CAG's CWG Audit Report - Chapter - 32 (2011)

8/6/2019 CAG's CWG Audit Report - Chapter - 32 (2011)

1/18

c : : :wl-e ..::I:uPreparation of Indian Teamsfor CWG - 2010

In June 20081 MYAS initiated a scheme for "Preparation of Indian Teams for CWG-201011for imparting state of the art traininq, with well-equipped infrastructure and othersupporting [acilities, through the Sports Authority of India (SAl) and its regional centresto a core group of 1286elite athletes, who would be the medal probablesforCWG-2010.Wefound that SAl utilised only 30per cent of the budget of Rs.678crore allocated for theperiod 2008-11.There were substantial delays in selection of core probables ranging from four to 17months, with probables in cycling discipline being selected in July 2009.There were also substantial delays in appointment of coaches (in five out of 17disciplines)and other supporting staft including supporting staff to SAl regional centres. Theperformance parameters for judging improvement in the performance of the coreprobables were decided as late as 15 to 20 months after commencement ofimplementation of the scheme. Aisol a web-based IT system for continuous monitoringand assessment of athletes' training could not be operationalised.A total number of 284 training camps were held for 18(17normal disciplines and one parasports). However, many disciplines and sub disciplines had not had training camps duringthe year.For supporting training of core probables, SAl awarded 28 contracts/ orders forprocurement of imported sports items and equipment at a cost of Rs. 40.12 crore during2008-11. We found serious deficiencies in the procurement process. All 28 orders wereawarded on single tender basis as "preferred items" without adequate justification -brand requirements were not specified by the national federations, purchases weremade from different vendors at different rates etc. In the absence of competitivetenderinq, we are unable to derive assurance regarding considerations of economy andtransparency. This is supported by our comparison of rates for the same items supplied bydifferent vendors quoted.Further: the expenditure of Rs. 40.12 crore on procurement of sports equipment waslargely unfruitful aSI Items worth Rs.4.88 crore were received just 10 days before the Games after the

training camps, and items worth Rs.0.84 crore were received during and after theGames. Notable instances of delayed procurement/ receipt include cyclesI shootingammunition and shooting equipment.

Sports items for aquatics, archery I squash, tennis, table tennis and boxing (estimatedto cost Rs.5.55crore) could not be purchased at all.

Performance Audit Report on XIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010) 1545


2/18

Chapter 32 - Preparation of Indian Teams for CWG - 2010

Gymnastic equipment procured at a cost of Rs. 1.39crore could not be installed I andathletic and weightlifting items worth Rs0.28 crore were delivered to SAl centres thatdid not require such equipment. Stock of Rs. 1.25 crore remained unutilized in thecentres of Patiala and Bhopal.

Oversight and monitoring by the Ministry was inadequate due to the mechanism notbeing practicable. The staffing of the CWGcell for monitoring was poor.Other deficiencies in provision of facilities for training of core probables included thefollowing: Training workshops for dope testing were inadequate and ineffective in some centres. There were delays in provision of medical insurance coverage for the core probables,

and large number of medical insurance cards were received late.On the infrastructure front, SAl failed to construct hostels in five regional centres; whilehostels constructed in three regional centres could not be utilised due to non-availabilityof furniture, kitchen and other supporting facilities. Seven out of eight sports sciencecentres, all eight standard modern fitness centres and renovated/ upgraded halls atvarious centres could not be utilised before the Games. Thus, out of funds of Rs. 78.63crore released for infrastructure up-qradation, expenditure of Rs. 74.35 crore was notfruitful in time for the Games. Further, out of the envisaged Rs.9.20 crore of sports scienceequipment, only a negligible amount of equipment was in position before the Games.Attempts initiated from March 2007 to introduce PPPfor management of five stadia inDelhi were not successful, due to procedural delays as well aspolicy decisions on this issueby MYAS.There were deficiencies in financial management including Non refund of the unutilised amount of Rs. 45.50 crore by SAl and diversion of Rs.

19.00 crore for construction of the administrative block of SAl Hqrs building; and Non-settlement of advances and non-receipt of UCs/ audited SOEs.

5461 Performance Audit Report on XIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010)


3/18

Chapter 32 - Preparation of IndianTeamsfor CWG- 2010

32.1 IntroductionIn June 2008, MYAS initiated a scheme for"Preparation of Indian Teams for CWG-2010" for imparting state-of-art trainingwith well equipped infrastructure and othersupporting facilities for a core group of

1286 elite athletes, who would be medalprobables for CWG 2010. This scheme wasimplemented by the Sports Authority ofIndia (SAl) and its regional centres/subcentres'. The budget allocation and actualexpenditure for the scheme was as follows:

Table32.1 - Budget allocation and actual expenditure on the Scheme(Rs. in Crore)

Component Budget allocationTraining

Actual expenditure(up to 1.12.2010)

Infrastructure375.00 108.0585.00 74.35218.00 20.95ports science back up etc.678.00 203.35otal

