Report No: AUS0001049 . Indonesia TA on Village Transfers Indonesia Village Law: Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds Volume 2: Annexes . June 2019 . GOV . Document of the World Bank . © 2019 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2019. Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built under Village Law. Volume 2: Annexes. © World Bank.” All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Indonesia Village Law Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure Built with Village Funds Volume 2: Technical annexes World Bank 2019 Table of Contents ANNEX 1 – RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL AUDIT ANNEX 2 – SITE SELECTION PROCEDURE (FROM 2012 PNPM TECHNICAL AUDIT) ANNEX 3 – LIST OF VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS EVALUATED ANNEX 4 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES ANNEX 5 – DETAILED ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT RATINGS ANNEX 6 – 2018 PRF BENEFICIARY ASSESSMENT AND TECHNICAL AUDIT ANNEX 7 – SAMPLE VILLAGE LAW EVALUATION FIELD INSTRUMENT ANNEX 8 – INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS AND ASPECTS 2 Acronyms ADD Alokasi Dana Desa, transfer to villages from district governments APBDes Village budget BKAD Badan Kerjasama Antar Desa BPD Village representative BPS Central Bureau of Statistics DD Dana desa, transfer to villages from central government gotong royong Mutual cooperation, village volunteer system IDR Indonesian Rupiah kabupaten Districts KDP Kecamatan Development Project KTD Kader teknis desa, village technical cadre kecamatan Sub-district MCK Public laundry/toilet facilities M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOF Ministry of Finance MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs MOV Ministry of Villages MusDes Village planning meeting O&M Operations and maintenance Permendagri Regulation of the Ministry of Home Affairs PAUD Early childhood centers PDTI District engineers’ capable designate to sign off on VIPs Pendamping Facilitator PNPM Program Nasional Pembangunan Masyarakat – National Program for Community Development PKD Pengkajian Kondisi Desa, Review of current village conditions RKPDes Annual village plan RPJMDes Medium term village planning swadaya Self-help swakelola Self-management, village implemented TPK Village activity implementation committees USD United States dollar VFS Village Financial Statistics VIP Village infrastructure project VL Village Law 3 ANNEX 1 4 Annex 1 – Recommendations of the Technical Audit The recommendations of this evaluation are summarized below: Improved technical support and supervision • Village committees should be working with competent design technicians or engineers who provide necessary liaison with relevant government sector personnel to ensure infrastructure quality and that village infrastructure conforms with government policies and programs. • Technical engineers supporting villages to design and implement construction projects should be directed to document the instructions they have given to village implementation committees and ensure these are placed on project filed. • Existing design manuals and construction guidelines from previous rural development programs should be reviewed/revised to meet Village Law requirements, and issued to village committees, PDTI, and Kabupaten engineers. Such standard designs and specifications for village infrastructure do exist and should be made available and their use mandated. • Senior government should consider assigning additional technical resources to kabupaten/kecamatan levels, including more PDTI or kader teknis desa (KTD, village technical cadre), to ensure remote sites receive adequate technical support. • All infrastructure projects should have accurate and representative drawings and specifications. Standard drawings and details can be used but should be revised to suit the specific dimensions of the proposed infrastructure. Kabupaten engineers or a capable designate (PDTI) should inspect and sign-off all drawings of village infrastructure. Technical inspection by Kabupaten engineer/ designate PDTI should take place at all key stages of the project lifecycle (planning, construction, anniversary of completion). No funding from the Kabupaten should be approved without proper drawings in place. • Monitoring and evaluation of the construction program should be conducted at key points of the implementation cycle: planning, design approval, construction (e.g. 25% complete, 50%, 100%), and include an operational anniversary inspection (including O&M assessment). Participatory processes for implementation • Inter-Village Forums should be held (at least) three times annually with an agenda to include public discussions regarding the development, operations, and maintenance of infrastructure that is shared between communities. • Quorums for Mus Des (village planning meetings) should be required to guarantee attendance at important sessions (with a stipulated % of women). A survey of villagers’ impressions of the structure and format of these meetings may prove useful to order to make changes, encouraging attendance. 