impression that there has been a significant deterioration in the recent quality of the MS
Hulas product in comparison with the previous contracts.
BS then asked MS to find out how many gabion factories there were in Nepal and try to get in
touch with them to see how the connection between selvedge wires and the end panels were
being done.
KT informed the members that the issues, though being very new to him, are of grave concern
to Hulas as well.

2.2) Possible Solution:


To deal with the present issue, RAP-3 proposed two solutions:
 BS informed that a hefty portion of the gabion boxes had already been supplied to the
district, it would be reasonable to try to repair the works than to replace it completely.
The supplier was informed that RAP-3 intends to carry out the repair of the gabion boxes
according to our technical specification and would charge Hulas on the cost of the
rectification works. Hulas would also be given the option to remove substandard boxes
from site and to replace them with new acceptable boxes. Hulas elected to accept a cost
reduction based on the repair input managed by RAP3.
 For the undersized items, the payment would be done on a pro-rata basis.
MS distributed a tentative estimate of rectification of the works in KAL to show what items of
work the cost would cover. KT has agreed to the above terms; to bear the cost of repairing the MS,KT
gabion boxes in both KAL and BAJ and to accept the valuation of gabion boxes on pro-rata
basis.

Resumption of Supply for Balance quantity


3)
3.1) Sample Study:

Page 2 of 3
Meeting Notes

The meeting was followed by a sample inspection in RAP-3 TMO itself. Which confirmed that
the connection of the selvedge wire of one wire to another were loose. The dimensions were
also checked against RAP-3 standard; the width of end panels were found to be shorter than
our requirement.
BS added that RAP-3 cannot continue receiving additional poor quality gabion boxes and
informed the committee that RAP-3 will only resume receiving goods if we had the assurance
that Hulas can supply gabion boxes according to RAP-3 standards.

Fig: Sample inspection of gabion boxes

3.2) Field Visits


The meeting made it clear that it was in the best interest of RAP-3 to make sure that there would
no compromises when it comes to quality. Therefore, BS asked MS to carry out factory visits to
see if there are scopes to improve the production technique. On asking KT, if Hulas would
approve a field visit to the factory to inspect the manufacturing process of the gabion boxes, KT
assured to allow a field visit to Hulas factory in Biratnagar. Factory inspection visits to a number
of mechanical weaving suppliers will be made as soon as possible. RAP3 what to fully
understand the status and capability of the industry in Nepal and what extent Hulas are following MS,KT
national norms albeit below international style specifications used by DoR and other
Programmes.
NEXT MEETING:

Notes:

Page 3 of 3
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

ANNEX 3: INSPECTION DATA SHEETS

Page 14
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

ANNEX 4: CASE STUDY

Page 15
State-of-the-Industry (Gabion boxes)

A case study on ‘Supply of Heavy Coated Machine Fabricated Gabion Boxes for Bajura and
Kalikot District, Contracts: RAP3/2015/005 and 006’

RAP and Hulas Wire Industries Ltd signed contracts ‘Supply of Heavy Coated Machine Fabricated
Gabion Boxes for Bajura (RAP3/2015/005) and Kalikot District (RAP3/2015/ 006) on 23rd
September 2015. However, during February 2016 on a DC field visit note to Kalikot (03rd - 15th
January 2016) and later to Bajura (12th -19th February 2016), some quality issues had been raised
in Hulas-supplied gabion boxes. The quality issues were: mechanical connections of end panels
to main body and size of diaphragms and end panels of the gabion boxes.

TMO held a meeting on 27th January 2016 and 25th February 2016 with Hulas. Meeting discussed
on quality issues, possible solution, resumption of supply for balance quantities and field visits.
Meeting on 25th decided that a cost reduction in the invoices is acceptable to Hulas for rectification
done by RAP-3 on already delivered items. Similarly, a pro-rata basis cost reduction in the invoices
is agreed for undersized diaphragms and end panels. It was agreed that RAP-3 cannot continue
receiving additional poor quality gabion boxes and will only resume receiving goods if RAP-3 had
the assurance that Hulas can supply gabion boxes according to RAP-3 standards. Besides, RAP3
will send CMS to carry out factory visit to see if there are scopes to improve the production
technique. The factory visits to a number of mechanical weaving suppliers were to understand the
status and capability of the industries in Nepal and what to extent Hulas are following the standard
specification.

CMS visited six factories in which four were Hulas Wire Industries Limited (Hulas), Kamal Rolling
Mills Pvt. Ltd., Pioneer Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Premier Wires Pvt. Ltd. based at Biratnagar, Morang
and two were Super Wire & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Gabionet Environment Solution Pvt. Ltd.
based at Hetauda, Makwanpur.

After CMS visited the factories and formulated his findings, a meeting was organised with Hulas
on 11th April 2016. RAP-3 suggested the Supplier to add Cut-Edge selveding machine in their
armoury so that the product matches to the standard specification. However, to re-start ongoing
supply RAP-3 asked Hulas to improve the tightness of mesh to selvedge wire connection by
stringent manual means and shall use a common selvedge wire for joining end panels to the main
body. After remedying the defects, RAP-3 allowed suppler to re-start the supply with extended time
up to 17th June 2016.

Page 16

S-ar putea să vă placă și