understanding, it was a case of segmental construction. […]” (emphasis supplied) 20.2 The Committee noted that the point at which the cable was going to be suspended with the pylon was crucial. It observed that the height at which the suspension took place was 77 metres, whereas, it was supposed to be 40 metres. The relevant paragraph is as follows: “6.2 The drawing No.A104-DWG-MB-FD-1301 REV. 1 dated 28th May, 2009 [Annexure H-01(ii)] shows that the lateral spans P3-P4 as well as P2- P3, should have been completed and external tendons tensioned before the first stay cable was installed. The steel box for anchoring the first stay cable was to be placed in the pylon at the height of 33.30m. Also, the first cantilever segment towards the river side from P4 was to be 17constructed only after the lateral spans P3-P4 and P2-P3 had been completed and fully prestressed. It is seen that this sequence was changed in the actual construction. Further, drawing No.A104- DWG-MB-FD-846 REV. 2(c)