99236 BRIDGES IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (BIMP) (IDA Credit 5138-NEP) Mid-term Review June 16 – 30, 2015 AIDE MEMOIRE I INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1. A World Bank team1 (see Annex A for a list of team members) carried out a mid-term review and support mission for the Bridges Improvement and Maintenance Program between June 16-30, 20152. The objectives of this review were to: (i) review the current implementation status of the Program, including progress in achieving Disbursement-linked Indicators (DLIs), Program Action Plan activities and remedial actions suggested in the last review to improve Program’s performance; (ii) conduct in-depth analysis of issues that are critical in order to achieve Program objectives and to identify course of actions to address them; and (iii) identify any restructuring requirements, which will be in line with Program’s objectives, in order to enhance Program’s effectiveness, to expedite its progress and also to respond to the reconstruction needs of the recent earthquake. 2. The Team would like to thank the Government of Nepal (GON) for the hospitality extended to it, especially by counterpart agencies and officials (see Annex B for a list of persons met). This Aide-Memoire summarizes assessments, agreements, and follow-up actions based on review findings. It also reflects discussions at the wrap-up meeting of July 7, 2015 chaired by Mr. Tulasi Prasad Sitaula, Secretary, the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport (MoPIT). As agreed during the meeting and according to the World Bank’s Access to Information Policy, International Development Association (IDA) will publically disclose this document. Table 1 Summary of Project Status Program Data Program Performance Ratings Board Approval: 28-Jun-2012 Summary Ratings Last Now Trend Effectiveness Date: 20-Dec-2012 Achievement of PDO MS MS ▲ Original Closing Date: 15-Jul-2017 Implementation Progress MS MS ▲ Original Cr. Amount: SDR3 38.7m Action Plan MU MS ▲ (US$ 60m) Amount Disbursed: SDR 20.14m Disbursement Linked Indicators MU MS ▲ (US$ 29.31m4) Technical MS S ▲ Fiduciary MU MU ▼ Social and Environmental MS MS ▲ Counterpart Funding MS MS ◄► Overall Program Rating MS MS ▲ Notes: S- satisfactory; MS – moderately satisfactory; MU - moderately unsatisfactory; U – unsatisfactory; ▲ improving trends; ▼ deteriorating trends; ◄► static. II STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 3. The Program’s Development Objective is “to provide safe, reliable and cost effective bridges on Nepal’s Strategic Roads Network.” The Program is on course to achieve its objective and is showing a positive trend overall. The Team is particularly pleased to see considerable progress in the preparation and implementation of major maintenance works. Recent emergency major maintenance on the Ratu Bridge along the East West Highway is an especially noteworthy accomplishment which has demonstrated a step- 1 Hereinafter referred as “the Team” 2 The review was originally scheduled in end-April, 2015, which was subsequently postponed due to the devastating earthquake of April 25, 2015 3 Special Drawing Rights 4 Approximately 52% of the total credit amount in SDR as of end-June, 2015 1 change in Department of Roads (DOR’s) capacity for bridge maintenance. DOR and Bridge Branch in particular have successfully turned the Program around from its unsatisfactory period. This represents a major accomplishment. Annex D provides a summary assessment of individual Program areas. 4. The Program has also demonstrated good progress in achieving DLIs throughout the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014/15 (see Annex H). Over the same time period there have been marked improvements in coordination between Bridge Branch and DOR’s Geo-Environmental and Social Unit (GESU) which oversees implementation of the Program’s Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The Team is pleased to note that Bridge Branch’s management has made a conscious effort to improve relations with GESU. 5. However, there are noteworthy areas where implementation can improve further, including: (i) Improving the bridge quality management aspect as many bridges show considerable deviations from specifications; (ii) Demonstrating more systematic application of fiduciary and environmental frameworks in contract preparation and management; (iii) Increasing Bridge Branch’s effectiveness in overseeing and managing bridge works undertaken by other DOR entities (especially Divisional Offices and regional Bridge Projects); and (iv) Continuing budgeting and spending sufficient amounts on design, feasibility study, and quality control functions. 6. The recent earthquakes in Nepal have impacted many aspects of the economy and highlighted the critical importance of road connectivity to support recovery efforts. The Program’s objective is therefore more relevant than ever. MoPIT and DOR’s attention to continue the Program’s positive trend will be critical to ensuring that Nepal’s bridge network remains up to the task of supporting vital connectivity during these difficult times. III CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (INCLUDING ACTION PLAN AND DLIS) Technical 7. Bridge Branch has responded quickly to assess the impact of recent earthquakes on vulnerable bridge infrastructure. Bridge Branch, with support from IDA, has mobilized eight trained bridge inspection engineers to assess potential impacts on the bridges in quake affected divisions. Approximately 400 bridges have undergone detailed condition inspection since May 2015 using a new and improved methodology for diagnosing bridge conditions. Furthermore Bridge Branch is planning condition inspection of an additional roughly 200 bridges within 2015. The Team is very pleased to note that DOR took this action prior to the monsoon season when rains may render compromised bridges particularly vulnerable. Bridge Branch will use these assessment results to design emergency maintenance packages where necessary to prevent unintended bridge failures. The Team also wishes to note that the Program may request disbursement against DLI-5 (Improved Bridge Asset Management) once NPC is able to verify that the Bridge management System (BMS) contains updated condition data from these assessments. 8. Bridge branch is planning to procure an additional 2,000 meters of baily bridges to address potential emergency maintenance needs on vulnerable bridges. These additional baily bridges are required to mitigate risks linked to unexpected bridge failures on the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The Team notes that these meters of baily bridge will qualify for disbursement against DLI-1 (major maintenance) once verification has confirmed that they have been delivered and staged appropriate locations in the field. 9. The Mugling Bridge is in critical condition and the contract for its replacement may require re- tendering. The contractor who won the tender for replacing this bridge reportedly bid significantly lower amount than the estimated cost for a bridge of this complexity. Progress on site has been very slow, construction techniques used by the contractor has been poor and the contractor is failing to implement load 2 control on the existing Mugling Bridge as required under the contract’s scope of work. The team has urged Bridge Branch to monitor the situation closely given the critical condition of the Mugling Bridge and its strategic importance. If need be, Bridge Branch should exercise contractual remedies (including termination) to ensure that connectivity remains uninterrupted along the Prithvi Highway. IDA would welcome any request for additional technical assistance to support Bridge Branch in this regard. 10. The Program has achieved a major accomplishment by successfully implementing urgent major maintenance on the Ratu Bridge. The Team is particularly pleased to note the successful urgent major maintenance works on the 300 meter Ratu Bridge that failed in 2014 when heavy rains compromised one of its piers. The bridge is particularly critical given its role in providing for all weather connectivity along the East West Highway. With help from DOR’s international bridge expert Bridge Branch developed a remedy to safely reestablish the bridge’s functionality. This work used technologies that are relatively new in Nepal including pressure grouting to reinforce the compromised pier’s foundation, concrete jacketing of the pier column, and carbon fiber reinforcement of girders above the compromised pier. Repairs on the bridge completed in June 2015 (just-in-time) as heavy rains render the temporary dry riverbed detour impassable for vehicles. The Team wishes to congratulate Bridge Branch on using this maintenance intervention to defer the need for much costlier investment in new bridge construction and for demonstrating the use of new bridge maintenance technologies in Nepal. 11. During FY 2014/15 the Program made good progress at implementing major bridge maintenance. As of June 2015 the Program had successfully verified 1,444 meters of completed major maintenance against a target of 17,215 meters. The Bridge Branch is in the process of submission of another 2,562m of bridges to the National Planning Commission (NPC) for verification shortly. Procurement of over 1,500m of bridges will start soon. Also design of another 4,800m bridges is ongoing. The Team is pleased to note that the Program’s FY 2013/14 maintenance spending recovered and increased by approximately 103% from FY 2012/13 when it had fallen by 34% from the year before. Improvements in the delivery of major maintenance works is a very positive accomplishment for the Program. The Team is grateful for the remedial actions that GON took to achieve this noteworthy turnaround. 12. Divisions are performing some minor maintenance but the Program is failing to claim disbursement for results achieved. The Team observed several bridges that had undergone minor maintenance during field visits. An estimate suggests that the minor maintenance works of approximately 3,300m (the Program target is 3,500) of bridges are now complete and dossiers can be submitted for disbursement. Bridge Branch has noted that poor coordination with DOR divisional offices has hampered efforts to prepare dossiers required for NPC’s verification activities. DOR’s management needs to consider means of making divisions more accountable for reporting on their bridge-related works so as to facilitate DLI verification. 13. There is a need to reconsider the institutional relationships between Bridge Branch, Divisions, and Regional Bridge Projects. MoPIT/DOR’s decision to create a Bridge Branch in 2014 has improved the institutional approach to bridge maintenance and new construction. However, there is a need to ensure that Bridge Branch can be fully effective alongside other DOR branches. Divisions (which fall under Maintenance Branch) and regional Bridge Projects (which fall under the Director General through the regional directors) remain only semi-accountable to Bridge Branch for expenditures under the Program as well as the quality of completed bridge works. MoPIT and DOR may wish to consider adopting a set of agreed Bridge Operating Procedures (BOP) that explicitly mandate where and how Bridge Branch will interact with other DOR entities. For example, the BOP could specify the specific approvals Bridge Branch would give at the, new bridge selection, design, budgeting, or expenditure stage. Similarly, BOPs may also include agreed practices for signing off on the quality of completed works. At present Bridge Branch has relatively little control over divisional offices and regional Bridge Projects once budget has been allocated to a specific bridge. The Team recommends the development and adoption of BOP quickly to make the Bridge Branch’s operation more effective. One of the options DOR could pursue is bringing the Bridge Projects under Bridge Branch’s administrative and operational control. 