32.2 Delay in selection ofprobables/staff

The schedule of training, exposure andcompetition was to cover a period of 305days (210 days' training camp, 75 days'foreign training and competition and 20days' domestic tournament) in a year. Thescheme also provided for engagement ofthe best available Indian coaches as well astop level foreign coaches. A SteeringCommittee was to be formed for each ofthe 18 (17 normal + 1 Para sports discipline)disciplines to approve the selection of thecore group of probables and coaches, andto monitor the performance of theprobables.We observed that there were delays inselection of probables, coaches andsupporting staff as given below:

Bhopal, Pat iala, Sonepat, Bengaluru, Guwahat i, Imphal,Thiruvanthapuram, Gandhinagar, Kolkata, Balewadi(Pune), Lucknow

32.2.1 Delay in selection of coreprobables

The first meetings of the SteeringCommittees were held in July 2008.However, there were substantial delays infinalising the list of core probables whowere to be continuously trained upto CWG2010. The delays ranged from four months(archery, boxing, athletics netball) to 17months (cycling) which significantly reducedthe period available for their training.32.2.2 Performance MonitoringThere were delays in finalisation ofperformance parameters for judging theimprovement in the performance of thecore probables by the Steering Committee. The performance parameters for five

disciplines (athletics, cycling,gymnastics, net ball and shooting) werefinalised only between September 2009and February 2010, when theimplementation of the scheme was inthe final stages.

PerformanceAudit ReportonXIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010) 547


4/18


It was not clear whether performanceparameters were finalised at all forboxing and rugby.

32.2.3 Delay in appointment ofcoaches/supporting staff

The scheme envisaged appointment of toplevel foreign coaches in addition to the bestIndian coaches. It was noticed that in five(athletics, gymnastics, weightlifting, hockeyand cycling) out of 17 disciplines, foreigncoaches were selected only during March toDecember 2009. Also, against arequirement of a foreign coach and fourIndian coaches for lawn bowls, only oneforeign coach was engaged during thewhole period of the training camps.Similarly, there were delays in appointmentof supporting personnel in the SAl regionalcentres of Bengaluru and Sonepat asdetailed below: At Sonepat centre, no physiologist,

psychologist, bio- mechanist and

nutritionist/dietician were engaged forthe entire period of training.

Against the requirement of 9 Masseursand Masseuses at Bengaluru centre,only one masseur was provided and nomasseurs was provided to coreprobables during the training camp atOoty for exposure to high altitude.Further, physiotherapists were engagedonly in December 2009, although thecamps were being held at this centrefrom March 2008.

Food supplements provided to the coreprobables were without supervision byan experienced nutritionist during thecamps conduced outside the Bengalurucentre for periods ranging between 28-329 days in respect of badminton,shooting, athletics, boxing, squash andcycling.

32.2.4 Conduct of Training CampsA total 284 training camps were held for17+1 disciplines during 2008-11, assummarised below:

Table 32.2 - Conduct of training camps for different sports/ disciplinesSport/Discipline 2008 - 09 2010-11009-10

Proportionate Target in days

1. Archery 153 153 361 361 105 1052 . Aquatics

Swimming 32 32 188 188 110 110Synchronised 58 0 42 108 0 47Diving 0 0 130 98 141 141

3. Athletics 170 170 289 289 0 04. Badminton 174 174 317 317 162 1625 . Boxing 50 NA 336 NA 173 NA6. Cycling 0 0 212 212 132 132



5/18


Sport/Discipline 2008 - 09 2010-11009-10Proportionate Target in days

7. GymnasticsRhythemic NA 22 NA 196 NA 107Artistic 44 22 351 351 173 140

8 . Hockey 80 124 187 227 82 859. Lawn Bowls 40 40 352 352 111 11110. Net Bali NA 77 NA 206 NA 13711. Rugby 7s 0 NA 157 NA 170 NA12. Shooting

Rifle 126 126 175 175 91 91Shortgun 83 83 114 114 52 52Pistol 32 32 78 78 73 73Bigbore 0 0 0 0 26 26Fulibore 0 0 0 13 13

13 . Squash 0 NA 0 0 32 2114. Table Tennis 87 87 164 164 45 4515. Tennis 0 0 131 151 20 2016. Weightlifting 53 53 310 287 186 16917. Wrestling

Greeco 59 59 344 365 0 0Freestyle 63 NA 186 NA 0 NA

NA : Data not made available to audit

Incidentally, no medals were won by India incycling, squash, shooting (big bore),shooting (full bore), swimming (diving) andswimming (synchronised), where therewere substantial shortfalls in conduct oftraining camps.32.2.5 Non operationalisation of web-

based System for monitoringathletes' performance

A web-based IT system, 'PerformanceReview Indicators Monitoring and

Evaluation of Sportspersons' (PRISM) forcontinuous monitoring and assessment ofathletes' training, which was developed/maintained by NIC at a cost of Rs. 1.08 crorecould not be operationalised during theentire period of training. This defeated itspurpose of continuous assessment ofathletes' training at regular intervals.

