Three roads, three contractors, one estimate — a ward's paperwork does not add up

Sample story — delete this file once your own reports are up.

The three roads are not alike. One is 410 metres. One is 260 metres. One is 690 metres. Walking them takes an afternoon, and it is obvious from the walking alone that they are not the same job.

The estimates say they cost the same.

The documents

Three work orders, obtained under the Right to Information Act, were issued between the 4th and the 13th of a single month. Each carries an identical sanctioned amount. Each names a different contractor. The specification lines — thickness, width, material — are worded identically across all three, down to the same spacing errors.

• Road A — 410 m
• Road B — 260 m
• Road C — 690 m
• Sanctioned amount, all three: identical

An estimate that does not change when the length changes by a factor of nearly three is not an estimate. It is a number chosen first and justified afterwards.

What was asked, and what was answered

A written query was sent to the executing division asking how the estimates were arrived at, and whether measurement books for the three works could be inspected. The reply confirmed the works were completed and payments released. It did not address the estimates. A follow-up seeking the measurement books is pending.

Why this is worth your attention

Small road works are the most common form of local public spending and the least examined. They are below the threshold that attracts audit attention and above the threshold that matters to a village. The pattern here — identical estimates, staggered dates, rotating contractor names — is the sort of thing that only becomes visible when someone bothers to put three pieces of paper side by side.

If you have work orders from your ward or panchayat, send them. Documents are handled confidentially and the sender is never identified.