3 14. The Program is delivering mixed results with respect to quality. The Team has observed wide disparity in quality across bridge works in different locations. For example, the recently completed Trishuli Bridge (bridge number: 36-F196-001) shows a very high level of design and construction quality. In contrast, the Tadi bridge in Nuwakot District (bridge number: 25-F082-005) districts shows an opposite result on both accounts. High quality bridges evidence that DOR and Bridge Branch have robust technical capacity whilst lower quality bridges evidence that the systems for applying that capacity remain inconsistent. The Team’s anecdotal experience is that bridge works involving closer oversight from Bridge Branch itself tend to achieve higher levels of quality. MoPIT and DOR may wish to consider means of establishing Bridge Branch more formally in a department-wide bridge quality assurance role. There is also a need to reconsider the role of Construction Supervision and Support Engineers (CSSE). There is little evidence to suggest that CSSEs are proving effective at improving quality. There are also reports that CSSEs could do far better in discharging their duties. Bridge Branch is in the process of developing a tablet- based system for CSSEs to provide more timely reports to back to Kathmandu. This system will also help Bridge Branch to keep better control of CSSE activities. The Team welcomes this initiative and requests DOR and MoPIT to support Bridge Branch in getting more from the Program’s CSSEs. Fiduciary (Financial Management and Procurement) 15. The Program’s expenditure framework has become less transparent and there is a need for better trimester reporting to compensate. During FY 2014/15, MOF discontinued the use of heading 337158 that was previously supporting SRN bridge maintenance. In addition, budget heading 337159 that supported design and feasibility study has become co-mingled between SNR bridges, Local Road Network (LRN) bridges, and road related works that are outside the Program’s scope. The budget for feasibility studies and design of SRN bridges within the Program currently falls under an economic sub-heading for “capital research and consultancy” below heading 337320. Heading 337320 is now the only heading that is linked to BIMP, for civil works and consultancy. The elimination of heading 337158 is not particularly problematic for Program monitoring as maintenance expenditures are visible from the current format for trimester reports which includes an estimate of spending for specific DLIs. In contrast, DOR is not currently reporting the expenditure incurred on feasibility studies, designs, and quality control under the Program separately. Trimester reports state expenditures under heading 337320 and 337159 in aggregate and segregated by DLIs. As there is no DLI relating to designs and feasibility studies, trimester reports do not include a breakdown of spending in this area. The Team therefore requests that DOR revise the current trimester report to break out all economic sub-headings under 337320 and 337159 so that expenditures on designs and feasibility study are readily apparent. The third trimester report for FY 2014/15 should include this change for all prior trimesters in the FY 2014/15. 16. The Program’s actual budget for feasibility study, design, and quality control is above the level committed in the financing agreement with IDA. As noted above, both heading 337320 and 337159 now contain the Program’s budget for design, feasibility study, and quality control. During FY 2014/15 the budget for expenditure under the economic sub-heading that corresponds to designs and feasibility studies was approximately NPR 171million which was roughly 5.4% of the civil works portion of this heading. This is in agreement with a requirement of the Program Action Plan, which is a legal covenant with IDA. The Team request Ministry of Finance’s (MoF’s) immediate attention to budget an amount not less than 5% of the Program’s civil works budget to support design, feasibility, and quality control functions during FY 2015/16. 17. The magnitude and nature of audit objections from FY 2012/13 indicate the need for an inquiry and potential departmental action. One particular audit objection relates to approximately US$ 1.2 million paid for price escalation against several lump-sum contracts. The Public Procurement Act (2007) and related regulations do not allow price escalation payments for lump-sum contracts. However, it is understood that all of them are design-build contract. One of the issues that the enquiry needs resolving is whether a design-build contact is a lump-sum contract or not. Opinion is divided on this. The Team recommends that MoPIT and DOR initiate an internal inquiry of this and other audit objections from FY 4 2012/13 followed by departmental actions as appropriate to ensure accountability for any confirmed irregularities. The Team request DOR to share the inquiry report with the Bank. Also the Bank team stands ready to help with the inquiry, if approached. 18. Contract variations remain an issue despite progress on delivering contracts within time. Verification activities have completed for 46 contract packages under the Program. Contract data form verification results indicates that seven contracts (15%) have completed on time, five contracts (11%) have completed early, and 34 contracts (74%) have required time extensions beyond the original completion date. The average delay in implementing new construction works is 343 days and the average delay for major maintenance works is 161 days. It is important to note that these figures represent a considerable improvement over Program’s initial baseline where only about 10% of contracts completed on time or early. Subject to confirmation form NPC, these improvements permit disbursement against DLI-4 as estimated in Annex J. However, the current rate of time extension on contracts still leaves considerable room for improvement. DOR has developed an improved procedure for estimating the contract duration for bridges and roads. The spreadsheet-based procedure uses a formula that is developed using empirical evidence and was tested. Bridge Branch now needs to use this procedure for the estimation of bridge contract durations at the planning stage. The Team welcomes this initiative and stands ready to support Bridge Branch with the tool’s development. 19. The list of procurement unit chiefs needs updating: In the past, Planning Branch has maintained a register of procurement unit chiefs as required by the Program Action Plan. The current list is out of date and DOR’s efforts to update it will be appreciated. 20. DOR’s Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM) is functioning but needs improvement: The GRM has captured approximately 70 complaints thus far. However, these complaints are currently only coming through the central web-based collection portal. There is a need to expand public awareness about the ability to access the GRM via DOR divisional offices. In addition to increased public outreach, the Team also advises that DOR revise the web portal for submitting complaints. The current web-portal is only available in English and users would need to know to click on the link labeled “Grievance Redressal Mechanism” in order access the system. This may not be intuitive enough. The Team requests that DOR revise this system to include both Nepali and English language options with an intuitive hyperlink heading such as “click here to complain!” Social & Environmental 21. BIMP Environmental and social management through DOR system has largely produced acceptable results and a system for environmental clearance, reviews, monitoring and verification of Program bridges is in place. Annex J details safeguard implementation status. At the initial stage of Program implementation DOR focused on improving the system. Accomplishments include: (i) the issuance of ESMF addendum (April, 2013) that incorporates bridge social and environmental aspects; (ii) the issuance of an official order that assigned GESU to lead the social and environmental processes/activities in DOR; (iii) the approval of the GESU Business Plan and the allocation of operational resources to GESU as per the plan (FY 2014/15 budget of is NPR 10 million compared with NPR 560,000 (US$ 5,800) during FY 2013/14; (iv) contracting out social and environmental activities to consultants; and (v) the completion of activities to improve the operational performance including the field orientation of the amended ESMF, the development, testing and mainstreaming of different checklists, screening tools. Now GESU provides overall safeguard due diligence, oversight and monitoring including internal compliance checks in BIMP. Rapid post-reviews of the social and environmental status of back-log bridges (under-construction at the time of Program effectiveness) indicated that Program activities largely entailed low-to-moderate safeguard risks (out of the 205 bridges screened until May 2015, 13 number of bridges required limited EA or IEE). 22. More effort is needed to capture full provisions to mitigate social and environmental impacts including bridges that use design-build approaches. GESU and Bridge Branch are working more closely 5 together than ever before and have made considerable improvements in applying DOR’s ESMF. However, the Team has observed that there is still an issue with the timing of social and environmental assessments during the preparation stage of civil works undertakings. On a number of occasions the design of social and environmental mitigations occurred after contracts had been awarded. There is a need for Bridge Branch and GESU to agree a procedure for assuring that social and environmental provisions are part of works packages prior to tendering. 23. GESU is fully staffed and resourced but will require additional vehicle support to cover Program works effectively: GESU’s staff currently includes one environmental specialist and one social specialist in Kathmandu in addition to six field-based social mobilizers. As mentioned before GESU now has an approved business plan and is receiving budgetary resources according to that plan. There is a need for this team to spend greater time on site and with communities. DOR’s efforts to enable this by providing additional vehicle access for GESU will help to ensure the EMSF’s implementation. Restructuring requirements 24. Some adjustments to the DLIs are required in order to make it more effective and to align it with new available evidence. The current DLI-1 (major maintenance) target is 17,125m and it is reported that the Program has successfully completed the major maintenance just over 4,000m of bridges or approximately 23% of the target (of them already claimed and disbursed: 1,444m and claims are being processed: 2,562m). New evidence suggests that a further stock of approximately 12,000m of bridges are available for major maintenance. This means that there is not enough supply of bridges to achieve DLI-1 target. However, the Program has already completed the minor maintenance of approximately 3,300m of bridges, which is roughly 76% of the target (3,500m), although they are yet to be verified. More bridges had undergone minor maintenance in FY 2014/15. The total length of these bridges could be as high as 9,500m. Therefore, there is a scope of enhancing DLI-2 target. It is reported earlier that the current achievement of DLI-4 (delivery of works contracts within time) is 26% (against an end-project target of 50%). Also DOR has developed an objective system of estimation of the contract duration (currently in majority cases they are estimated arbitrarily). This confirms that DOR intends to shift gears with regard to contract management. The Program may help DOR in the adoption of the objective system in the estimation of bridge contract duration. This could best be done by reformulating DLI-4. The reformulated DLI-4 may contain a combination of the use of the newly developed method and completion of works contracts within time. General items 25. Baseline data collection for the Program’s impact evaluation is complete and the relevant report is being finalized: A Bank executed trust fund has been supporting baseline date collection activities. The consultants have submitted the data and reports, which are now being checked. It is expected that the process will be completed by end-July, 2015. 26. There are large unmet needs for training on bridge and contract management subjects: To date, the Program’s training plan has failed to gain traction. This is forgoing a key opportunity to develop DOR’s capabilities. The international bridge expert has conducted several ad-hoc training sessions. However, there is a need to implement a more systematic approach to training and development. The Team notes that the recent extension of the Road Sector Development Project (RSDP) can provide additional IDA support for training, if required. The Team also stands ready to assist the Program with gaining access to additional international expertise as needed. 27. The next Program review will take place in approximately 4 months: The Team would like to propose end October, 2015 as a potential time for this review. 6 ANNEX A: IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TEAM # Name Position 1 Annu Rajbhandari Environment Consultant 2 Bhagawan Shrestha Consultant (Quality Assurance) 3 Bibash Shrestha Team Assistant 4 Dominic Pasquale Patella Transport Specialist 5 Drona Ghimire Environmental Specialist 6 Farhad Ahmed Sr. Transport Specialist and Task Team Leader 7 Jun Zeng Sr. Social Development Specialist 8 Pradeep Kumar Shrestha Consultant (Financial Management) 9 Ramesh Raj Bista Procurement Specialist 10 Sachin Upadhyaya Consultant (Social Development) 11 Shambhu Uprety Sr. Procurement Specialist 12 Shubu Thapa Professional Associate 13 Vishnu Shrestha Consultant (BIMP) 14 Yogesh Bom Malla Financial Management Specialist Annex P-1 ANNEX B: LIST OF PERSONS MET S. No. Name Position Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport (MoPIT) 1. Mr. Tulasi Prasad Sitaula Secretary 2. Mr. Bishnu Om Bade Joint Secretary Department of Roads (DOR) 1. Mr. Madhab Kumar Karki Director General 2. Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Shrestha Deputy Director General, Foreign Cooperation Branch 3. Mr. Saroj Pradhan Deputy Director General, Bridge Branch 4. Mr. Naresh Man Shakya Senior Divisional Engineer, Bridge Branch 5. Mr. Krishna Raj Adhikari Senior Divisional Engineer, Bridge Branch 6. Mr. Vijay Kumar Mahto Unit Chief, GESU 7. Mr. Shiva Prasad Nepal Project Manager, Mugling-Narayanghat Project, DOR 8. Mr. Arjun Aryal SDE, Bridge Project, Eastern Region, DoR 9. Mr. Ganesh Kumar Gautam SDE, Bridge Project, Western Regions, DOR 10. Mr. Bhanu Joshi Division Chief, DRO Surkhet, DOR 11. Mr. Dhruba Kumar Jha Engineer, DRO Surkhet, DOR 12. Mr. Ramesh Singh Engineer, Bridge Project, Eastern Region, DoR 13. Mr. Ram Hari Pokharel SDE, Eastern Regional Office, DoR, Damak 14. Mr. Shambhu Acharya Engineer, Eastern Regional Office, DoR, Damak 15. Mr. Rajan Shrestha Environmental Expert, DOR/GESU (Consultant/BIMP) 16. Mr. Prabhakar Pandit Social Expert, DOR/GESU (Consultant/BIMP) 17. Mr. Udaya Nepal Financial Expert (Consultant/BIMP) 18. Mr. Bashant Lal Shrestha Materials Engineer (Consultant / RSDP) National Planning Commission (NPC) 1. Mr. Gopi Nath Mainali Joint Secretary National Vigilance Center (NVC) 1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma Secretary 2. Mr. Deepak Shrestha Joint Secretary 3. Mrs. Pramila Bajracharya Joint Secretary Annex P-2 ANNEX C: SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM AREAS Item Rating Key Points Program MS  Program is showing a positive trend overall and progress has accelerated Development towards achieving objectives Objective  The Program has demonstrated good progress in achieving DLIs throughout the FY 2014/15  Considerable progress in the preparation and implementation of major maintenance works o Appropriate quality management remains a major issue as many bridges show considerable deviations from specifications Action Plan MS  Bridge Management System (BMS) priorities followed for 100% of Program (Overall) work plan  Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM) functioning; however, needs further support to make it more effective  Fiduciary, environmental, and social related actions now acceptable o Technical actions relating to quality management remain one of the main concerns o Project management team formulation not yet fully complete o Training plan is yet to be developed Disbursement MS  DLI-1: verification complete: 1,444m. Verification awaiting: 2,562m; Under Linked Indicators construction: 203m; design completed: 1,526m; Design on-going: 4,787m  DLI-2: 3rd disbursement is expected to submit a claim of approximately 3,275m (Program target: 3,500m). Further information collection is on-going  DLI-3: 3,257 meters verification complete and disbursed. 3rd disbursement plans to claim another US$ 7-10 m. New construction works exactly following BMS priorities  DLI-4: Initial analysis suggest that good progress made: 26% achieved against a target of 50%. Yet to be verified.  DLI-5: BMS fully operational in all 25 divisions and 5 regions. Data collection completed for 400 bridges.  DLI-6: GRM functioning. However, further actions are needed to make it more effective. Technical S  Bridge Branch has responded quickly to assess the impact of recent earthquakes on vulnerable bridge infrastructure (assessment of 400 bridges completed)  BMS in use as the basis for planning and prioritizing the Program  Major achievements in the repair of strategically important bridges  103% increase in maintenance spending relative to prior FY  During FY 2014/15 the Program made good progress at implementing major bridge maintenance o Construction site supervision engineers are not playing effective roles o The Program is delivering mixed results with respect to quality o Progress slow on project management teams and other quality related actions o No progress on developing and implementing training plans Fiduciary MU o The Program’s expenditure framework becomes less transparent o The nature of audit objections is serious and the magnitude is substantial ($12m) o The list of procurement unit chiefs needs updating  The Program’s actual budget for feasibility study, design, and quality control above the level committed in the financing agreement (5.4% against an agreed amount of minimum 5% Annex P-3  The GRM is mostly working but needs further improvement  Progress made in clearing backlog audit objections  No overdue Trimester and audit reports  Separate budgets maintained for construction on LRN and SRN Social and MS  BIMP Environmental and social management through DOR system has Environmental largely produced acceptable results and a system for environmental clearance, reviews, monitoring and verification of Program bridges is in place  GESU has been receiving adequate budget to support the Program  The Bridge Branch (BB) has been making efforts to engage GESU in all aspects of Program implementation o Timing of social and environmental assessments during the preparation stage of civil works undertakings is an issue o Further effort is required to mitigate social and environmental impacts in the case of design and build bridges Overall MS  DOR, Bridge Branch in particular, have successfully turned the Program Program rating around from its unsatisfactory period o Need for improvement on: (i) quality management; (ii) application of fiduciary and environmental frameworks in contract preparation and management; (iii) improve Bridge Branch’s effectiveness in supervising bridge works undertaken by divisions and bridge projects; (iv) allocation of sufficient budget for design, feasibility study, and quality control functions Notes: S - Satisfactory; MS - Moderately Satisfactory; MU - Moderately Unsatisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory;  - Accomplishments;  - Concerns Annex P-4 ANNEX D: UPDATE ON PROGRAM MONITORING FRAMEWORK Indicators Baseline Date Progress To Date Date (of End- Date Value the data of- collection) Project Target Value PDO: to provide safe, reliable and cost effective bridges on Nepal’s Strategic Roads Networks A. PDO level results indicators PDO 53 Oct. 2012 Achievement: 56.1% As of end- June 30, 75 Indicator 1: June, 2015 total number of 2015 Improved bridges in good or fair condition of condition: 959 (out of total bridges on existing bridges: 1,709). SRN (The percentage of bridges on SRN rated as being in good or fair condition) PDO 6 Oct. 2012 Achievement: 3.74%. As of June 30, 1 Indicator 2: end-June, 2015 total number of 2015 Reduced bridges in unsafe condition: 64 number of (out of total existing bridges: structurally 1,709). unsafe bridges (The percentage of bridges on SRN rated as structurally unsafe) PDO Negligible Oct. 2012  An estimate suggests that the June 30, 50 Indicator 3: achievement is 26%. 2015 Strengthened performance management in bridge sector (Percentage of bridge works completed on planned schedule) B. Intermediate result indicators Annex P-5 Indicators Baseline Date Progress To Date Date (of End- Date Value the data of- collection) Project Target Value Intermediate 0  4,006m of construction June 30, 17,125 Results completed 2015 Indicator 1:  1,444m verified and disbursed Completion  Remaining 2,562m is in the of major process of submission for maintenance verification of bridges on SRN (Cumulative metres) Intermediate 0  It is reported that repair of June 30, 3,500 Results 3,275m completed and in the 2015 Indicator 2: process of submission for Completion verification of minor repairs of bridges on SRN (Cumulative metres) Intermediate 0  3,825m completed June 30, 6,000 Results  3,257m (35 bridges) verified 2015 Indicator 3: and disbursed (1st and 2nd New bridges tranches) built or  568m (8 bridges) completed improved on and awaiting verification SRN  4763m (52 bridges) under (Cumulative construction NPC metres) Intermediate 0  BMS fully operational in 25 June 30, Results divisions. 2015 Indicator 4:  DOR has officially endorsed Improved BMS for SRN bridge Bridge Asset planning and prioritization via Management letter from Director General (Number of on Oct. 10, 2012. actions  BB has employed a full time completed) BMS operator.  Public version of BMS is available on DOR website: http://www.dor.gov.np  DOR has made BMS compatible with Annual Road Maintenance Plan (ARMP) for divisional planning and budgeting purpose  DOR plans to update existing BMS in order to make it more robust by Dec. 2015.  A portion of the allocation against this DLI already disbursed under 2nd tranche Annex P-6 Indicators Baseline Date Progress To Date Date (of End- Date Value the data of- collection) Project Target Value Intermediate 0  GRM policy developed and June 30, Results approved by MoPIT 2015 Indicator 5:  DOR formally launched GRM Increased system on Apr. 16, 2014. effectiveness  A Help/Call Center has been of the set-up in DOR to provide institutions system assistance to all DOR responsible cost centers. for bridge  Work in progress to sector mainstream GRM system in management DOR as per an agreed Action (Number of Plan actions  GRM Procedural Manual has completed) been finalized  A portion of the allocation against this DLI already disbursed under 2nd tranche Annex P-7 ANNEX E: NOTES OF BRAINSTORMING SESSION (23RD JUNE, 2015) S.N. Topic Issues and Discussions Conclusions / Recommendations 1 DLIs DLIs  Yes, all six DLIs are still  There are six Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLI) in the BIMP. Are they still relevant to the relevant. Program context? DLI-1  Target (17,125m) is achievable.  Target is 17,125m, achievement by 2nd tranche of disbursement was 1,444.m and expected another However, would require further 2,562m to be disbursed by 3rd tranche, totaling approximately 4,000m assessment.  Major maintenance works undertaken are not sufficient to meet the target  Suggested that the Program  Local consultants have been facing problems in the design of bridge major maintenance given the procures another 2,000m of lack of experience bailey bridges.  BB is publishing EOI very soon for additional 125 bridges which will cover around 3500 to 4000m  Remedial works of post-earthquake 400 bridges will cover another around 8,000m  Procurement of an additional 2,000m of bailey bridges is proposed to prepare for future emergencies.  DLI 1 target could be met DLI-2  Target is 3,500m, no disbursement has been made till date, a survey shows that 140 bridges are  For time being keep original currently under DLI-2 contracts so there is hope to meet target during 3 rd tranche of disbursement. target of 3500m, however there  Existing procurement rules and specification are found not favorable to carry out minor is an opportunity of enhancing maintenance by DOR divisions therefore they are least attracted to carry out of DLI-2 works. the target  Review is required in procurement rules that allows divisions to introduce force account system for  DOR to review existing few approved activities under DLI-2 contracts. Or divisions will have to explore other contract procurement options applicable options to complete DLI-2 contracts. to minor maintenance works DLI-3  Keep 6,000m, i.e. no change is  Target is 6,000m, achievement by 2nd tranche of disbursement was 3,257m and expected another required in original target. 823m to be disbursed by 3rd tranche, totaling 4080m  DOR will meet original target of 6,000m in Program period Annex P-8 S.N. Topic Issues and Discussions Conclusions / Recommendations DLI-4  Keep DLI-4 either in reduced  No disbursement has been made against this DLI till date. form or exploring other options  Difficult to meet the target, however all agreed, the DLI-4 is relevant to DOR to improve existing as discussed contract management practices  Recent data provided by BB on contract completion period of each disbursed contracts under 1 st and 2nd tranches of disbursements indicates nearly 35% of contracts have been completed in original contract completion period (however data needs a further investigation and improve in data quality)  Possible options for this DLI, could be inclusion of objective method of determining Contract Completion period, which DOR has recently developed officially circulated instruction for its application in all the DOR roads and bridge contracts. DLI-5  No change required in DLI-5  Targets of period-1 and 2 have been met and already disbursed.  