Performance Audit Report on XIXCommonwealth Games (CWG-2010)1549


6/18


32.3 Test eventsTest events in all disciplines were requiredto be conducted during 2008, 2009 and2010 in order to test the performance ofthe core probable, identify shortcomingsand also familiarize them with the newlycreated venues. However, we found that notest events were conducted during 2008and 2009.

32.4 Procurement of sportsequipment

32.4.1 Procurement on single tenderFor supporting training of core probables,SAl awarded 28 contracts/orders forprocurement of imported sports items andequipment at a cost of Rs.40.12 croreduring 2008-11.The procedure followed by SAl forprocurement of sports equipment was asgiven below: Requirements were projected by 17

National Sports Federations Technical Experts Committee assessed

the requirement, brand (preferred item)and made recommendations to theSteering Committees

Steering Committees assessed therequirement and maderecommendations to the FinanceCommittees

Finance Committee assessedrequirements and maderecommendations to SAl GoverningBody for approval

SAl Governing Body approvedprocurements

Procurements were to be initiated byEquipment Sports Division of SAl

We found that there were deficiencies inthe procurement process as: All 28 orders were awarded on

nomination basis as "preferred items"without adequate justification

No specific brand requirement wasidentified by the concerned federationsof boxing, netball, gymnastic and lawnbowl disciplines.

In twelve cases of procurement ofjavelins and ammunition, SAl placedorders on different manufacturers,treating them as preferred items. Inparticular, javelins were purchased fromthree vendors (Nemeth, Nordic Sports,Gill Athletic) separately on a singletender basis at different rates on thejustification that these items were ofproven international standard.

Equipment like Bar Bell and ElectronicScore Board costing Rs0.92 crore wereprocured from Eleiko without calling fortenders, though these were not directlylinked to athletes' performance ortraining.

In the absence of competitive tendering, weare unable to derive assurance regardingconsiderations of economy andtransparency. This is supported by ourcomparison of rates for the same itemssupplied by different vendors quoted. Whilewe were unable to quantify the loss, wehave tried however, to come up withindicators by comparing rates for certainitems (indigenous and imported) suppliedby different vendors.

550 I PerformanceAudit Reporton XIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010)


7/18


32.4.1.1 Indigenous itemsThe comparison of rates in respect of supply order placed on two firms by SAl Headquartersand one firm by SAl, Patiala for athletic sports equipment of Vinex and ATE brand is as follows:

Table32.3 - Comparison oj rates [or indigenous itemsDescription SAl Patiala SAl Delhi

Supp ly order placedto Vats Sports on22 December 2009

Supply order placed toVinex Enterprises through

Amitco Khel Centreon 23rd February 2010

Supply order placed toAnand Track and FieldEquipment Pvt. Ltd.

Meerut on 10th June 2010:"Brand: Vinex" "Brand: Vinex" "Brand: ATE"

Rate (In Rs.)Hammer wire men and women 75 232 230Hammer handle 300 348 345Discus Gold men 2 kg 5400 4600 7320Discus men 2.25 kg 975 6190 3290Discus Gold 1 Kg 3900 3250 6250Discus 1.1 kg 585 4932 4890Discus 1.25 kg 608 7390 4550Discus 900 gms 575 5295 5250Discus 1.75 kg 750 5280 5350Discus 1.9 kg 855 5295 5390Discus Super Spin 2 kg 3636 5532 5490Discus Super Spin 1 kg 3000 5420 5390Hammer Women 5 kg 1110 5220 5145Hammer Men 6.5 1200 5420 5345Hammer Women 3.5 kg 885 4310 4275Hammer men 7.26 kg 1365 5610 5645Hammer Women 4 kg 923 5600 5610

32.4.1.2 Imported itemsThe rate comparison of supply order placed on two firms revealed that there were variationsin price of purchase of javelins with same specifications shown as under:

Table32.4 - Comparison oj purchase prices [or javelinsName of Items Rate as per supply order issued to

Gill Athletic Inc Nordic SportsJavelin 600 gms carbon

83241avelin 800 gm carbonJavelin 800 gm 70 M range

68121 832419114934243 40804

Performance Audit Report on XIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010) 1551


8/18


In response, SAl stated that they hadfollowed the stipulated process in letter andspirit for procurement of "preferred items"(i.e. specific brands of equipment), whichwere communicated to them by the SAltechnical committee'. The need for itemscovered under single tender arose due tovery special reasons on account of theirquality, performance and the preference ofsports persons.While we note that preferred items may beidentified from out of the list of brandsapproved by the concerned internationalsporting federations, we are unable toderive assurance that the prices paid forthese brands are reasonable, in the absenceof competitive tension. This is compoundedby situations where multiple brands ofequipment are all selected as price items,with wide variations in prices.

32.4.2 Contract ManagementDue to procurement on nomination basis,SAl was bound by the terms and conditionsoffered by the vendor which resulted in thefollowing: Waiver of earnest money, bank

guarantee and warranty periods etc in17 cases

In purchase of full bore rifle against theoriginal condition of 85 percentpayment on shipment and balance 15per cent after the acceptance of goods,SAl changed its mode of payment as 100per cent advance payment.

