ISLAMABAD At a time when the country is facing water crisis, heavy irregularities and massive corruption in canal projects have resulted in millions of rupees loss to the national exchequer and even corrupt practices were adopted while awarding contracts of Rainee Canal projects in Sindh province. Available documents with TheNation informed, As per Rule 23(1) of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, procuring agencies shall formulate precise and unambiguous bidding documents and Water Wing of WAPDA is responsible for planning, designing and execution of water resources development projects in irrigation, drainage and hydropower sectors. Further, major surface water projects including large dams are also operated and maintained by Water Wing that is operating on no profit no loss basis. However, reliable sources disclosed that at Rainee Canal Project Guddu, four contracts of establishing water sources named as RC-2, RC-3, RC-5 and RC-6 worth Rs 1,988.262 million were awarded to a contractor M/S Haq Noor & Co. during 2004-05. But due to slow pace of work, the contractor could only carry out the works valuing Rs 762.102 million out of Rs 1,988.262 million up to the extended period i.e. December 2007. Resultantly the employer under clause 63(1) of contracts terminated these four contracts. The remaining works worth Rs 1,272.161 million were grouped into two contracts i.e. RC-5A (remaining works of RC-2, RC-3 and RC-5) and RC-6A (remaining works of RC-6) and were awarded to another contractor in June 2008 at a cost of Rs 4,329 million (RC-5A, 1,890 million, RC-6A, 2,439 million) which was in excess of Rs 3,056.839 million as compared to the cost of the original contracts. Moreover, it is important to note that the excess cost could not be recovered from the earlier contractor due to non-inclusion of 'risk and cost clause in the terms of contract. Similarly, informed sources confirmed that the matter was taken up with the project management in April 2009. It was replied that claims of Rs 716 million of the contractor were under arbitration. However, as a result of a settlement outside the court, the contractor withdrew all his claims and the management surprisingly released the amount of Rs 242 million against retention money and performance guarantee. Moreover, according to the Auditor General Report 2010-11, the issue was referred to the Ministry (Water & Power) on November 18, 2009 and discussed in Departmental Audit Committee (DAC) meeting on February 9, 2010. The General Manager (South) explained that the work to be done was composed of the leftover work of four abandoned contractors at a cost of Rs 1,272.161 million. The work was awarded to another contractor at a cost of Rs 4,329 million involving excess amount of Rs 3,056 million than the cost of the original contracts. Upon this, audit contended that the excess amount of Rs 3, 056 million could not be recovered from the original contractor due to non-inclusion of risk and cost clause in the original contracts. Likewise, it is pertinent to mention here that the Audit Report 2010, categorically pointed out the responsibility for the extra expenditure of Rs 3,056 million needs to be expedited.