Agreed to conduct re-  Conducting a re-orientation on BMS operation might be required because there are additional nine orientation on BMS divisions and three bridge projects. Best possible period could be in the new FY. It is justified in context of changes made in BMS condition rating using Dr. Raina’s suggestion. DLI-6  No change required in DLI-6  Targets of period -1 and 2 have been met and already disbursed. other than improving its  GRM portal in DOR webpage is poorly presented and it is in English. The best would be to present presentation on portal with in Nepali also with clear text to public lodgers default in Nepali also  Hosting of GRM system should be through DOR server, not by server of software consultants  Extending public awareness  Extending public awareness program including outreach strategy in DOR regions and divisions is program such as outreach necessary strategy in regions and divisions 2 Action Plan Technical Actions BMS  No change required except it is  Update of BMS and conduct re-orientation to divisions and regions to be hosted in a DOR server  Currently new bridge condition assessment system has been introduced with Dr. Riana’s support  BB is to publish EOI for for condition assessment of nearly 400 post earthquake bridges with the support of RSDP, which procurement of consulting could be possible option for DOR to up-grade its current system of Bridge Management. services for update of BMS. Annex P-9 S.N. Topic Issues and Discussions Conclusions / Recommendations Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)  Agreed to conduct  BB has circulated template of QAP to all divisions and projects as suggested QAP template brainstorming session on  The Contractors are responsible for QAP quality Dr. Raina clarified that: QAP has two separate sections. One is QA (quality assurance), which is  Issue to be raised in mid-term responsibility of the Contractors under verification of Employer and next one is QC (quality review control) i.e. controlled is maintained by the Contractors still through Employer’s verification. Therefore in both cases Employer is responsible for verification and quality is maintained by the Contractors Project Management Team (PMT)  Proposed to increase contract  Not achieved formation of PMT at divisions and projects value over NRs.25million for  Needs to increase threshold of formation of Project Management Team from NRs 10million to NRs formation of PMT 25million  Issue to be suggested in mid- term review 5% of total civil works  To be discussed with FM team  Initial data provided to the Bank derived from budget head 320 (SRN) +159 (LRN+SRN) that was  Issue to be raised in mid-term mistake, in actual, the SRN Program at the BB is underfunded to use 5% of civil works review  BB had difficulty to use 5% from budget allocated to Bridge Projects Annual Training Plan  Annual training plans are  Not prepared till date, BB tried to procure consulting services of Nepal Administrative Collage, required to be prepared. however due to procurement problem it could not be procured.  Alternate funding source to be  Dr. Raina is suggested to provide some form of training plans explored (e.g. RSDP) Fiduciary Actions Creation of separate budget head for SRN by MoF  Issue to be raised in mid –term  Separation was clear in FY 2013/14 whereas it failed do that in FY 2014/15 review  MoF allocated budget for SRN new construction and maintenance in a single budget head 337320, similarly, it allocated budget for design and feasibility study of roads and bridges of LRN and SRN in a single budget head 337159.  Financial reporting has been difficult for BB due to combined budget for new construction and maintenance of SRN from budget head 337320 and similarly reporting of budget head 337159 is also difficult due to LRN and SRN in single budget head Annex P-10 S.N. Topic Issues and Discussions Conclusions / Recommendations  Divisions and projects are also confused to have budget allocation for maintenance and new construction from the same budget head 320, giving temptation to expend more in new construction than in maintenance works. Annual Investment Plan  Continue  Prepared annual investment plan based on BMS and disclosed in DOR webpage. Procurement Unit Chief  Maintain status record  Appointment of procurement unit chief is achieved in each of the procuring entities but status record is not maintained Audit Committee  Continue  Achieved as per requirements  Continue  Maintain audit observations record on yearly basis to track settlement on each year Environmental and Social Revised ESMF  No further action required  Revision of ESMF achieved and disseminated via hard copy and DOR web page DOR provides power and adequate resources to GESU  Agreed to conduct a  DG has given adequate power to implement revised ESMF to GESU and resources including brainstorming session in DOR dedicated budget from BB by GESU next month  GESU is still struggling to implement ESMF effectively. Practice of prior review of condition of contract including BOQ before tendering by GESU has to be formalized by establishing an official system of forwarding condition of contract and BOQ to GESU  Application of ESMF provisions in Design and Build contracts is still to be worked out  Suggested to conduct a brainstorming session to resolve all these issue by GESU GESU’s Business Plan  Give continuity  GESU has approved Business plan  Transport facility to be  Dedicated budget being provided by BB as per plan explored under RSDP by FCB  Individual consultants for social and environmental have been hired for GESU  There is an issue of transportation facility to the individual Consultants including for 6 social mobilize Consultants at field to be resolved Cross-cutting Actions GRM  Continue  Discussed in DLI-6 Bridge operational toolkits:  Give continuity Annex P-11 S.N. Topic Issues and Discussions Conclusions / Recommendations  Bridge operational toolkits have been prepared and soft copy is made available in DVD and presented in DOR webpage. Toolkit should also include administrative procedures and internal control guidelines.  Update is required to incorporate recent changes in Public Procurement Acts 3 Budget  Much of this has been discussed in Action Plan Fiduciary item (i)  Issue needs to be raised in the Allocation mid-term review 4 Quality  Revisit recently approved DOR Quality Management Policy and carry out a review of its degree of  Agreed to conduct applicability for major and minor maintenance. brainstorming session on  For small works under maintenance, it would be applicable to follow quality control as specified in quality in July/August, 2015 specification  However DOR needs to conduct wider discussion similar to this brainstorming session for policy revisit and develop strategy for its application on new construction and maintenance  Explore role of NVC for improvement in quality of works 5 BMS  BMS has been discussed in DLI-5 6 GRM  GRM has been discussed in DLI-6 7 Institutional  Currently there are 6 Construction Supervision Support Engineers in regions similarly there are 6  Issue needs to be resolved by Framework and Social Mobilizer Consultants (SMCs) in regions. They are monitored by regional directors. An BB Outsourcing effective monitoring and support system yet to be developed and implemented for enhancing the SMC’s performance on implementing and monitoring the safeguards activities.  GESU have to involve the central based safeguards experts or externally hired senior safeguard consultants for field verification of the bridges whose dossiers have been prepared by field based SMC and submitted for reimbursement  Social mobilize Consultants are doing well. Their control and command need to be under GESU  Performance of some of the CSSEs and Structure Engineer is not satisfactory. Annex P-12 ANNEX F: ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action description Deadline Responsible party Completion Achieved? Updated Status Issues require to be Measurement (Y/N) addressed during the Mid-term Review i. BMS, the basis for On-going Bridge Personnel  Development of  Updating of BMS planning, prioritization Project/Regional trained in use interface software to link  Updating of BMS- and M&E, to be Directorate/Divisional of BMS, BMS with ARMP is in based 5-year bridge continuously maintained Office conditions progress with nearly to bridge investment and used for prioritization surveys 80% complete plan of the program. updated and  Advance methods of  Re-orientation on annual BMS data storing and BMS prioritized condition rating have  Installation of in- programs been developed and it is house server for available. Y in trial-run to store BMS hosting bridge condition data of  Strengthening BMS nearly 400 post operation unit with earthquake bridges, of training and which, data collection of resources 330 bridges is now complete.  Currently data processing is also in progress ii. DOR implements a On-going Bridge Project/DOR Continued Y  Recently BB has  Training on Quality Assurance Plan. compliance circulated QAP template preparation of QAP All materials testing to be will be to all divisions/ projects and how to address undertaken according to monitored by suggesting its use by the specification specifications as technical audit contractors  Strengthening described in the Quality consultants.  According to the third- divisions/ project Assurance Plan and in partly verification team materials laboratory the contract between and CSSEs, application in terms of (a) DOR and the contractor. of QAP is found to be equipment improving in the availability, (b) divisions/projects technical staff, (c)  Application of QAP and documentation materials testing as per templates and specification described standards in QAP is yet to be fully  DOR Quality addressed Management Policy not yet implemented, although approved. Annex P-13 Action description Deadline Responsible party Completion Achieved? Updated Status Issues require to be Measurement (Y/N) addressed during the Mid-term Review  No departmental action to to panelize low quality works  No departmental mechanism to ensure that officials are made accountable with regard to quality  Regional laboratories are yet to be established as suggested in DOR Quality Management Policy-2012/13  DOR lacks adequate supervision capacity  Monitoring and Reporting mechanism is inadeqate iii. DOR will assign project October 31, DOR Continued N  Formation of PMT has  Formation of PMT management team for 2012 and compliance not yet been urgently required; each contract that has ongoing will be materialized in divisions  It may be necessary value over US$125,000 monitored by and projects to increase the equivalent (roughly technical audit  Project Support threshold: may be NPR10 million). The consultants. Consultants (particularly double the project management team CSSEs and SMCs) are mentioned amount will comprise technical, not functioning as social and environmental expected personnel. A team can manage multiple contracts depending on operational requirements. iv. through MOF, during the October 31, MoPPWTM/MoF Increased Y  In FY 2014/15 an  Continuation of a implementation of the 2012 and budgetary mount over 5% (5.4%) minimum allocation Program, allocate at least July 31 in allocation of the capital budget has of 5% is required for five percent (5%) of its subsequent been allocated. the Program to total civil works budget years achieve its under the Program in objectives. each said Fiscal Year, for Annex P-14 Action description Deadline Responsible party Completion Achieved? Updated Status Issues require to be Measurement (Y/N) addressed during the Mid-term Review feasibility studies, design, supervision, quality control, management of environmental and social impacts, and other required inputs for the maintenance and construction of bridges under the Program. v. DOR prepares annual October 31, DOR/Bridge Project Training Plan N  No tangible activity  DOR needs to training plans for all SRN 2012 and prepared and noticed in developing develop and bridge related functions annually training annual training plans for implement a training and implements these thereafter implemented. all SRN bridges to plan as required by plans throughout the Activities conduct training the Action Plan. Program implementation supported by throughout the Program period. capacity implementation period building consultants i. Creation of separate Effectiveness MoF Separate Y  In current FY 2015/14  Field level budget heads for SRN condition budget lines for MoF allocated budget expenditure data bridges which will SRN and LRN for SRN separately; keeping and provide the budget bridges appear however it combined reporting on budget allocation for in annual new construction and head 337320 is expenditures under the budget issued maintenance in one major issue currently SRN Bridge Program. by MoF. budget head 337320 in BB due to mix-up of new construction 28. But on the case of and maintenance in budget head 337159 for one budget head, feasibility study and because of that :- design, MoF provide in It is noticed that some single budget head for SRN divisions sometimes and LRN carry out expenditure of new construction from budget allocated to maintenance such as paying construction of culvert from budget allocated for minor maintenance. Annex P-15 Action description Deadline Responsible party Completion Achieved? Updated Status Issues require to be Measurement (Y/N) addressed during the Mid-term Review  Budget head 337159 is for LRN and SRN feasibility study and design. There is also difficulty in keeping expenditure data separately for LRN and SRN. ii. Annual preparation and October 31, Bridge Project Annual Y  3 year bridge to bridge  Revised bridge to public disclosure of 2012 and investment investment plan is bridge investment prioritized investment annually plan prepared published on DOR plan needs to be and maintenance plans and disclosed website; developed and based on BMS and in DOR  BMS is available or disclosed after a limited by identified website DOR website BMS update. budget envelop.  