In case of procurement of athleticequipment from Nordic Sports, Sweden,

Including representatives of SAl, the sporting federation,national observer, and coach

SAl initially blacklisted an agent andlater in January 2007 declared it as anagent with objectionable conductcontravening business ethics. However,in April 2010 both the orders werewithdrawn to accommodate the saidagent instead of asking the originalmanufacturer to change its agent.

Further, SAl did not levy penalty of Rs. 2.20crore in 12 cases of procurement of sportsequipment/material, on account of delay insupply. In one particular case, SAl could notlevy penalty of Rs. 1.44 crore on thesupplier due to ambiguity' in thecontractual clauses.

32.4.3 Unfruitful expenditure of Rs40.12crore due to delayed procurementof sports equipment

Although the scheme was introduced inJune 2008, the sports equipment to beprocured were approved by the FinanceCommittee only in June 2009 and theprocess of procurement was initiated inAugust 2009. Thus, the elaboratemechanism for procurement merelyresulted in delays without ensuringeconomy in procurement.Further, the sport equipment which wascrucial for imparting state of the art trainingto the core probables were received at thefag end of the training period/aftercompletion of CWG 2010 at various SAlcentres.

The clause 10 of the tender document provide thatdelivery should be completed within 15days after theplacement of contract and receipt and confirmation ofletter of credit, whereas, the clause 16(vii) provides that"It may be ensured that delivery, installation andcommission etc. of the system is completed within 90days from the date of issue of letter of credit.



9/18

Chapter 32 - Preparation of Indian Teams for CWG - 20lD

All the equipment was delivered only in2010 as shown below:

Equipment for Rs.4.99 crore wasreceived 2-3 months ahead of thegames Equipment for Rs.4.88 crore was

received just ten days ahead of theGames

Equipment for Rs.0.84 crore wasreceived after the Games

Equipment for Rs.27.81 crore wasreceived 6-9 months ahead of thegames

A discipline -wise analysis is summarisedbelow: Equipment for Rs. 1.60 crore was

received only one month ahead of theGames

Table 32.5 - Delayed receipt oj sports equipment (Rs. in crore)

1

Discipline Equipment Received on

2345

Shooting Ammunition 0.12 07.lD.lDShooting Shooting Ammunition and consumable 4.03 19-09-20lD to 29.09.lDShooting Equipment 27.62 06.01.lDHockey Fitness Equipment 0.85 22.09.lDHockey body matrix equipment 0.01 Mar-lDLawn Bowls Sports equipment 0.49 17.09.lDAthletics Athletic sports material 0.85 23.07.lDAthletics -00- 0.71 06.07.lDAthletics -00- 0.13 05.08.lDAthletics -00- 0.72 12.lD.lDAthletics -00- 0.18 27.04.lDWrestling wrestling mats 0.39 07.07.lDGymnastics Gymnastic equipment 1.39 30.08.lDWeight Lifting weight lifting equipment 1.39 23.07.lDBoxing Punching bags Leather (Boxing) 0.13 06.07.lD to 08.07.lDCycling Cycles 1.11 17.09.lD

Grand Total 40.12

67891011

1213141516

Some extreme cases of delayed receipt ofequipment costing Rs. 3.90 crore arediscussed below:

32.4.3.1 Unfruitful expenditure of Rs. 1.11crore on procurement of cycles forcore probables:

As SAl could not procure cycles in time, theSteering Committee (June 2010) decided to

Performance Audit Report on XIXCommonwealth Games (CWG-2010)1553


10/18


entrust the job to Indian OlympicAssociation (IDA). We noted that IDAobtained the signatures of various playersand coaches on printed format in support ofa particular brand and placed the supplyorder worth Rs.1.11 crore on Dolan BikesLtd. on the basis of a single quotation, withthe request to supply the bikes latest by 4September 2010. However, the cycles werehanded over to the cyclists only on 18September 2010, when only four days wereremaining for the closure of the trainingcamp.

32.4.3.2 Ammunition for Rifle/Pistol andShotgun event:

The proposal for procurement ofammunition for Rifle/Pistol and Shotgunevent from Fiocchi Munizioni SAP,Italy wasinitiated in March 2010 and the revisedorder of Rs.0.83 crore was placed on thesupplier in September 2010. The materialwas however, received finally on 28September 2010 after the close of theshooting camp even after airlifting at anadditional cost of Rs.0.19 crore.32.4.3.3 Ammunition for big bore

rifles event:SAl initiated the proposal for procurementof ammunition for big bore Rifles eventfrom Winchester Australia Ltd., in March2010 at a cost of Rs.0.12 crore and placedthe supply order in August 2010. However,the material was received only on 7October 2010 at Karni Singh Shooting Range(KSSR)during the Games.32.4.3.4 Non utilisation of additional

equipment for shooting:SAl decided to procure additionalequipment" from Sius AG, Switzerland in