5 • Village populations should be provided an opportunity to comment on SP design criteria, including location, size, orientation and type of proposed infrastructures. Detailed rural infrastructure planning guidelines should be provided to the village committees. These resources should include descriptions of proper public input sessions that should be conducted as part of each VIPs’ planning. • Socialization and training of villages in the concept of user consultation should emphasize the relationship between user consultation, increased functionality of infrastructure and the willingness of village residents to pay for maintenance —the virtuous cycle of utility and sustainability. • Villages should be guided to allocate sufficient budget for community forums. This could be included in the annual prioritization guidance to villages from MOV. • Villages should be encouraged to establish procurement committees. Training • A simplified version of the Village Law regulations (a step-by-step guideline) should be developed for village committee use, with a training module developed to explain proper procedures and practices. Click here for relevant section. • Construction quality could be improved by identifying key construction problems and developing training materials to show proper techniques to correct them. Existing training materials for village activity implementation committees ( TPK) should be inventoried, reviewed and improved/expanded to help villagers understand the various steps that should be executed during VIP implementation and the documentation required. • Training of village O&M committees should include, amongst other topics, a section on operations and maintenance activities appropriate to the infrastructure and advice on the collection of local user fees to fund such work. Villages should be made aware that Dana Desa funding can and should be used for O&M to ensure sustained functionality. • A procurement training course should be conducted where proper accounting and procurement practices are described and modeled for village committees, each year. • PDTI (district engineers) personnel should be provided annual technical training to improve their construction supervision skills. Regulatory changes • Land donation practices need to be improved through the issuance of clear instructions (by project type), including requiring donation letters and land transfer forms. • MOHA and MOV should add clarification to the regulations, emphasizing that the funded public assets are owned by villages and that future operation and maintenance duties and budgets are the responsibility of the villages. The regulations should define sustainable maintenance methodologies for joint or multi-village infrastructures. 6 Issues requiring more in-depth diagnosis and analysis • Water supply and irrigation projects (including those visited as part of this study) should be reviewed by relevant government agencies to determine if there are systemic problems that can be identified and avoided in the future. • Central government authorities responsible for support and supervision of Village Law implementation should undertake a deeper dive into performance information for villages in Maluku to identify if there may be specific performance issues in villages within that Province that need further attention. 7 ANNEX 2 8 Annex 2 – PNPM 2012 Sub-Project Selection Procedure for Technical Evaluation The 12 provinces in which this study was conducted (spanning Indonesia from west to east and north to south and making sure to include both rich and poor provinces) were analyzed for how many districts (kabupaten) they contain. Total number of districts ranged from 3 in Papua to 18 in Aceh. A sampling of three districts was taken for those provinces having ten or more districts. Two districts were selected from those with less than 10 districts. The sole exception to this is Central Java which had four districts selected. A total of 34 districts were selected using this method, in a somewhat random manner ensuring that the various geographical areas of each province were represented. To start the sub-district (kecamatan) selection process, it was next determined that four sub- districts would be sampled in each district. This resulted in 136 sub-districts being selected. The government’s BPS spreadsheet designates each sub-district in one of four categories – normal, hard, very hard and extreme. These classifications indicate the level of difficulty of access to and travel within the sub-district. The ‘random’ selection process was examined to ensure that an appropriate range of these categories were represented in the sample. The site evaluation target for this technical evaluation was considered at this stage of the sub- district selection process, and a further 29 sub-districts were added to the list, distributed across the provinces in a roughly even manner. The final total comprised 165 sub-districts, of which approximately 45% are considered ‘poor’ and less than 19% are listed as “not poor”. The selection of the villages within each of these sub-districts was left to the technical evaluation team to determine at each UPK office in the sub-district. Team members obtained a map of the sub-district and used it to identify villages to be included in the assessment. Villages were chosen at random, although local knowledge about the difficulty or impossibility of accessing certain villages were used to plan each day’s travels. Efforts were made to include a ‘Remote’ village in the assessment. A minimum of two villages were visited in each sub-district, and three if time allowed. All sub-projects sponsored by the funding agencies cited above were examined in the selected villages. 