BB has strictly followed the priority in selection of bridges for FY 2014/15 iii. Appoint and maintain a October 31, DOR A memo from Y  All divisions, projects,  Record of such procurement unit chief in 2012 and DOR with the and BB have appointed appointment of PUC each of the procuring revise the list list of procurement unit chief needs to be entities with clear job as procurement (PUC) maintained including descriptions and provide appropriate unit chiefs and  DOR conducts training training activities them with at least one- a confirmation on procurement conducted week training on from DOR that periodically in each year procurement (if they are training has  Maintaining record is not already trained). been provided not in practice, however DDG Planning and Design has circulated instructions to all concerned for maintaining record of such appointment of PUC iv. through DOR, (i) October 31, DOR The committee  DOR has an audit  DOR needs to establish an audit 2012 will have met committee to address continue addressing committee meeting the following outstanding audit audit observations as requirements of the receipt of the observation per this requirement Recipient’s Office of the preliminary  Nearly all offices submit Auditor General, to report and their preliminary Annex P-16 Action description Deadline Responsible party Completion Achieved? Updated Status Issues require to be Measurement (Y/N) addressed during the Mid-term Review address outstanding audit responded response on outstanding observations from Fiscal within 35 days. audit observation within Year 2009/2010 and 35 days those in subsequent  The Program Action years, if any, resulting Plan requires DoR to from DOR’s own address audit operations; and (ii) observations from FY ensure that all said 09/10 and all subsequent outstanding audit years. DOR has formed observations from Fiscal an audit committee to Year 2009/2010 are settle audit observations addressed according to a with OAG. The audit time-bound action plan observations are acceptable to the maintained on Association and cumulative basis since Recipient’s Office of the FY 2002/03. The Auditor General. cumulative audit observations till FY 2012/13 are NPR 9.05 billion. The amount of audit observations settled till April 13, 2015 is about NPR 2.21 billion (24.50% of the total cumulative up to FY 2012/13). i. through DOR, review October 31, DOR/GESU Revised ESMF Y  DoR ESMF was  Hard copy needs to and revise DOR’s current 2012 disseminated amended incorporating be published environmental and social via web and roads and bridges on incorporating all management rules and hardcopy (March 18, 2013). amendments in a procedures to incorporate  DG, DOR has made single booklet rather bridge specific circulation of a notice than separate environmental and social stating that EMSF is to amendment books impact mitigation be implemented in all measures, in form and DOR divisions and substance satisfactory to project in (Oct 10, 2012) the Association, and  ESMF was circulated in immediately thereafter DOR and published in implement said revised DOR webpage in June rules and procedures in a 2013. Hard copy was manner satisfactory to Annex P-17 Action description Deadline Responsible party Completion Achieved? Updated Status Issues require to be Measurement (Y/N) addressed during the Mid-term Review the Association also made available in throughout the Program GESU implementation.  Orientations on amended ESMF were conducted in BIMP orientations and ARMP workshop by GESU Chief ii. through DOR, provide October 31, DOR Memo from Y  DOR DG has delegated  Continue providing the Geo-Environmental 2012 DOR to authority/power to adequate resources to and Social Unit within formally assign GESU to implement GESU DOR with power and GESU to SRN ESMF in DOR in adequate resources, Bridge Oct.2013 acceptable to the Program  6-Social Mobilizer Association, to enable it Consultants (SMC) were to carry out the social engaged in field from and environmental February 2013 in management measures in regions to support BIMP accordance with the safeguard revised rules and implementation. procedures referred to in  Similarly one action (i) above Environmental Expert and one Social Safeguard Expert were engaged from September 17, 2014 to support safeguard implementation activities both at central and regional levels stationed at GESU.  GESU was provided with dedicated budget from BB based on approved Business Plan for FY 2014/15 iii. Preparation of a plan, and October 31, DOR GESU is Y  GESU prepared a three-  Continuity of budget subsequent 2012 and on- strengthened as year business plan allocation from BB implementation of that going per agreed plan (Nepali FY 2069-72) as per Business Plan Annex P-18 Action description Deadline Responsible party Completion Achieved? Updated Status Issues require to be Measurement (Y/N) addressed during the Mid-term Review plan, to strengthen GESU which is being both in terms of implemented. manpower and financial resources Cross-cutting Actions i. Grievance Redressal September, DOR GRM Y  DOR has developed and  No of grievances Mechanism (GRM) 30, 2013 and developed and implemented DOR lodged has been low. developed, made on-going made GRM system  Public awareness operational, and operational Nationwide since April program needs to be implemented in DOR for 16, 2014 carried out. managing all type of  Policy document was  DOR webpage needs complaints including approved by GON on to be more user- technical, fiduciary and Oct.7, 2012 and made friendly and social/environmental available in DOR interactive with issues webpage regard to lodging of  System Operational grievances. Manual, GRM Procedural Manual were published.  Orientations were carried out to all concerned including representatives of NVC and CIAA ii. Preparation of a Bridge December Bridge Project Toolkit Y  Bridge Operational  Update of Bridge Operations Toolkit (with 31, 2012 developed and Toolkit has been Toolkit is required to support from the published developed and approved incorporate recent Association) that will by BB and made changes in PPA - summarize various available in DOR 2014/15 bridge planning, webpage for application construction,  Orientation on Bridge maintenance and Toolkit is being carried management procedures. out in DOR during The toolkit will be ARMP workshop. developed based on the  DVD copy made existing procedures that available to BB for exists in different DOR wider application at manuals, guidelines etc. divisions and projects Annex P-19 ANNEX G: STATUS OF AGREED ACTIONS FROM LAST REVIEW [NOVEMBER, 2014] Next Step Responsibility Deadline Status Project Development Indicator  Complete the baseline studies  WB End-Mar., 2015  Baseline data collection, analysis and reporting completed. Final verification on-going Action Plan implementation Under technical action (i)  BB updates BMS and procures medium-term contract for  BB  By Sept. 30, 2015  Linked to DLI-5; BMS software maintenance  Condition of nearly 25% of existing bridges (400 bridges) in BMS data-base has been updated. In addition there is a plan to update another 200 bridges (12%) by Dec. 2015;  BMS software has been updated with improved version of condition assessment templates using tablet based data entry;  BMS has been linked with ARMP and practiced in recent ARMP workshops; and  A BMS unit has been created within BB with two supporting staff including one IT personnel for minor software maintenance.  BB prepares annual training plans for SRN bridge related  BB/Bridge Technical  By May 31, 2015  Linked to DLI-5; and functions incorporating basic trainings in BMS, CMS, Expert  Not achieved, BB could not prepare GRM, Mobile Monitoring, Outreach Strategy, QAP/quality Annual Training Plans. control, new bridge technology in designs and construction etc. Under technical action (ii) Annex P-20 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Status  Quality Assurance Plan implemented by DOR  DOR/BB  Confirmed  Implementation of QAP is getting some application of QAP in traction, BB has developed QAP divisions and projects template and circulated to all divisions by the end of each and projects for its application through month through CSSE the contracts;  CSSEs are reporting status of application of QAP in their monthly report; and  BB also reports information on quality assurance in its Quarterly Progress Reports. Under fiduciary action (i)  Public disclosure of 3year bridge-by bridge investment  Planning Branch/BB  By January 31, 2015  Achieved , DOR has published 3 year plans based on BMS including approved annual program  Thereafter to be bridge to bridge investment plan based presented on DOR on BMS including approved annual website as and when program updated Under fiduciary action (ii)  DOR planning branch to maintain register of procurement  Planning and Design  By Dec. 31 2014  Partially achieved, procurement chiefs unit chiefs and to include this within trimester reports Branch  Thereafter to be areappointed but updated register is not updated as and when maintained and status is not reported in required the Quarterly Progress Reports Under fiduciary action (iii)  All outstanding audit observations from 2009/10 to be  DOR Audit Committee  > 50% by end of FY  The cumulative audit observations of FY addressed 2014/15 2002/03 to FY2012/13 are NPR 9.05 billion. The amount of audit observations settled till April 13, 2015 is about NPR 2.21 billion (24.50% of the total cumulative up to FY 2012/13) Under social and environmental action (i)  Completed safeguard screening of 56 urgent major  BB/GESU  By Apr. 30, 2015  Safeguard screening of 28UMM bridges maintenance (UMM) bridges and review Condition of completed ; Contract documents  Remaining 28 UMM bridges will be screened by August 2015; and  Condition of contracted reviewed to ensure safeguard provisions through provisional sum. Annex P-21 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Status  Inclusion of safeguard measures in non-urgent major  By May 31, 2015  Safeguard screening of 45 non-urgent maintenance of 60 bridges whose EOI has been recently major maintenance of bridges completed published  Carry out IEE or screening of all new crossings from FY  On-going till Jun. 30,  Safeguard screening of 34 new crossings 2012/13/14/15 and review Condition of Contracts 2015 completed out of total 72 bridges (of which 13 bridges require IEE. Out of which 5 bridges are design and built contract option);  EOI for 8 bridges requiring IEE has been processed by GESU on May 12, 2015; and  Terms of Reference (ToR) for 3 design and build bridges has been approved and remaining ToRs for 2 design and build bridges are under preparation process.  GESU to endorse the Social and Environment section of  On-going  GESU has endorsed social and dossiers before submission to the NPC environmental section of 47 dossiers before submission to NPC  Developed site visit plan for GESU’s team in each contract  BB/GESU  Develop GESU’s Site  BIMP Social / Environmental experts particularly at the time of (a) start of project (b) before Visit Plan by Dec. developed site visit plan however could issuing Certificate of Substantial Completion, (c) before 31, 2014 not be implemented in absence of issuing Defect Liability Certificate including final payment.  Continue thereafter transport facility Implemented above plan and report included in (1) Quarterly Progress Report and (2) issues arise during visits to be well discussed in Coordination meeting  BB conducts formal meeting at least once in a month with  BB/GESU  BB and GESU meets  Since November 2014 a total of 10 GESU for better coordination every month and the formal coordination meetings and decisions are minuted several informal discussions have been held between BB and GESU  Carry out test run of templates developed for safeguard  GESU/BB  By Dec. 31, 2014  Achieved, test runs were carried out and screening for those bridges not requiring IEE screening templates being further improved Annex P-22 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Status  Prepare Environmental and Social Screening Report;  GESU/BB/Consultants  Process to be  Screening and rapid assessment of 208 Environmental and Social Assessment, Environmental commenced and bridges (major maintenance, new Management Plan, Social Action Plan for each sub-project continued crossing and back log) have been carried out and their reports prepared  Review of design and contract/bidding documents from  GESU/BB  Process to be  Contract documents (those which have social and environmental perspectives commenced and been given to GESU only) have been continued reviewed and suggested to ensure safeguard concerns in the contact documents including in BoQ however, formal practice is still to be achieved  Provide concurrence to the documents prior to tendering to  GESU/BB  Process to be  Process has not yet been practiced or ensure that social and environmental issues are addressed commenced and formalized in DOR continued  Conduct monitoring, implementation of mitigation  GESU/BB  Process to be  Social mobilizers are monitoring to measures and reporting social and environmental status in commenced and possible extent at the field depending each trimester report continued upon interest of divisions and projects to involve them in absence for formal Project Management Team; and  Findings of such monitoring are presented monthly by SMs from the regions and included in Quarterly Progress Report by the experts at GESU.  