4 for 6th bay of 25 mtr with electronic scoring board

January 2010 but placed the supply orderfor Rs. 1.85 crore only in August 2010. Theequipment was delivered in September2010 but could however, not be installed atthe shooting range till 30 September 2010.As installation and commissioning requiredanother two weeks after supply ofequipment, it could not be utilised in timefor training.In response, SAl stated that a timeconsuming, though essential, process hadto be followed for procurement. When itcame to a choice between hasty decisionsand financial prudence, SAl chose the latter.Further, procurement of imported itemshad a time cycle of 6-8 months, and onecould not plan imports with the precision ofa gold weighing machine. Also, allequipment imported were used by athletesfor CWG, thereafter for the Asiad, and thenfor Olympic training.While we note the time consuming processfor procurement, this should have beenfactored in through timely and betterplanning, keeping in view such operationalcontingencies and lead times. Further,although the equipment procured wouldhave considerable legacy value, it wasprocured in the first instance for use fortraining of core probables for CWG-2010,which was not fully achieved.32.4.4 Non-procurement of sports

materials worth Rs. 5.55 croreProcurement of sports equipment costingRs.5.55 crore related to aquatics, archery,squash, tennis, table tennis and boxingcould not be finalised due to variousreasons like non receipt of tenders, not asper specification, rejection on technicalterms etc and re-tendering was not donedue to paucity of time.



11/18


32.4.5 Improper planning andassessment of requirement ofsports material

32.4.5.1 Excessprocurement for shootingScrutiny of the stock register for shootingdiscipline at KSSRrevealed that SAl hadmade fresh purchases even when there wasenough stock available in respect of variousitems. As a result, shootingammunition/equipment costing Rs.1.21crore remained unutilised even after theend of the Games.32.4.5.2 Unfruitful expenditure of Rs. 1.39

crore on procurement ofgymnastic equipment

SAl initiated a proposal for procurement ofgymnastic equipment for two centres at

Patiala and Kolkata from Gymnova, Franceat a cost of Rs. 2.10 crore in October 2009and placed the supply order in March 2010.Upon the request of foreign coaches (Punecentre) for immediate supply of three items(one floor exercise complete set, twovaulting tables with complete set withrunway and four spring board for vaultingtable), part of the supply was diverted toPune in July 2010. As a result, theequipment at Patiala and Kolkata becameinoperative and could not be utilised andremained in stock unissued. Thus, theequipment costing Rs. 1.39 crore could notbe used at anyone of the three centres.Out of this equipment, 65 gymnasticsequipment and accessories costing Rs.0.58crore were delivered in June 2010 at SAl,Kolkata after the camp for women coreprobables was shifted from Kolkata to Pune.

Unpacked gymnastics equipments for CWG 2010 lying at SAl Kolkata



12/18


32.4.5.3 Unfruitful expenditure of Rs.0.28crore on the procurement ofweight lifting equipment andathletic sports material for PatialaCentre

SAl procured the weightlifting items" fromEleiko AB, Sweden costing Rs. 1.39 crore forPatiala Centre in January 2010. We foundthat out of 24 Eleiko practice platformsprocured for the Patiala centre received inJuly 2010, ten platforms costing Rs.0.15crore were transferred to Bengaluru inSeptember 2010, where no weightliftingtraining camp was in existence at that pointof time.Similarly, a supply order was placed onAnand Track and Field equipment Pvt. Ltd.,Meerut in June 2010 for athletics at a costof Rs.0.13 crore for Patiala without anyrequisition. The equipment was diverted toSAl, Bengaluru in August 2010. InSeptember 2010 at Bengaluru, it wasnoticed that one discus 2 kg gold was shortand four pole vaulting boxes were not asper IAAF specifications. The supplier wasasked after completion of CWG 2010, torectify the supply in respect of pole vaultboxes, which was not rectified as ofNovember 2010.

32.4.5.4 Infructuous expenditure ofRs.0.51 crore on athleticequipment - Pole vault pits

SAl procured two imported pole vault pitsfor SAl Patiala and Kolkata centres forathletics and transported them to therespective centres in October 2009. Onecomplete unit of pole vault pit consists of

Electronic Score Board, Reference decision l ight system,Barbell sets, Eleiko Practice Platform (3.06m x 2.58m)and Competition Platform (4m x 4m)

four separate segments to be joinedtogether. SAl Patiala received double setsof segments 3 and 4, while Kolkata receiveddouble sets of segments of 1 and 2. As aresult, both the pole vault units costing Rs.0.51 crore could not be utilised at eitherKolkata or Patiala. However, SAl stated thatthese procurements were not made out ofCWG funds.

32.4.5.5 Purchase of hockey ball throwingmachine costing Rs2.211akhafter shifting of hockey camp

SAl, Bengaluru placed order on Ha-KoEnterprises, Bombay for a hockey throwingmachine costing Rs. 2.21Iakh. The machinewas received at Bengaluru in July 2009 afterthe camp was abruptly shifted to SAl,Bhopal in May 2009 due to insufficientinfrastructural facilities.

