A killing out of negligence

The incident of five people being crushed under the girder in the capital’s Uttara area is quite unfortunate. I would say it’s not an accident. Rather, it’s killing out of negligence.

Any incident which occurs as a result of mechanical or human error despite having all sorts of preparation is called an accident. An accident may occur in case of uplifting a girder or any heavy object. There is nothing unnatural in that. However, a security fence to avoid casualties in such incidents is also an essential condition. The security measures taken up for the government’s fast track project was not adequate at all.

Even in case of sewerage repairing, the area is cordoned off with ribbons. People are deployed on both sides of the site for management. However, there was no such security fence in such a big and risky BRT (bus rapid transit) project. The safety issues were completely ignored.

The risk-prone areas are identified in a project site due to the possibilities of these sorts of accidents. A specific course action is developed for this. There is a term called ‘work to permit’. It means taking permission from the authorities concerned before starting a work. It also explains the types of works. The work of the project starts after getting the approval from the authorities. It needs to be explored whether this process was followed or not in this case.

This BRT project was given to a contractor firm through an international open tender.

However, the international standard for construction works was not maintained in this project even at a minimal level. I have been observing this project closely since its beginning. There was negligence at every level of the project, including the management of construction materials and safety.

However, there is no way to avoid responsibilities by simply putting the liability on the contractor's negligence. There are representatives from the government and the agencies implementing the project, to monitor the work of the contracting firms. There may be a lack of manpower in the government agencies in this regard. But there is a third party called the ‘monitoring consultants’ to meet that deficit.

The common tendency of the contractors is that they try to cut the costs all the time. However, they are bound to fulfil the conditions regarding traffic and safety management. The government allocates an adequate amount of money for this. Yes, the contracting firm is taking money every month for that, but the responsibility of monitoring how much work is being done with that money, lies within the implementing agencies and monitoring consultants. Therefore, the negligence of the project implementing agency and the monitoring consultants should also be investigated as well as the responsibility of the contracting firm.

This BRT project has also set an example of slow pace. To not complete a project within the estimated time has become a part of the culture. Both parties have benefits in this. The contracting firms are being rewarded by extending project duration despite their failure to finish the project in time. In addition to that, they still get the benefits provided by the implementing agencies despite the delay.

A total of 180 BRT projects are on-going all over the world at the moment. This BRT project should have ended within two to two and a half years. These sorts of projects are usually completed within one and a half to two years in the neighbouring countries. However, due to lack of accountability, the project duration is extended at whim in our country.

*This report appeared on the print and online versions of Prothom Alo and has been re-written in English by Ashish Basu