Provide no objection while issuing defect liability  GESU/BB  Process to be  Process has not yet been practiced or certificate to confirm that no remaining issues linked to commenced and formalized in DOR social and environment continued Under social and environmental action (ii) Cross cutting action (i)  Respond to complaints received and reports actions taken  DOR/ Divisions  On-going  Linked to DLI-6; and in Quarterly Progress Report  Achieved, such reports are included in Quarterly Progress Report Cross cutting action (ii)  DOR Bridge Operation Toolkit made available on DOR  BB  By Dec. 31, 2014  Linked to DLI-4; website  DOR Bridge Operation Toolkit has been developed and made available in DOR webpage; and  DVD copies are made available. Annex P-23 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Status  BB uses an objective method in deriving total project  BB  As and when  Linked to DLI-4; completion time in the case of all up-coming contracts, required  DOR has developed method of the including maintenance and new construction estimation of project duration for roads and bridges. DG has circulated departmental directives for its implementation; and  BB is yet to introduce the method in the estimation of contract duration Disbursement Linked Indicators  Finalize the design of 56 UMM bridges  BB  By May 31, 2015  Linked to DLI-2;  Partially achieved; and  22 UMM bridge designs are still to be finalized. This is delayed due to resolving of the procurement process.   Finalize the procurement of consultants for designs  BB  By FY 2014/15 end  Partially achieved; services of 60 major maintenance bridges  Designs of 44 bridges (out of 60 ) have been submitted in draft by the consultants; and  Review of designs is in process to finalize designs before end of FY.  Submit dossiers of the already completed minor  DROs, BB  Dossier submission  Not achieved; maintenance bridges to NPC to NPC by Jun. 30,  Linked to DLI-2; 2015  Around 142 bridges are currently recorded under DLI-2 maintenance; and  Expected to be submitted in the next tranche of disbursement.  Complete agreements of 34 new crossings (FY 2014/15)  BB  By Jun. 30, 2015  Linked to DLI-3; and with contractors including bridges selected under the  Achieved ( which 5 bridges are under design/built contract option D&B contract options, whereas remaining are under DBB contract options) Note: next steps for DLIs 4, 5, and 6 included within action plan items Others Annex P-24 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Status  Engage a Procurement and Contract Management Expert  BB  By Jan 31, 2015  Achieved; and and a Geotechnical Engineer  DOR has engaged one Procurement and Contract Expert.DOR has decided not to engage Geo-technical Engineer for time being.  Submit dossiers for DLI verification to NPC for tranche 2  BB  By Jan 15, 2015  Achieved. Second tranche submitted and disbursed; Annex P-25 ANNEX H: UPDATE ON PROGRAM DLIS DLI Period 3 targets Status Comments DLIs related to the achievement of PDO Indicator 1&2 DLI-1: Completion of 6,225  the stock is not Envisaged accomplishments major maintenance of enough to achieve a bridges on SRN  1,444m of bridges verified and target of 17,125m; (cumulative metres) disbursed (under 1st and 2nd and tranches)  Target reduction is  2,562m bridges completed and needed. awaiting verification  203m under repair  1,526m design completed  Consultancy services for design of 5,847m need to be procured DLI-2: Completion of 1,400 Envisaged accomplishments  Completed DLI-2 minor maintenance of  3,275m bridges completed and works need to be bridges on SRN awaiting verification verified and (cumulative metres)  More target could be achieved confirmed;  DLI-2 target will be easily achievable; and  Target may be enhanced. DLI-3: New bridges built 3,800 Envisaged accomplishments  DLI-3 target will be or improved on SRN  3,257m (35 bridges) verified and easily achieved (cumulative metres) disbursed (1st and 2nd tranches)  568m (8 bridges) completed and awaiting verification  4763m (52 bridges) under construction DLIs related to PDO Indicator 3 DLI-4: Strengthened 20  It appears that 26% achieved  Noticeable performance management progress; in bridge sector (percent  Standard works complete on Procedures for schedule) estimating project completion period developed; and  This DLI may need some re- adjustments DLI-5: Improved Bridge BMS fully operational  See action plan update  BMS installed in 25 Asset Management in 30 divisional/ divisions; regional offices  Orientation on BIMP completed in all 5 regions;  DOR has created 9 new divisions totaling 34 divisions; and  Orientation on BIMP is planned to be conducted again after end of this FY. Annex P-26 DLI Period 3 targets Status Comments DLI-6: Increased GRM implemented in  See action plan update  GRM is well in effectiveness of the DOR and report operation in the institutions responsible disclosed detailing Central level at for bridge sector status of complaints and Kathmandu, current management actions on fraud and effort being made corruption and those for spreading the related to social and system at the field environmental issues level Annex P-27 ANNEX I: AGREED NEXT STEPS Next Step Responsibility Deadline Comments Project Development Indicator  Complete the baseline studies  WB End-July, 2015  Baseline data collection, analysis and reporting completed Action Plan implementation Under technical action (i)  BB updates BMS and host the BMS in an  BB  By July 31, 2015  Linked to in-house server DLI-5  BB prepares annual training plans for SRN  BB/Bridge Technical  By Dec. 31, 2015  Linked to bridge related functions incorporating basic Expert/RSDP support DLI-5 trainings in BMS, CMS, FMS, GRM, Mobile Monitoring, Outreach Strategy, QAP/quality control, new bridge technology in designs and construction etc. Under technical action (ii)  Quality Assurance Plan implemented by  DOR/BB  Application of  DOR. BB develops simplified templates for QAP monitored maintaining Quality Assurance by the by the regional Contractor (under verification of the directors and Client’s representatives). Similarly BB status maintained develops templates for Quality Control to be by respective maintained by the Contractor as per CSSE. Specification Standard (under verification  BB reports status of the Client representative). BB of each region in coordinates with Central Materials Quarterly Laboratory and maintain essence of DOR Progress Report Quality Management Policy while preparation of such templates Under fiduciary action (i)  Public disclosure of (1)updated BMS dat  BB  1st by March  base including (2) new bridges taken in 2016 approved Annual Program since FY  2nd by Sept. 15, 2012/13 to FY 2014/15 and proposed new 2015 bridges for FY 2015/16 in DOR webpage Under fiduciary action (ii)  DOR planning branch to maintain register  Planning and Design  By Dec. 31 2015  of procurement unit chiefs and to include Branch  Thereafter to be this within trimester reports updated as and when required Under fiduciary action (iii)  All outstanding audit observations from  DOR Audit Committee  By end of each  2009/10 to be addressed FY, and maintained monthly status Under social and environmental action (i) Annex P-28 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Comments  Complete safeguard screening of 28  BB/GESU  By Aug. 31, remaining urgent major maintenance 2015 (UMM) bridges with screening report and review Condition of Contract documents  Screening of design undergoing remaining  By Aug 31, 15urgent maintenance bridge (out of total 2015 60 bridges) and prepare screening report  Inclusion of safeguard measures in non-  By August end urgent major maintenance of for 6 under remaining 15 bridges (out of total 60 construction bridges) for which design is undergoing bridge  Carry out screening of all remaining (6  By Aug. under construction and 34 EOI called) new 31,2015 crossings from FY 2013/14, 14/15 and review Condition of Contracts.  Rapid assessment of remaining 13 backlog  BB/GESU  By Aug. 31, bridges 2015  Identification of safeguard requirement to  BB/GESU  By Sept. 30, be considered in all screening completed 2015 bridges  BB to involved GESU for screening work  GESU/BB  By Dec. 31, 2015 of 120 major maintenance bridge for which shortly DOR is going to publish EOI  Contract awarded for carrying out IEE of 8  GESU/BB/Consultants  By Aug. 31, new crossings for which EOI has already 2015 been published on 12, May 2015   BB/GESU to ensure transportation services  GESU/BB  At earliest of the to central based safeguard expert and field first quarter of based SMC for monitoring and verification New Fiscal Year activities Annex P-29 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Comments  DOR/BB to establish an official system of  GESU/BB  By Sept. 30, forwarding design documents and BOQ 2015 and other relevant documents to GESU as a practice to institutionalize the coordination and cooperation between these two units as well as to formalize and sustain the systems of : (a) Regular official meeting between and GESU and BB, (b) Review of design and contract/bidding documents from social and environmental perspectives, (c) Ensuring GESU’s involvement during construction, (d) Ascertain GESU endorsement in the Social and Environment section of dossiers before submission to the NPC, (e) Field verification of submitted dossiers.  Develop option of specific BOQ and  GESU/BB  By Sept. 30, contract document for Design and Built 2015 Bridges  BB/GESU to plan (i) capacity building  GESU/BB  By Sept. 30, trainings at regional / divisional level, and 2015 (ii)Mobilize central based safeguard experts on imparting ESMF training at regional/divisional offices as needed also to institutionalize SMC’s role at regional/divisional offices Under social and environmental action (ii) Cross cutting action (i)  Respond to complaints received through  DOR/ Divisions  On-going  Linked to GRM and reports actions taken in Quarterly DLI-6 Progress Report Cross cutting action (ii)  Updated DOR Bridge Operation Toolkit  BB  By Dec. 31,  Linked to made available on DOR website 2015 DLI-4  BB/Divisions/Bridge Projects uses an  BB  As and when  Linked to objective method in calculating project required from DLI-4 duration in the case of all up-coming FY 2015/16 contracts, including maintenance and new construction Disbursement Linked Indicators Annex P-30 Next Step Responsibility Deadline Comments  Finalize draft designs submitted by the  BB  By Aug. 31,  Consultants under EOI called for 60 bridges 2015 in Nov. 2014  Procure contracts for civil works of bridge  BB  By Sept. 30,  major maintenance of at least 60 bridges 2015 whose designs have been approved  Publish EOI for another major maintenance  BB  By July 31, 2015  works of 120 bridges  Conduct field survey of maintenance works  BB/CSSE  By Aug. 31,  completed under DLI-2 in each division 2015 and bridge project which have received share of NRs. 380mil budget in FY 2014/15 Note: next steps for DLIs 4, 5, and 6 included within action plan items Others  Assess current performance of CSSEs and  BB/DOR/RD/MB  By Dec. 31, 2015  SMCs and establish Project Management Team for bridge value more than above NRs. 25mil in divisions and bridge project  Submit dossiers for DLI verification to  BB  By Aug. 31,  NPC for 3rd tranche 2015 Annex P-31 ANNEX J: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS The Team assessed5, against the requirements of OP/BP 9.00 (Program-for-Results Financing), the degree to which the Government of Nepal’s Department of Roads’ environmental and social management system, as applicable to the program, manage and mitigate the environmental and social impacts of the overall BIMP. The ESSA concluded that the overall environmental and social system of the DOR are considered acceptable for use in BIMP under the PforR operation, given the low-to-moderate levels of environmental and social risks associated with the SRN Bridges eligible for funding under the Program. Activities that pose a risk of potentially significant and irreversible adverse impacts on the environment and/or affected people (activities classified as Category A under IL) have been excluded from Program-for-Results operations. The ESSA proposed exclusion of the bridges from the PforR supported BIMP in the following conditions: (i) Bridges that require significantly altering or impacting the hydrology or hydro-geological impacts in the river; (ii) New bridges that will require new road alignment or long approach road for connectivity; (iii) Any new bridge construction that may cause potentially significant and adverse environment or social impacts; and (iv) Any new bridge construction inside protected areas or reserved forests. The ESSA makes a number of important recommendations for addressing institutional capacity constraints and gaps across a range of environmental and social management system constraints. These recommendations include: (i) Updating the DOR ESMF to include DOR Bridge Program; (ii) Strengthening environment and social impact management within DOR, and (iii) Strengthening GESU. Following paragraphs summarizes the progress made until the MTR with respect to the