9 ANNEX 3 10 Prov Kab Kec Vill Province Kabupaten Kecamatan Village Infra Year New Rehab Type 32 13 9 4 Jawa Barat Cianjur Sukaluyu Sidamulya A 2015 1 53 12 80 10 NTT Ngada Riung Lokasambi Timur A 2017 1 53 9 1 2019 NTT Ngada Aimere Legelapu A 2015 1 53 9 1 2020 NTT Ngada Aimere Lekogoko A 2016 1 53 9 9 2006 NTT Ngada Riung Wangka A 2017 1 11 1 5 2005 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Jambu Pepeun A 2017 1 11 1 5 2005 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Jambu Pepeun A 2017 1 11 1 5 2022 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Ladang baro A 2016 1 11 1 5 2022 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Ladang baro A 2016 1 11 18 1 2022 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Lampoh Lada A 2015 1 11 18 1 2022 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Lampoh Lada A 2015 1 11 18 3 2011 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Kiran Krueng A 2015 1 11 18 3 2011 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Kiran Krueng A 2016 1 11 1 6 2020 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Payonan Gadang A 2015 1 11 1 6 2020 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Payonan Gadang A 2015 1 11 18 1 2006 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Manyang Lancok A 2017 1 11 18 1 2022 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Lampoh Lada A 2017 1 11 18 3 2011 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Lampoh Lada A 2016 1 53 11 52 16 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Matawai Atu A 2017 1 53 12 10 20 NTT Ngada Aimere Legelapu A 2017 1 76 4 6 2004 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Mirring A 2016 1 76 4 6 2006 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Batetangngan A 2017 1 81 9 1 2011 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Tik Bary A 2017 1 81 9 1 2012 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Mas Nana A 2017 1 81 9 1 2012 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Neath A 2017 1 81 9 5 2015 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Neath A 2017 1 81 9 5 2026 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Wainama Olon A 2016 1 61 10 20 12 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Bata Luar A 2016 1 11 61 10 20 12 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Bata Luar A 2015 1 61 10 70 14 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Batu Badak A 2017 1 61 10 20 12 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Bata Luar A 2016 1 61 10 70 10 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Belaban Ela A 2016 1 61 10 70 10 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Belaban Ela A 2015 1 32 3 9 2008 West Java Cianjur Sukaluyu Sukaluyu B 2016 1 53 12 80 8 NTT Ngada Riung Wangka B 2016 1 11 1 6 2017 Aceh Aceh Selatan Samadua Lubuk Layu B 2016 1 11 1 6? 2020?Aceh Aceh Selatan Samadua Payonan Gadang B 2017 1 11 18 1 2006 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Manyang Lancok B 2061 1 53 11 52 19 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Ngaru Kanuru B 2017 1 76 4 9 2002 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Lili B 2016 1 76 4 9 2002 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Lili B 2016 1 76 4 9 2003 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Rangoan B 2017 1 81 9 5 2008 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Leksula B 2017 1 61 10 20 12 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Bata Luar B 2016 1 61 10 70 14 Kalimantan Timur Melawi Menukung Batu Bdak B 2016 1 76 4 6 0 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang 2004 B 2017 1 76 4 6 2006 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Batetanga B 2016 1 61 10 20 12 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Bata Luar B 2017 1 53 11 13 5 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Mataway Amahu C 2017 1 53 12 10 19 NTT Ngada Aimere Lekogoko C 2016 1 11 1 5 2022 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Ladang Baro C 2017 1 11 1 6 2020 Aceh Aceh Selatan Samadua Payonan Gadang C 2017 1 11 1 5 2022 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Ladang Baro C 2015 1 81 9 1 2006 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Leku C 2017 1 81 9 1 2009 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Labuang C 2016 1 81 9 1 2011 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Tikbary C 2015 1 81 9 1 2011 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Neath C 2016 1 12 81 9 5 2015 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Neath C 2015 1 81 9 5 2015 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Neath C 2017 1 61 10 70 10 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Balaban Ela C 2015 1 76 4 9 2002 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Lilli C 2017 1 61 10 20 12 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Bata Luar C 2017 1 32 3 8 5 Jawa Barat Cianjur Mande Mande D 2015 1 32 3 8 2005 Jawa Barat Cianjur Mande Mande D 2016 1 32 3 8 2012 Jawa Barat Cianjur Mande Murnisari D 2015 1 32 3 8 2012 West Java Cianjur Mande Murnisari D 2017 1 32 3 