The cost of the third phase of Dhaka WASA’s Sayedabad Water Treatment Plant project has risen sharply, prompting questions over the justification for the increase and the process through which successive revisions were approved.
The project was initially approved at a cost of Tk4,597 crore. Its estimated expenditure was later raised to Tk7,518 crore in the first revision. A second revision pushed the figure further to Tk16,014 crore.
This means the project’s estimated cost has increased by around Tk11,417 crore from the original approval. The scale of the increase has drawn particular attention because the project’s physical progress was reportedly below 10 per cent when the major cost revision was made.
Large infrastructure projects can require revisions when there are changes in design, construction requirements, land-related issues, material prices or other implementation factors. However, a substantial increase at such an early stage raises questions about whether the revised estimate was adequately justified and assessed before approval.
Comparison with Gandharbpur project raises questions
The cost of the Sayedabad project has also come under scrutiny when compared with the Gandharbpur Water Treatment Plant project, another major water-supply initiative.
The Gandharbpur project has an estimated cost of around Tk10,974 crore. According to the information cited in the report, it has a higher water-treatment capacity than the Sayedabad project and also involves a longer pipeline network. Despite these features, its estimated cost remains considerably lower than the revised cost of the Sayedabad project.
The comparison has raised questions over the factors responsible for the sharp increase in Sayedabad’s estimated expenditure. Among the issues requiring clarification are what additional work or changes were incorporated into the revised estimate, whether the revised costs were supported by detailed technical assessments, and why such a substantial increase was considered necessary when physical progress remained below 10 per cent.
Asif Mahmud was in charge during cost revision
Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan was serving as an adviser to the Ministry of Local Government during the period when the cost of the third phase of the Sayedabad project was substantially increased.
Allegations have been made that the project cost was inflated through the provision of improper benefits during his tenure. However, the allegations have not been established as facts.
Whether there was any irregularity, corruption or abuse of authority in the cost-revision process will have to be determined through an investigation based on documentary evidence, financial records and the relevant approval procedures.
ACC may examine the project
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has begun examining various allegations of corruption, irregularities and abuse of authority involving former adviser Asif Mahmud Sajib Bhuiyan. The Sayedabad water treatment project’s sharp rise in estimated expenditure may also come under scrutiny as part of that process, according to information cited in the report.
An ACC official involved in the inquiry told Kalbela that the commission had received various allegations concerning corruption, irregularities and abuse of authority against the former adviser. The commission subsequently decided to examine the allegations and formed a team for the inquiry.
The official said further legal action would depend on the findings after the allegations had been examined.
The Sayedabad project therefore presents several key questions for investigators. How did an initiative originally approved at Tk4,597 crore reach Tk16,014 crore? What prompted the second major revision when implementation progress was still below 10 per cent? And was the increase supported by legitimate technical and financial requirements?
The answers will depend on the evidence gathered during the inquiry and an examination of the project’s approval documents, revised estimates and implementation records. Until that process is completed, allegations of corruption or improper financial benefit should not be treated as established wrongdoing.