recommendations and action plan as well as experiences of environmental and social management in the BIMP so far. Updating the DOR ESMF to include DOR Bridge Program Recommended/agreed improvements6 Progress so far and current status DOR ESMF be updated and strengthened in line with DoR formally amended ESMF on 2069/12/5 (March 18, OP 9.00 and be expanded to include bridge-specific 2013), to incorporate and implement safeguard activities risks. in bridge projects. And then circulated the amended The updating of the ESMF will include a technical version of ESMF through official letter to all DoR offices review, revision, and formal endorsement within at different level (branch, division, section, units and Department of Roads. The revised/ updated ESMF will project office etc.) on June 13, 2013 and also uploaded on be issued for DOR operations with a decision circular. DoR website. Strengthen the Geo-Environmental and Social Unit Recommended/agreed improvements Progress so far and current status GESU will be strengthened in terms of staffing, financial Staffing: The DoR/BB hired 6 Social Mobilizer resources, its internal operating arrangements and Consultants (SMC) from February 2013 in six BIMP coordination with other technical units and ministries regions and 2 central level Safeguard Experts (one (an operational plan to strengthen GESU will be environmental and one social) from September 17, 2014. developed). This plan will include: (i) Staffing arrangements, including outsourcing, and a schedule of Budgeting: DoR/BB has been allocating budget for GESU their recruitments; (ii) Annual financial allocation to implement safeguard activities. For the current Fiscal forecast and allocation for the next three years; (iii) Geo- Year (FY) DoR, Bridge Branch (BB) has allocated about Environmental and Social Unit operation plan for the SRN Bridge Program describing its responsibilities, NPR Ten Millions to implement safeguard activities. staffing (number, specialization and qualification), staff assignment, operating methodologies, procedures, tools, 5 Nepal Bridge Development Program: Environment and Social System Assessment (ESSA), May 2012 6 ESSA (page 39 -41) and Project Appraisal Document (page 63-64) Annex P-32 monitoring modalities and coordination arrangements Coordination: The DoR/ GESU in collaboration with with other units and divisions. Bridge Branch (BB) also planning to prepare annual program and budget for the next fiscal year 2072/73 (2015/16). Coordination Bridge Branch and GESU being improved through regular meeting and several unofficial consultations between these two units and branch of DoR since November 2014. With a view to sustaining and further strengthening mutual coordination BB and GESU also working to develop and establish a system of forwarding BOQ and contract documents from BB to GESU (see agreed next step d). GESU also started to gain achievements with regard to safeguard implementation in terms of: (i) screening of bridges, (ii) determining IEE requiring bridges, (iii) receiving monthly monitoring and implementation report from the field, (iv) monthly meeting and coordination with BB etc. However, application of ESMF by Divisions and Projects is still a challenge. Social Mobilizer Consultants (SMC) in the region yet to be institutionalized by Divisional / Regional Offices and they are yet to be involved in safeguard activities (e.g. assessing safeguard scope in the bridges to proposed by the Regional/Divisional offices, complying and ensuring safeguard in the ongoing bridge projects etc). To address this issue, BB/GESU in the coming FY program plans to include; (i) capacity building trainings at regional/divisional level, and (ii) Mobilizing central based safeguard experts on imparting ESMF training at regional/divisional offices. Despite allocation of dedicated budget, GESU still has difficulty in providing transportation facilities for the centrally based Safeguard Expert and regionally based SMC even for conducting agreed field works. As a result the BIMP safeguard team could not complete the screening works of bridges on Western and Mid-Western region. BB and GESU working together for permanent resolution of this problem. Bridge Category under BIMP The following categories of bridges are included in the BIMP: Minor Maintenance: “Damages detected are very minor and do not require any design input to carry out the treatment or rectify the defects” are the minor maintenance bridges. DoR/Division Offices are responsible for minor maintenance of such bridges and safeguard clearance not require for them. Annex P-33 Major Maintenance: Major maintenance bridge have, “Numerous defects of structural and hydraulic significance which may soon prevent the bridge in its proper functioning and detailed investigation may be required to design the maintenance work (e.g. non-destructive testing).” New Bridges: The bridges constructions of which started after the effectiveness of BIMP are new bridges. The new bridges are of two sub categories: (i) Design and Built (The bridge to be design as well as constructed by the contractor is design and built) and (ii) Design, Bid and Build (DoR/BB designs the bridge and construction work executed by the contractor through bidding process). Backlog Bridges: The bridges constructions of which started prior to the effectiveness of BIMP are backlog. The backlog bridges are also of two sub categories; (i) Design and Built, and (ii) Design, Bid and Build. Table 1 below summarize the types of bridges/activities included in BIMP: 149 major maintenance works, 40 new bridges and 73 backlog bridges have been included in the BIMP as of May 2015. DoR/BB is considering design of additional 34 new bridges in FY 2014/15. Screening/Rapid Assessments Status of Bridges DoR/GESU completed the screening of 208 bridges which include, 114 major maintenance 34 new and 60 backlog bridges. The detail is given in Table 1. Table 1 Bridge Type Number of bridges Screening Remaining included in BIMP Completed as of May 31st 2015 Major Maintenance Bridges Bridge of which major maintenance work is 61 48 13 ongoing Bridges of which design for major 28 21 7 maintenance has been completed Bridge of which design for major maintenance 60 45 15 is ongoing Total of Major Maintenance Bridges 149 114 35 New Bridges* Design and Built 10 9 2 Design, bid and build 30 25 4 Total of New Bridges 40 34 6 Backlog Bridges Design and Built 8 6 2 Design, bid and build 65 54 11 Total of Backlog Bridges 73 60 13 All Total 262 208 54 * DoR/BB has been designing another 34 new bridges taken for the FY 2014/15. Screening of these 34 under designing bridges will be carried out immediately after design completion. Findings of Screening/Rapid Assessment Major Maintenance Safeguard screening of 114 major maintenance bridges have been completed from 149 bridges. Screening of the 35 remaining bridges will be completed by end of August 2015. Following are the general findings of the screening of the major maintenance works of the bridges: Annex P-34  Water supply pipe and telephone line passes alongside the bridges. Although there is no adverse impact at the time of screening, it has been recommended that care should be applied during operation and maintenance. This needs to be coordinated with respective water and telephone authority/ entity.  Stockpiling of construction material has been poor in some bridges, e.g. in Shivaganga bridge of Kailali. Recommendations has been made for improved management of the stockpiling of the construction material.  There has been inadequate warning signboard, and safety gears in most of the bridges.  Temporary land acquisition has been done for the diversion in some bridges, (e.g. Halhale bridge Dolkha). No adverse impact or issue has been reported.  There is need for clearing the river waterway (e.g. Shivaganga river bridge, Ratu river bridge etc)  In some bridges, there is need for cleaning up and restoring the site after construction including removal of construction materials, litters from camp site & camp facilities, diversion debris etc, The safeguard team made recommendations for improving and mitigating the above mentioned weakness. New Bridges Screening have been completed for 34 of the 40 new bridges, and screening of remaining 6 bridges will be completed by end of August 2015. Out of total 34 new bridges that were screened, 9 are Design and Built, and 25 are Design, Bid and Built categories. In addition, DoR/BB has also been designing additional 34 new bridges that are being considered for the FY 2014/15. Screening of these 34 under designing bridges will be carried out immediately after design completion. Out of the 34 new bridges of which screening was completed until May 2015, 13 number of new bridges require IEE, among them 5 are Design and Built and 8 are Design, Bid and Build bridges (Table 2). Table 2: List of IEE requiring bridge and progress SN Bridge ID Bridge Name Road Name Bridge District Length Span Progress on Type IEE study Central Region (Hetauda) 1 14-F052- Chhagariya Mirchaya –Katari Design Siraha 54 2 ToR under xxx & preparation Built 2 14-F052- Belsot Mirchaya –Katari Design Udayapur 94 3 ToR under 006 & preparation Built 3 F113 DawarKhola Dharan-Chatara- Design Udayapur 150 3 ToR Bridge Gaighat-Katari- & approved Sindhuli-Hetaunda Built 4 F057 JhajaNadi Gaur-Pipara- Design, Rautahat 72 3 EOI call for Bridge Santapur bid and IEE study build 5 F206 Lal Bakaiya Parsa-Bara- Design Rautahat 546.9 4 ToR Bridge Rautahat- & approved Gandaknahar Road Built 6 20-H006- RatoNadi Janakpur- Design, Mahottari 209 4 EOI call for xxx Bridge Ramgopalpur- bid and IEE study Samshee Road build 7 Dori Bridge Gaur-Pipara- Design, Rautahat 32.9 1 EOI call for Samanpur-Santpur- bid and IEE study Noonthar build Annex P-35 SN Bridge ID Bridge Name Road Name Bridge District Length Span Progress on Type IEE study 8 Bharauli Dharan-Chatara- Design, Udayapur 50.6 2 EOI call for Khola Gaighat-Katari- bid and IEE study Bridge Sindhuli-Hetaunda build 9 14-F057- Triyuga Dharan-Chatara- Design, Udayapur 76.2 EOI call for 009 Bridge Gaighat-Katari- bid and IEE study Sindhuli-Hetaunda build 10 25-F021- TadiKhola Gangate-Tadi- Design, Nuwakot 50.7 5 EOI call for 002 Bridge Labdu- bid and IEE study Samundratar- build Golfutar 11 F194 Dhungri Tamghas- Design, Arghakhn 35 1 EOI call for Khola Sandhikharka- bid and chi IEE study Bridge Pyuthan build 12 62-F047- Burunge Chhinchu-Jajarkot- Design, Jajarkot/D 85 3 EOI call for 019 Khola Dunai bid and olpa IEE study Bridge build 13 62-F047- Bheri Chhinchu - Jajarkot Design Jajarkot 130 ToR 024 Bridge- – Dunai & approved Rimna Built Source: Mid Term Review Report on Environmental and Social Safeguard, DoR, GESU, June 2015 General findings from screening of the new bridges are:  Among IEE requiring bridges (5 Design and Built, and 8 Design, Bid and Build bridges) are under construction stage but construction activities yet to be started in Dori and Jalanadi Bridges.  Personal occupational health and safety measures are found inadequate in most of the under construction bridges  No warning sign to traffic/pedestrian around the construction sites in most of the bridges  Road diversion material needs to be removed after completion of work (e.g. Geuriya Khola Jhapa)  Construction materials not properly stored (e.g. Khare khola bridge of Ramechhap)  Delay on acquiring permission for tree cutting  Reinstatement of quarry, borrow pit not done properly  River regime clarence  Land acquisition and reinstatement of community/private structure Backlog Bridge Safeguard status of the backlog bridges were assessed through rapid assessment. Among 98 total backlog bridges; 35 have already disbursed. Thus, the number of backlog bridges to go through rapid assessment is 73 bridges of which rapid assessment have been completed for 60 bridges (of this 60 backlog bridges, 15 bridges are Design & Built, and 45 are Design, Bid and Built Bridges. Rapid assessment of remaining 13 bridges will be completed by end of August 2015. Following are the findings from the rapid assessment of the backlog bridges:  Personal occupational health and safety measures are found inadequate in most of the bridges  No warning sign to traffic/pedestrian around the construction sites found in most of the bridges  Road diversion material needs to be removed after completion of work (e.g. Geuriya Khola bridge, Sunsari)  Construction materials not properly stored in most of the bridges  Delay on acquiring permission for tree cutting (e.g. Kamala River bridge, Sindhuli)  Reinstatement of quarry, borrow pit not done properly Annex P-36  River regime clearance (e.g. Kamala Khola bridge, Sindhuli, Farsait Bagaha Khola bridge, Udayapur, Baruwa Khola bridge, Udayapur, Thado Khola Bridge etc)  Land acquisition and reinstatement of community/private structure (e.g. Ratu khola bridge, Lal Bakaiya Khola bridge)  Relocation of temple (e.g.Jhanj Khola bridge, Rautahat) Implementation of Environmental and Social Mitigations Measures Major Maintenance For major maintenance bridge DoR/BB has not made separate safeguard provision on contract document however, safeguard provision for such bridges has been ensured by allocating budget under provisional sum. New Bridge