9 2008 Jawa Barat Cianjur Sukaluyu Sukaluyu D 2017 1 53 11 13 3 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Kombapari D 2017 1 53 11 52 16 NTT Sumba Timur Umalalu Mataway Atu D 2016 1 53 11 52 19 NTT Sumba Timur Umalalu Ngaru Kanoru D 2016 1 53 12 10 19 NTT Ngada Aimere Lekogoko D 2017 1 53 12 10 20 NTT Ngada Aimere Legelapu D 2016 1 53 12 10 20 NTT Ngada Aimere Legelapu D 2016 1 53 12 80 8 NTT Ngada Riung Wangka D 2017 1 53 12 80 8 NTT Ngada Riung Wangka D 2016 1 53 9 1 2019 NTT Ngada Aimere Legelapu D 2015 1 53 9 1 2020 NTT Ngada Aimere Lekogoko D 2016 1 53 9 9 2006 NTT Ngada Riung Wangka D 2015 1 53 9 9 2006 NTT Ngada Riung Wangka D 2015 1 53 9 9 2017 NTT Ngada Riung Lengkosambi TimurD 2016 1 53 9 9 2017 NTT Ngada Riung Lengkosambi TimurD 2016 1 53 11 19 2002 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Matawai Amahu D 2017 1 53 11 8 2005 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Matawai Atu D 2015 1 53 11 8 2005 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Matawai Atu D 2015 1 53 11 8 2010 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Ngaru Kanoru D 2015 1 53 11 19 2001 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Kompa Pari D 2016 1 13 53 11 13 3 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Kombapari D 2017 1 53 11 13 3 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Kombapari D 2017 1 53 11 13 5 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Matawai Amahu D 2016 1 53 11 13 5 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Matawai Amahu D 2016 1 53 11 13 5 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Matawai Amahu D 2016 1 53 11 52 16 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Matawai Atu D 2017 1 53 11 52 19 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Ngaru Kanuru D 2017 1 53 11 52 19 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Ngaru Kanuru D 2017 1 53 12 10 19 NTT Ngada Aimere Lekogoko D 2015 1 53 12 10 19 NTT Ngada Aimere Lekogoko D 2015 1 53 12 10 20 NTT Ngada Aimere Legelapu D 2017 1 53 12 80 10 NTT Ngada Riung Lengkosambi 1 D 2015 1 53 12 80 10 NTT Ngada Riung Lengkosambi 2 D 2015 1 11 1 6 2017 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Lubuk Layu D 2015 1 11 1 6 2017 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Lubuk Layu D 2015 1 11 1 6 2020 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Payonan Gadang D 2016 1 11 1 6 2020 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Payonan Gadang D 2016 1 11 1 6 2005 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Jambo Papeun D 2015 1 11 1 5 2005 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Jambo Papeun D 2015 1 11 1 5 2022 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Ladang Baro D 2017 1 11 1 6 2017 Aceh Aceh Selatan Samadua Lubuk Layu D 2016 1 11 18 3 2016 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Jurong Tengoh D 2016 1 11 18 3 2016 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Jurong Tengoh D 2017 1 11 1 5 2005 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Jambo Papeun D 2016 1 11 1 5 2005 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Jambo Papeun D 2016 1 11 1 5 2022 Aceh Aceh Selatan Meukek Ladang Baro D 2015 1 11 1 6 2017 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Lubuk Layu D 2017 1 11 1 6 2017 Aceh Aceh Selatan Sama Dua Lubuk Layu D 2017 1 11 18 1 2022 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Lampoh Lada D 2016 1 14 11 18 3 2011 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Kiran Krueng D 2016 1 11 18 3 2011 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Kiran Kreung D 2017 1 11 18 3 2016 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Jurong Teungoh D 2015 1 11 18 3 2016 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Jurong Teungoh D 2017 1 76 4 9 2002 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Lili D 2015 1 76 4 6 2004 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Mirring D 2016 1 76 4 6 2006 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Batetangnga D 2015 1 76 4 6 2006 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Batetangnga D 2017 1 76 4 9 2003 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matetangnga Rangoan D 2017 1 81 9 1 2006 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Leku D 2017 1 81 9 1 2006 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Leku D 2017 1 81 9 1 2009 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Labuang D 2016 1 81 9 1 2011 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Tikbary D 2016 1 81 9 1 2012 Maluku Buru Selatan Namrole Masnana D 2017 1 81 9 5 2008 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Leksula D 2015 1 81 9 5 2015 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Neath D 2017 1 81 9 5 2016 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Liang D 2015 1 81 9 5 2016 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Liang D 2017 1 81 9 5 2016 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Liang D 2017 1 81 9 5 2026 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Waenama Olon D 2016 1 81 9 5 2026 Maluku Buru Selatan Leksula Liang D 2017 1 61 10 20 8 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Sukamaju D 2017 1 61 10 20 8 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Sukamaju D 2016 1 61 10 20 8 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Sukamaju