FAR too many of the mega projects being implemented by the government face mid-course changes that profoundly affect the cost structures and timelines. From the Nandipur power project to the coal-fired power plants in Thar, to name only a few, midway changes have seen technology that is different from the one stipulated in project documents, or alterations made to the proposed waste disposal sites. It has become almost routine now to get a project approved on the basis of a hastily done calculation, then make revisions during implementation, causing costs to spike or delivering unbudgeted savings to the sponsor because the tariff had been approved at higher cost. Now we are seeing the same trend repeat itself with the LNG terminal in Gwadar.

The original approvals that were given to the project involved purchasing a regasification unit, but now the government wants to lease it instead. Some aspects of the project’s structure have also been modified, necessitating a return to the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council for approvals. Pointed questions should be asked about the reason behind the changes. If the original project design was flawed, then why was it presented for approval in the first place? In projects of this scope, involving hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditure, mid-course changes imply a lack of professionalism. If a leased arrangement was better than purchasing a regasification unit, why did the original proposal seek to purchase one? If the project is better off being implemented in integrated form all the way to its terminus in Nawabshah, then why was the pipeline originally presented as separate from the terminal? Mid-course revisions have the effect of diminishing transparency and fuel suspicions of wrongdoing, besides leaving one with the clear impression that important matters are being pursued in haste. Already the Chinese projects under CPEC have bypassed government procurement rules and are not open to competitive bidding. If government-mandated transparency rules are further subverted by circumventing approvals through midway changes, it only means that the entire project is being executed in the dark. Given the enormous impact that even minute and highly technical details can have on the final cost, which is ultimately borne by the consumers, it is imperative that each of the technical and financial parameters agreed to at the outset be adhered to, or the project be returned for fresh approvals.

Published in Dawn, March 25th, 2017