A. Design Bid and Build Bridge: In the past, contract document of such bridge did not have resource/ budget allocation for social and environmental /safeguard mitigations measures. Any safeguard mitigations, if required, used to be implemented using the fund allocated under provisional sum. GESU has already processed IEE of eight Design, Bid and Build Bridge. DoR / BB assured that the mitigations identified by the IEEs will be implemented either through existing contract provisions or through variation of contract, if necessary. The BB has incorporated the safeguard cluases and item of works in BoQ for new tendering bridges. B. Design and Built Bridge. There are five such bridges of which IEE are in process. The DoR/ BB assured that safeguard mitigations identified by the IEE will be implemented through contract variations, if necessary. DoR/BB is further clarifying the approach and requirements in upcoming ‘design and built’ bridges; developing contract options of specific BOQ and contract document for such bridge by end of September 2015. GESU is planning to organize workshop/discussion on “how to apply environmental and social safeguard measures in design and built bridges”. Backlog Bridge For ensuring safeguard measures in backlog bridges, MoPIT/DoR, in April 2014, provisioned 2% of contract amount or 2.5 million rupees whichever is less in safeguard related activities both for Design, Bid and Build Bridge and Design and Built Bridge. This provision has been found effective on settling social and environmental issues like:  Reinstate of irrigation canal in Leguwa and Kawa Bridge, Dhankuta  Approval proceeded for tree cutting in Kamala Bridge from concern authority, Sindhuli  Compensation for affected land in Ratuwa Bridge, Jhapa  Constructed the NAGA temple in Benighat Trishuli River Bridge Safeguard Verification of Bridge Dossiers DoR/BB/GESU, internally verifying the safeguard status of completed bridges through SM in their respective region before making dossiers. Till the date DoR has prepared and submitted 52 numbers of dossiers to submit to National Planning Commission (NPC). Out of them DoR has received disbursement for 507 bridges. 7 The total submitted dossier in year O and 1 was 52 . Among them the dossier of Budikhola in Bardiya was rejected during external verification as the bridge was in LRN and dossier of Riyukhola bridge was not submitted to NPC as the bridge location is in the buffer zone of Chitwan National Park. Annex P-37 Table 3: Status of Dossier Submission and Disbursement Status by Region Year Prepared Submitted Major Backlog/New Total Numbers Dossiers Dossiers Maintenance 0 29 29 8 21 29 1 21 21 7 14 21 Total 50 50 15 35 50 Emerging Lessons Following are emerging lessons from implementing BIMP under P4R operation:  An established system and practice of interaction and coordination among safeguard team (GESU) and engineering team (BB) is necessary for timely completion of screening, EMP, IEE etc. and ensuring value-addition to the design of the bridges.  Capacity strengthening is a continuous process. GESU’s capacity needs be strengthened gradually for managing variety of environmental and social issues related to bridges and roads, and for various functions including assessments, monitoring, consultations and grievance handling.  Ensuring reliable resource to GESU is important for delivering environmental and social functions as envisaged under ESMF.  Integration and mainstreaming of social and environmental aspects into bridge should be done from early stage of bridge planning to make best use of the environmental and social inputs/ suggestions in the plan, design and construction. A clearly defined roles and responsibilities of various actors(such as GESU, BB, DRO, Contractor) as well as system, process and procedure; and its awareness and practice is necessary for effective application of the ESMF in bridge planning. Going forward: Enhancing performance Experiences until MTR indicate that following improvements are needed for improving social and environmental management as implementation proceeds.  Social Mobilizer Consultants (SMC) are to be considered by DRO as team members and ensure contractor understand the SMC‘s role and responsibility and cooperate with them.  DRO Offices and contractors needs to be made aware of social and environmental requirements/ ESMF in bridge planning and construction.  There should be compulsory requirement (officially instructed) of forwarding plan, design, contract document, specification and BOQ to GESU for review and concurrence. All the safeguard measures identified through screening and other preparatory documents (e.g. IEE) should be incorporated in contract document.  DOR/BB inventory of the bridges need to include information of environmental and social safeguard status (e.g. EIA/IEE/EMAP, effect on private land/assets etc). Annex P-38  DoR/BB needs to ensure that GESU reviews and field verify the safeguard compliance of the completed bridges, whose dossiers have been ready for submitting to NPC for external verification.  There should be provision for GESU verification and certification on safeguard compliance before final payment of completed bridge.  GESU needs to have reliable and adequate provision for transport for enhancing site monitoring by centre and region based staff.  Budget allocation to GESU, that started recently, needs to be retained and improved, as per need, for improving social and environmental management and performance. This need to continue even during post BIMP period as well. Annex P-39 ANNEX K: ANALYSIS OF DLI-4 (% of contracts delivered on time or early) # of Cont. amount (USD Classification % by # of classification Amount (NPR) contracts equ.) Major maintenance works on-time 1 8% 9,893,385 97,290 early 2 17% 19,654,319 193,277 late 9 75% 158,274,881 1,556,444 subtotal 12 187,822,585 1,847,011 New construction works on-time 6 18% 183,463,234 1,804,142 early 3 9% 1,200,454,715 11,805,038 late 25 74% 1,023,783,291 10,067,686 subtotal 34 2,407,701,240 23,676,866 Combined (major maint. + new const.) on-time 7 15% 193,356,619 1,901,431 early 5 11% 1,220,109,034 11,998,315 late 34 74% 1,182,058,171 11,624,130 subtotal 46 2,595,523,824 25,523,876 % of on time or early contracts 26% Baseline 10% Disbursement rate 75,000 USD per 1% over baseline Disbursement amount 1,206,522 USD Annex P-40 ANNEX L: PROGRAM EXPENDITURE TRENDS Figure 1 Maintenance budget and expenditure trends FY 08/09 through FY 13/14 700,000 103% increase from SRN maintenance budgets FY 12/13 in 600,000 500,000 SRN maintenance expenditures NPR '000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 - 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 revised actual actual actual actual actual Figure 2 New construction budget and expenditure trends 3,000,000 SRN new constuction budget 2,500,000 SRN new constuction exp. NPR '000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2012/13 actual 2013/14 revised Figure 3 Shifting focus back to SRN bridges DOR's FY 12/13 Expenditures in the DOR's FY 13/14 Expenditures in the Bridge Sector SRN br. Bridge Sector SRN br. feasibility LRN new feasibility study & QM construciton LRN new expenditures exp. study & QM construciton 95,000 1,943,315 expenditures exp. 3% 50% 102,604 2,431,985 2% 58% SRN SRN maintenance maintenance expenditures expenditures 415,865 204,601 11% 5% SRN new SRN new constuction constuction exp. exp. 1,474,616 1,400,000 35% 36% Annex P-41 ANNEX M: FIELD VISIT NOTES The Team also conducted field visits splitting in two groups on June 18 to 19, 2014. One group visited to Karnali (Geruwa) bridge at Kothiaghat and Kohalpur-Surket road in Mid-Western Region and another group visited to Ratu bridge, Pathlaiya- Dhalkebar road and Mugling – Narayanghat road in Central Region. Both of the teams were represented by DoR officials. List of participating officials is annexed. The bridge details and the field visit observations are provided below: Group-1 Field Visit Site-1: Bardiya District Bridge No. 66-H017-186 Road Link/ Guleria-Kothiyaghat- Name Rajapur Road River Name Karnali (Geruwa) District Bardiya Bridge was built under Design & Build contract option. DLI verification has been completed during 2nd tranche of disbursement under DLI-3 in BIMP. It was contracted on June16, BIMP Status 2010 and the original schedule completion date was July 16, 2015. The actual completion date was Sept. 24, 2014; 292 days prior to schedule completion date. 18x55m+ Bridge Type PSC Box Girder Bridge Span (m) 1x25m,RCC =1015m Designed by Final Consultants and Payment Designed and Supervised by Supervised by Bridge 1,181,309,862.00 Amount Project, Western (NPR) Region, Nepalganj Notes: First longest bridge built with prestressed concrete box-girder in Nepal by local Contractors under supervision of DOR. Work Quality: As per information supplied by the Bridge Project Mid-Western Region, the Contractor has maintained all requirements under Quality Assurance and Quality Control to acceptable standard. Workmanship has been found good as a whole during the site visit. Safety: Safety measures including separate provision for pedestrian footpath, erection of delineator posts along both sides of bridge approaches, painting on bridge railings, and erection bridge sign boards have been found satisfactory. Field Visit Site-2: Surkhet District Kohalpur-Surkhat Road Road Link/ Name H12: Ratna Rajmarg , 90km Bridges: Most of the bridges found in fair condition except bridge railings. In many bridges, railings are found damaged except in few bridges where painting works have found satisfactory Visit to Division Road Office, Surkhet: Notes: Key regions, why Division hesitates to carry out minor maintenance works despite having adequate budget available, are described below,  DOR existing norms and procurement provisions are not favorable to minor repair works;  Contractors are least attracted to minor repair works; and  It requires close supervisions, on other hand most of the Divisions are under staffed Suggested Conclusions:  Norms should be revised and should be flexible and site specific; Annex P-42  Relaxation in procurement rules: Divisions should be allowed to carry out minor repair works under force account for few items of works; and  Adequate supervision staff should be made available to Divisions mainly sub-engineer level. Group-2 Bridge No. 20-H001-150 Road Link/ Name East West Highway River Name Ratu Khola District Dhanusa BIMP Status Major maintenance works were successfully carried by the local Contractors under close supervision of BB Engineer and International Bridge Expert. Major maintenance works carried out were underpinning displaced foundation footing, jacketing damaged pair, and jacking conversed deck slabs to road level. The bridge was open to traffic on 18th June, 2015. Bridge Type RCC Bridge T Length (m) 204 meter Beam Span (No) 12 Maintenance Works International Final Payment Designed and Supervised Bridge Expert and Amount (NPR) by BB Engineers Technical Notes: Workmanship was found excellent. According to BB, quality was never compromised till end of work. A. Environmental Safeguard Soil Erosion Land Slides  Remarks: Drainage Erosion by Drainage Flow  No Remarks: Waste Disposal  Remarks: Traffic Control Material/Transport  Remarks: The maintenance work of the settled bridge support was almost completed, however, mobility for four wheeler vehicles was still restricted from the bridge and sidetracked to diversion road maintained within ROW and along Ratu river Public/ Workers Safety  Remarks: As maintenance worker was almost completed information about workers safety (e.g. provision of helmet, boot, globe etc for workers) could not be observed/collected Workers Insurance  Remarks: Minor Training Works  Remarks: Protection of Forest  Annex P-43 Remarks: No effect on nearby forest due to maintenance activities Protection of Wildlife  No Remarks: Generally, wildlife does not come in the construction side due to vehicular movement Protection of Aquatic Life  No Remarks: Seasonal river Slope Protection on High Embankment Area  Remarks: Embankment protection was observed in both side of the bridge along the river ensured by gabion works and construction of spours Proper Signboard in Proper Location  Remarks: A small signboard informing about the ongoing maintenance work was positioned on eastern part of the bridge Management of Borrow Pit/Quarries  Not Applicable Remarks: Maintenance work ongoing Landscape  Remarks: There seem risks of collapsing old protection wall existing in the left embankment of Ratu river. Dust/Air Pollution  Remarks: As the maintenance work was ongoing. Noise/ Vibration  Remarks: Impact on Adjunct Area  No Remarks: As the bridge is a bit far away from the major settlement it the maintenance works not likely to have affected to the people on adjunct area. Disruption to Public Utilities  Remarks: Public Awareness  Remarks: B. Social Issues Land Acquisition: Not applicable. Annex P-44 SITE PHOTOS Photo 1: The under maintenance Ratu Bridge Figure 1 Photo 2: Mud barrier in the bridge approach to Photo 3: Iron plate stratus given for restrict vehicular movement maintenance activities Photo 4: Existing Riverbank protection work at Ratu River Annex P-45