32.4.6 Stock of Rs. 1.25 crore remainedunutilized

A scrutiny of stock register of equipment ofSAl Patiala and Bhopal revealed that mostof the imported equipment procured underthe scheme was received at the fag end ofthe training camps and remained unissuedto the campers. The details are inTable 32.6.



13/18


Table32.6 - Unutilised equipment in stock

Discipline Firm from which materialprocured

(Rs. in Lakh)Date of receiptof materialat centre

Balance (ason November2010

Costofunissueditems

Patiala Centre1 Athletics Gill Athletic Inc.,USA 08.07.2010 76 59.982 Athletics UCS,USA 22.04.2010 37 30.193 Athletics Nemeth, Hungary 08.07.2010 21 10.864 Boxing BudolandSportartikel 09.06.2010 296 9.43

Vertrieb Gmbh5 Hockey PatialaSports Industries 08.08.2010 104 1.14Bhopal Centre6 Hockey R.K. International, RKSports 11.02.2009 255 11.197 Hockey Amitco Khel Centre, Meerut -- 69 0.668 Hockey Beat all Sports 21.01.2010 3 0.869 Table Tennis Amitco Khel Centre, 06.01.2010 315 0.46

and Football MeerutTotal 124.77

Unused boxing gloves, head guard and javelins at Patiala centre

Thus, sports equipment worth Rs. 1.25crore pertaining to athletic, hockey, boxingand table tennis remained unissued atPatiala and Bhopal centres as of November2010 which indicates that assessment of therequirement for procurement of equipmentwas not properly done. Clearly, theassessment of requirement at differentcentres was handled in an abysmal mannerby SAl, resulting in chaotic movement andreceipt of equipment at centres.

32.5 Other Deficiencies32.5.1 Inadequate programmes and

seminars for dopingNational Anti Doping Agency (NADA) wasassigned the task of conducting dope tests,seminars, workshop and training sessionsfor athletes/coaches/supportingpersonnel/officials, for enhancing theirknowledge levels, professional skills, codeof conduct and awareness of anti dopingpolicy and programmes, either directly orthrough SAI/IOA/NSFs etc. Further, samplesof athletes were to be taken and checked

Performance Audit Report on XIXCommonwealth Games (CWG-2010) 1557


14/18


on a regular basis in these training centresto familiarize them with the rules andregulations and to educate them about theharmful effects of doping, bannedsubstances, etc.We observed that NADA delivered 26lectures (during 2009 and 2010) andconducted 697 dope tests (during 2010) atvarious venues/SAl centres. However,deficiencies were observed in the followingcentres: SAl Gandhinagar: A seminar was

conducted on 15 and 16 of July 2010 butno core probable/sports personsparticipated in the above seminar. Onlycoaches and supporting staff took partin the seminar. Further, no samples ofthe athletes were taken/ collected forchecking the status of bannedsubstances.

SAl Guwahati: Lawn bowl camps wereconducted during March 2009 to April2010 (288 days) at SAlGuwahati.However, only one seminar/workshopwas conducted for awareness of thedoping and only nine samples (random)were taken.

SAl Sonepat: Only one lecture wasdelivered in March 2010 at Sonepatregional centre, where incidentally twoprobables were weeded out duringrandom collection of sample inNovember 2009 as the blood samplehad Furosemide (diuretic).

Further, fourteen core probables (sixweightlifters, four wrestlers, threeswimmers and one athlete) tested positive.A penalty of Rs.2.28 crore was imposed bythe international body on 'IndianWeightlifting Federation' and Rs.0.14 croreon the individual players.

32.5.2 Delay in providing medicalinsurance coverage to coreprobables

Medical insurance was to be provided toeach core probable for safeguarding againstany injury, medical support, etc, whichcould occur during training/camps/foreignexposure. Accordingly, SAl initiated aproposal for insurance cover(medical/personal accident) in November2008 for 1673 core probables. We observedthat: United India Insurance Company offered

a tailor made insurance policy for thecore probables as per the specificrequirement of SAl. However, SAl optedfor the standard Insurance policy of NewIndia Assurance Company, which did notinclude OPD facilities ormedical/personal insurance duringforeign exposure.

SAl finalised the insurance policy for theperiod November 2009 to October 2010at a cost of Rs0.25 crore for 1600 coreprobables in October 2009. However,we noted that documentation work wasnot completed even till July/Sep 2010.

Further, a large number of 'Medical IdentityCards' were not received by SAl till August2010. All the identity cards pertaining toprobables of netball, boxing disciplineswere not received till July/August 2010,although SAl, in response, stated that thecertified list of core probables was sent tothe insurance company. 216 medical cardsout of 324 core probables were notreceived till August 2010 at SAl Pune(Balewadi).



