Gautam Construction's Rs 206 Cr NESIDS Road Under Probe

The Rs 206.42 crore Chokihola–Tarapung road project in Assam’s Karbi Anglong district has moved from execution risk to reputational risk, with resident allegations now framing the conversation around Gautam Construction’s delivery model.

Awarded under the Barpathar PWD Road Division of Assam’s Public Works Department, the 50-km corridor is funded through the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region’s North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (NESIDS) — which makes the accountability question one of central scheme governance, not just state-level project management.

Subcontracting and Delivery Risk

The most commercially significant allegation is the subcontracting structure.

Residents claim Gautam Construction retained roughly 50 percent of the work, while M.P. Agarwal took 30 percent and Manoj Parik took 20 percent.

If verified, this is not a minor execution detail; it is a de-risking and margin-preservation strategy that pushes delivery risk down a fragmented chain while the named awardee retains contractual responsibility.

For central schemes, this pattern matters because the awardee’s execution capacity — not its price — becomes the binding constraint on quality.

Material Sourcing and Site-Level Quality

The material sourcing allegation cuts deeper. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) designated Bhutiyachang Quarry in Udalguri for aggregates, but residents allege extraction from the Kaliyani River near the alignment, including artificial blocking of a river section.

This points to a supply chain that was never locked to the DPR, creating both quality and environmental exposure.

Technical deviations suggest the third-party monitor, New Sun Consulting Firm of Guwahati, was either not testing at the right frequency or not testing at all.

The reported deviations include:

- A claimed road thickness of around 160 mm against a DPR specification of 390 mm
- Banana tree trunks substituted for PVC drainage pipes
- Unreinforced side drains
- A retaining wall that reportedly collapsed within two months

Implications for NESIDS Governance

For contractors, consultants, and lenders watching Northeast India, the signal is clear.

The capacity gap between award and execution in NESIDS corridors is being bridged through informal subcontracting and material arbitrage, and third-party quality assurance is not yet strong enough to catch it.

The pending PWD and contractor response will determine whether this becomes a project-level correction or a scheme-level governance reset.