Team One India denies

allegations on hc construction cost escalation

The firm said it had already supplied construction-ready drawings for the next 12–18 months, with nearly 90% of drawings for several blocks completed, rejecting claims of inadequate design submissions as “baseless and false.”

Team One India flagged multiple execution deviations, including increased concrete and slab thickness, lower soil bearing assumptions, use of aluminium shuttering instead of specified plywood, and parking grid changes requiring a costly post-tensioned slab system.

The consultant alleged that changes approved by the R&B Department and contractor claims over revised material lead distance from 1 km to 22 km could cause major cost escalations and compromise financial discipline in the public-funded project.

The firm also questioned the appointment of Aarvee without an open tender, said work had largely stalled for two months, and maintained that it raised concerns only to safeguard quality, transparency, and timely completion of the landmark judicial complex.

metro india news  I hyderabad

Team One India Private Limited, the architectural and project consultancy firm appointed for the ambitious New Telangana High Court Building Complex at Rajendranagar, has strongly denied allegations made against it in recent media reports. In a detailed submission to the Chief Engineer (Buildings), Roads & Buildings (R&B) Department, the firm has defended its performance while raising serious concerns about execution deviations, quality lapses, and potential cost overruns that could escalate up to Rs 5,000 crore.

The company, established in 1992, is a reputed name in architecture and project management with expertise in high-rise structures. It was selected through a national design competition and formally awarded the project under Agreement No. 05/2024-25 dated April 15, 2026. Its scope includes architectural and structural design, MEP services, project management, supervision, bill certification, landscape design, and tender documentation.In its letter, Team One India emphasized the dedication and hard work invested in the project.

A central point of contention is the claim that the consultant failed to provide adequate drawings. Team One India dismissed this as “totally baseless and false.” The firm asserted that it has already submitted construction-ready drawings sufficient for the next 12 to 18 months of work.  For several blocks, nearly 90% of the required drawings have been issued, enabling uninterrupted progress at the site. The company also highlighted its proactive role in quality control. It said it promptly reported instances where the contractor did not adhere to required standards through formal Quality Control reports submitted to the R&B Department and the building committee.

Key issues flagged included execution of plain cement concrete at 150 mm thickness instead of the tender-specified 75/100 mm, leading to excess quantities, grade slab thickness increased to 175 mm from the approved 125 mm, soil bearing capacity restricted to 40-50 T/m² despite a proven capacity of over 70-100 T/m², resulting in over-designed foundations, use of aluminium shuttering instead of specified plywood shuttering, separate claims for top reinforcement supporting chairs (approximately 550 MT of steel) that were part of the contractor’s scope and alteration of parking bay grid from 2/3 bays to 4 bays, necessitating a shift to a Post-Tensioned slab system and significantly increasing costs.

The firm warned that these deviations, accepted by the R&B Department, have already caused substantial variations from the approved tender. It expressed fears that such changes at the initial stage could multiply in later phases, potentially inflating the project cost by thousands of crores and undermining financial discipline on a public-funded project. Another major concern raised relates to the revision of lead distance for material from 1 km (as per tender) to 22 km. This change prompted the contractor to demand exorbitant additional charges.

The company also pointed out that the contractor had disposed of or sold certain materials, and the corresponding amounts should be adjusted from bills. Relevant details, including soil quantities, were enclosed for verification. Team One India expressed dismay over the de-sanctioning or de-scoping of portions of its own work without prior notice or opportunity for clarification.  These actions, it said, came despite the firm raising issues solely to protect project quality and prevent avoidable cost escalations.

The firm also questioned the appointment of M/s Aarvee as Independent Engineer, noting that the process appeared to lack an open tender and was seemingly based on quotation alone. This, it argued, raises concerns about transparency and procedural fairness. Despite its reservations, Team One India stated that it complied with instructions to submit revised drawings incorporating the changes. However, it clarified that such submissions should not be interpreted as unconditional acceptance or endorsement of the deviations or associated cost escalations.

The revised drawings were reviewed and approved by IIT, but the firm maintained that it had consistently flagged potential financial implications in advance. In its concluding remarks, the company reaffirmed its full commitment to the Chief Minister’s vision of creating a state-of-the-art judicial complex. It called for uninterrupted site progress, strict adherence to specifications, and action against any contractor delays. Notably, the firm observed that work has been mostly stopped for the last two months with no apparent action taken against the contractor. Team One India categorically denied all allegations published in the Metro India English daily on May 14, 2026. It stated that it was not given any opportunity to present its views before the rejoinder was published.

The submission ends on a note of professional responsibility: “As consultants, it is our duty to place on record our concerns wherever deviations, quality issues, or cost implications are observed, so that the building is delivered not only on time but also with the durability, dignity, and excellence expected of a landmark judicial complex.” 

The letter, signed by Sridhar Gopisetti, Managing Director of Team One India Private Limited, underscores the tension between maintaining design integrity, quality standards, and timely execution in one of Telangana’s most prestigious infrastructure projects. The R&B Department is yet to issue an official response to these detailed concerns.