15/18


32.6 Delay in establishment ofinfrastructure andprocurement of relatedequipment

32.6.1 Establishment of InfrastructureSAl identified ten regional centres/ sub-centres for creation and up-gradation ofinfrastructure at an estimated cost of Rs. 85crare. This included: Construction of hostels, modern fitness

centres" and sports science centres ateight regional centres, and

Renovation/up-gradation of existingfacilities at five regional centres.

SAl entrusted execution of these works toCPWD. The works were started fromOctober 2008 to August 2009 by CPWDalthough the training camps for coreprabables for CWG 2010 were initiatedfrom August 2008. Upto January 2011, SAlhad incurred an expenditure of Rs. 74.35crare on infrastructure for CWG 2010.However, we found that the status of theconstruction/renovation/up-gradation ofexisting facilities of various regional centreswas as given below:

Table 32.7 - Status of renovation/ construction/ upgradation offacilities at SAl regional centres

III Location of SAl Centre ActualExpenditure Status ofutilisation(Rs. in crore)Actual date ofcompletionHotels1 Lucknow 7.50 May 2010 Not utilised2 Gandhinagar 7.05 July 2010 Not utilised3 Bengaluru 7.25 August 2010 Not utilised4 Kolkata 8.75 In progress Not utilised5 Bhopal 2.74 In progress Not utilised6 Imphal 4.54 In progress Not utilised7 Thiruvananthapuram 8.35 In progress Not utilised8 Aurangabad 3.14 In progress Not utilised

Total 49.32Sports Science Centre1 Lucknow 0.49 February 2010 Not utilised2 Bengaluru 0.46 May 2010 Utilised3 Bhopal 0.98 April 2010 Not utilised4 Sonepat 0.99 August 2010 Not utilised5 Aurangabad 1.11 September 2010 Not utilised6 Kolkata 2.00 In progress Not utilised7 Thiruvananthapuram 0.97 In progress Not utilised8 Gandhinagar 1.00 In progress Not utilised

Total 8.00

with facilities such as sauna bath, steam bath, two massage rooms, whirlpool unit, aerobics hall, yoga hall and changeroom with shower facility etc.

Performance Audit Report on X IX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010) 1559


16/18

Chapter 32 - Preparation of Indian Teams for CWG- 2010

Location of SAl Centre ActualExpenditure Status ofutilisationActual date ofcompletionModern Fitness Centre1 Bhopal 1.37 August 2010 Not utilised2 Sonepat 1.33 August 2010 Not utilised3 Lucknow 1.35 March. 2010 Not utilised4 Aurangabad 1.45 September 2010 Not utilised5 Imphal 2.11 In progress Not utilised6 Gandhinagar 1.27 In progress Not utilised7 Kolkata 1.57 In progress Not utilised8 Thiruvananthapuram 1.50 In progress Not utilised

Total 11.95Renovation/up-gradation of existing facilities

Patiala' 5.49 August 2010 Not utilisedSonepat" 3.17 In progress Not utilisedBengaluru 9 0.70 March,2010 Not utilisedTotal 9.36Grand total 78.63*

*Rs. 78.63 - Rs.4.28 crore to be refunded by regional centre =74.35 crore)

Further, construction of hostels, sportsscience centres and modern fitness centresat Thiruvananthapuram, Aurangabad andLucknow was taken up at a cost of Rs. 25.86crore, although no training camp for anydiscipline for core probables of CWG 2010was scheduled at any of these centres.Thus, SAl failed to fill the gap of insufficientinfrastructure at its centres, as none of thehostels, fitness centres, sports sciencecentres could be utilised for CWG 2010despite an expenditure of Rs. 74.35 crore.32.6.2 Procurement of Sports science

equipmentThe scheme envisaged a complete scientificbackup with the help of doctors,psychologists, physiologists and recoveryexperts on full time basis to be introduced

for each sport discipline. Sports scienceequipment was envisaged for conduct oftests including anthropometric,psychological, physiological, biochemical,biomechanical, nutritional and othermedical tests to monitor the progress ofeach athlete on a regular basis during thetraining.Sports Science Centres at four regionalcentres of Gandhinagar, Kolkata,Thiruvananthapuram and Aurangabadcould not be completed. Centres atLucknow and Bhopal, though completed,could not be taken over by SAl.Regarding procurement of equipmentrelated to Sports Science Centres, we foundthat negligible procurement was actuallymade although procurement was initiatedfor Rs.9.20 crore. Further, we found that:

Repair /renovation of 4 halls i.e. weightlijting, wrestling, TT and Boxing with provision of air conditioners.Air conditioners for hostel rooms and dining hall including civil and electrical work, false ceiling and Air Conditioning ofMulti Purpose HallFlooring, l ighting and Replacement of roof (Galvanizing Aluminium)

560 I Performance Audit Report on XIX Commonwealth Games (CWG-2010)


17/18


SAl had to abandon the procurement ofRs. 6.33 crore on various scienceequipment due to paucity of time.

Out of total procurement of Rs.2.87crore, equipment worth Rs. 1.95 crorewere not delivered to regional centrestill January 2011; equipment worth Rs.O . 38 crore were received after the CWG2010 in October 2010; and equipmentworth Rs.0.06 crore were received atregional centres during the Games.