D 2016 1 61 10 20 12 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Bata Luar D 2016 1 61 10 70 14 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Batu Badak D 2017 1 76 4 6 2004 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Mirring D 2015 1 76 4 6 2004 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Mirring D 2015 1 76 4 6 2006 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Binuang Batetangnga D 2015 1 15 76 4 9 2003 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Rangoan D 2015 1 76 4 9 2003 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Rangoan D 2016 1 76 4 9 2003 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Rangoan D 2016 1 53 11 13 3 NTT Sumba Timur Katala Hamu Lingu Kombapari D 2017 1 61 10 20 8 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Suka Maju D 2015 1 61 10 20 8 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Suka Maju D 2015 1 61 10 20 8 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Tanah Pinoh Suka Maju D 2017 1 61 10 70 10 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Belaban Ela D 2016 1 61 10 70 14 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Batu Badak D 2015 1 61 10 70 14 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Batu Badak D 2015 1 61 10 70 14 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Batu Badak D 2016 1 61 10 70 14 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Batu Badak D 2016 1 32 8 2005 2012 Jawa Barat Cianjur Mande Murnisari E 2016 1 53 11 52 16 NTT Sumba Timur Umalulu Amatay Atu E 2016 1 11 18 1 2006 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Manyang Lancok E 2016 1 11 18 1 2006 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Manyang Lancok E 2017 1 11 18 1 2022 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Lampoh Lada E 2015 1 11 18 3 2011 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Kiran Krueng E 2017 1 11 18 3 2016 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Jurong Tengoh E 2016 1 11 18 2015 2006 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Manyang Lancok E 2015 1 11 18 1 2022 Aceh Pidie Jaya Meuredu Lampoh Lada E 2016 1 11 18 2016 2012 Aceh Pidie Jaya Jangka Buya Jurong Teungoh E 2015 1 61 10 70 10 Kalimantan Barat Melawi Menukung Balaban Ela E 2017 1 76 4 9 2002 Sulawesi Barat Polewali Mandar Matangnga Lilli E 2017 1 16 ANNEX 4 17 Annex 4 – Technical Evaluation Methodologies 1. Rural Infrastructure Village Infrastructure Project Types In order for this audit’s results to be able to be compared with the 2012 PNPM audit, the same classification system for VIP types was used. The VIP types identified for the audit are: Table 1: 2018 Sub-project types Type Village Infrastructure Examples of Sectors Represented Within This Project Type Sample Schools, early childhood education centers, MCK A Building (public laundry/toilet), community meeting hall, etc. B Bridge Pedestrian, vehicle C Water Supply Gravity fed (GFWS), borehole, pond, reservoir, etc. D Road Road works, drainage E Irrigation Irrigation headworks and canals Analysis within this report is based upon the above sub-project types, and the findings for each specific sub-project type apply across all sectors, unless otherwise specified. For example, the technical evaluation’s conclusions regarding reinforced concrete practices will apply equally to buildings, to concrete bridges, road structures and retaining walls, to concrete reservoirs, and to concrete drainage channels, etc. 2. Technical Evaluation Field Instruments The technical evaluation teams used field instruments for each VIP type, developed for this audit using the 2012 PNPM audit field tools as a guide. The technical portion of the tools differ slightly for each infrastructure type (according to each infrastructure’s unique components), but are otherwise largely similar. The field instruments consist of a set of eight checklists that were to be completed at each village for each sampled VIP. The Field Tools are: 1) VIP Location and Technical Evaluation; 2) Environmental and Social Safeguards; 3) Cost Effectiveness; 4) O&M/Sustainability; 5) Key Issues; 6) Brief VIP Description / Notes; and 7) Process Assessment. The Field Tools are attached to this report in Annex 8 – Sample Village Law Evaluation Field Instrument. These Field Tools were developed in consultation with the WB, prior to and during the first week of the assignment. Auditors were trained to use the tools in West Java. The technical instruments contain data fields that were filled in with a checkmark or notation at the VIP site itself. Other parts of the field instrument would often be completed afterwards, 18 during meetings at a village office or community center. Following is a general summary of the data fields in each of the individual Field Tools: Field Tool 1 – VIP Administrative Data and Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure – This two-page field tool is unique to each VIP type. The five VIP types are divided into a number of components, each rated separately (the rating system is defined below in Section 5.2). Components for the sub-project type Building, for example, started at the base: Foundation, Ground Beam, Wall, Column, etc., proceeding up to the Roof Structure. Where a particular component had several distinct aspects that should be evaluated