35km of Poland’s A4 set to go again
By Sandy Guthrie08 May 2013
A 35km stretch of Poland’s A4 motorway between the Krzyż and Dębica Pustynia junctions will now be completed by a consortium of Heilit + Woerner Budowlana and Budimex.
The work was originally due to be carried out by another consortium until it pulled out of a contract with Poland’s General Directorate for National Roads & Motorways (GDDKiA) last July.
The new consortium, with Heilit + Woerner Budowlana as leader with 50%, signed a contract with the Rzeszów division of the GDDKiA for the completion of the motorway section.
The value of the contract is put at PLN798 million (€192.5 million). It includes the continuation of the work to complete the construction of the 34.7km section of the motorway, together with access roads and the redevelopment of local roads. The work will include the construction of two junctions – Dębica-Żyraków and Dębica-Pustynia – five bridges, nine flyovers on the route of the motorway, 11 flyovers over the motorway, three animal passages, culverts and an overpass.
The project calls for the construction of 64 access roads along the motorway, two tourist service points – at Jarząbka and Jawornik – and a motorway maintenance section at Straszęcin.
The consortium has 18 months to carry out the work.
European market research and consulting company PMR reported last July that the GDDKiA had withdrawn from a contract with a consortium comprising SIAC Construction, PBG, Aprivia and Hydrobudowa Polska to build a section of the A4 motorway between Tarnow and Debica.
The GDDKiA claimed that the consortium failed to honour the terms of the agreement and interrupted work on the motorway. The contractor apparently also demanded that the value of the contract be increased by PLN200 million (€48.2 million), which the directorate said it regarded as unlawful.
Meanwhile, the consortium headed by Hydrobudowa Polska said that it had itself terminated the contract to build the section of the A4 running between the Krzyż and Dębica Pustynia junctions. It claimed that the contracting authority had failed to meet its contractual obligations.