SAl failed to provide world class state ofart sports science backup to athletes asnone of the eight Sports Science centrescould be utilised for training. Further,most of the scientific equipmentprocured could not be used for thetraining of core probables as eitherthese were received after the close ofthe CWG 2010 or their supply was stillawaited as of January 2011.

32.7 Monitoring by MYAS/SAI32.7.1 Inadequate monitoringThe Steering Committees and ReviewCommittees for each discipline at the level ofMYASwere to be constituted for eachdiscipline to monitor the preparation andprogress of the core group of elite sportspersons, coaches and supporting personnel.The Steering Committees (for eachdiscipline) were to meet once every month.In this regard, we found that: The steering committees for different

disciplines met just seven to eleven timesduring June 2008 and September 2010.

The Review Committees constituted toreview the progress in performancelevels of the core group of sports

persons, coaches etc. was formed inrespect of only five disciplines and metonly once/twice during the entire periodof implementation of the scheme.

MYASstated that it was not practicable tohold monthly meetings of the SteeringCommittee as there would have been 18meetings in a month, and also that onemonth's period was too short for the NSFsto evaluate performance of the athletes. Italso confirmed that review committeemeetings could not be held regularly. It maybe noted that MYASi tself put in place amonitoring mechanism which it now findsimpractical.

32.7.2 Non-appointment of personnelin the CWG cell

SAl was to set up a cell, to be known as'Commonwealth Games Cell' (Cell) whichwould have a Programme Officer (PO) and aProgramme Assistant (PA) for each of the17+1 disciplines of the Games havingspecialised knowledge and expertise oftheir respective disciplines. However, wefound that SAl had appointed only eightPOsand one PAas against the sanctionedposts of 18 each. Out of the eight POs,onePOwas appointed for audit, two forinfrastructure and two for equipment sportsdivision. Thus, effectively only three POsfor sports disciplines were appointed andthe CWG cell could not be appropriatelyoperationalised.

32.8 Legacy plan for SAl StadiaIn September 2006, the ExpenditureFinancial Committee (EFC)suggestedexploring the Public-Private Partnership(PPP) model while recommending the



18/18


proposal for sanction of budget forredevelopment of five" stadia. This was approved by the Cabinet in

March 2007 and SAl was authorised tomanage the entire process of planningand implementation of the PPPmodelfor management and operation of thesestadia post CWG.

Inter-ministerial correspondence wasmade between March 2007 andNovember 2008 between MYAS, MoFand SAl.

SAl though selected Feedback Venturesas the transaction advisor in October2009, the agreement at a cost of Rs.0.84crore was signed in February 2010.However, no effective action had takenplace.

Further, MYASwas yet to bring out a legacyplan for utilisation and maintenance of theSAl stadia as of March 2011. As a result, thestadia were not being utilised by eithersportspersons or others which is evidentfrom the notice of MYAS (dated 1 March2011) that 'regular coaching/pay and playscheme has not yet started in the stadium'.

32.9 FinancialmanagementIn this regard, we observed that: SAlwas yet to refund the unutilised Rs

45.40 crore under the various sub headsof the CWG scheme, which was requiredto be refunded within one month of theconclusion of the Games.

Unadjusted advances of Rs. 1.14 crore10 lawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex (lNS), Indira GandhiSports Complex (iGS), Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukher jee

Swimming Pool (SPM), Major Dhyan Chand NationalStadium Complex (MDCS) and Dr. Kami Singh ShootingRanges (KSSR).

were pending with the two agencies i.e.lOA and Bowling Federation of India.

Utilisation certificate for Rs.34.75 croregiven for procurement of Time Scoringand Results equipment was still awaitedfrom the oc.

Utilisation Certificates for Rs. 1.08 crorewere yet to be received from sevensports federations.

Advances of Rs.0.94 crore for 12 trainingcamps at SAl Pune centre were yet to besettled even after lapse of three to sixmonths from the date of completion ofthe camp. Also, the accounts ofthe Rugbycamp held during September 2010 werenot even submitted by the Director ofSports, Pune.

32.9.1 Diversion of funds forconstruction of SAl Headquarterbuilding

Funds of Rs. 19.00 crore under this schemewere irregularly diverted for construction ofthe administrative Block of SAlHeadquarters at Jawahar Lal Nehru StadiumComplex, New Delhi.

32.10 Other point of interestThe Haryana Government incurred a totalexpenditure of Rs. 1.87 crore (including costof land of Rs.0.85 crore), out of Rs.3.27crore released by MYAS in December 2009for widening and strengthening of existingroad from Badshahpur to Kadarpur toGroup Centre, CRPF,Gurgaon for CWG2010. However, the work remainedincomplete as of November 2010. Theentire advance of Rs3.27 crore should berecovered from the Government of Haryanaas it was not utilised for the Games.

CAG's CWG Audit Report - Chapter - 32 (2011)

Documents

Transcript of CAG's CWG Audit Report - Chapter - 32 (2011)