separately, the component was subdivided into aspects, for example: Ring Beam – Reinforcement, and Ring Beam - Dimension. A complete list of each VIP types’ components and aspects is provided in Annex 9. Field Tool 2 – Environmental and Social Safeguards – This single page field tool is common to all VIP types. Auditors confirmed via a site inspection that appropriate environmental standards had been followed during the VIP implementation. Land acquisition records were examined and the auditors questioned village leaders about their adherence to Village Law social safeguard mechanisms. Field Tool 3 – Cost Effectiveness – This field tool consists of two pages that feature sections for each infrastructure type that contain key measurements and dimensions of components and aspects for each structure or service (e.g. road or water supply). The unit costs are derived from this information and compared to similar Kabupaten costs (that are calculated by the auditors using data from current marketplace). Field Tool 4 – Operation and Maintenance/Sustainability – This field tool is comprised of two pages. The first page contains data fields unique to each VIP type. The second page collects standard information from village O&M committee members and requires the team to examine VIP documentation and make notes from each O&M Plan. Field Tool 5 – Key Issues – The field tool for this data set is unique to each VIP type. It contains a variety of common problems or issues that typically are found in rural infrastructures. The Building Key Issues list, for example, contains a checklist for the following visible problems: inadequate overlap of roof sheeting; improper connection of roof to truss; unreinforced, inadequate, or improperly located splices in truss members; missing steel strapping in truss; etc. The identification of these issues contributes to the understanding of the technical ratings assigned in Field Tool 1. The number of key issues available for each VIP type are as follows: Building 37 items, Bridge 25, Water Supply 27, Road 23, and Irrigation 23. Field Tool 6 – Brief VIP Description and Notes – Auditors were asked to give a short, concise description of the VIP (length, area, number of rooms, etc.). This sheet also provided space for extra field-written notes and commentary. 19 Field Tool 7 – Process Assessment – This tool gathered information for the following topics: village infrastructure prioritization; environmental and social safeguards; effectiveness of public accountability and governance; and women’s participation. 3. Field Visits The technical details for the field trips and coordination with the provinces was started about a month prior to mobilization. The WB sent letters of introduction to the provincial authorities, including a request for permission to undertake a field study of infrastructure completed under Village Law. The detailed planning of field work started approximately one week prior to the auditors’ visits. Auditors called senior provincial infrastructure engineers and informed them of the destinations for the WB technical audit evaluation. Auditors asked for help from the provincial government, as well as from district level personnel. Sufficient personnel were offered to accompany and help with the field visits. Provincial and district coordination teams coordinated with sub-district apparatus. Auditors provided the following information to the Province and District contacts: • The independent Audit Team wants to visit village infrastructure developed using Village Law funds, learn about the planning, design, and implementation processes of village development, including understanding the infrastructure’s utilization; • Evaluate, if possible, 5 types of infrastructure in each village: building, bridge, water supply, road/drainage, and irrigation; • The selection of subject villages within the districts should include remote communities; • The audit team wants to inspect the planning documents at each village office before visiting and evaluating the selected VIP s in the field. Generally the audit teams made the final village selections after arriving at the sub-district office, where they could discuss the audit requirements with the sub-district head and other officials, as well as the assistant consultants at the district, sub-district and village levels. Daily activities and travel times were carefully planned so that remote villages could be included in the audit Auditors visited villages according to a pre-arranged schedule. Village leaders were generally well prepared for the visit, with files pertaining to Village Law VIPs available for inspection. The auditors met with the head of the village, as well as members of the village implementation teams. Meetings could include village secretary, treasurer, cadres, consultants, chief of hamlet, chairman/secretary/treasurer from the VIP implementation team, and the local facilitator, or other interested individuals from village groups, including BPD. Generally the heads of the villages explained the processes by which the Village Law SPs would take place. Lists of the VIPs that had received support through Village Law funding mechanisms 20 were provided to the auditors. One or more VIPs were selected in each village (up to three VIPs), depending upon the availability of various infrastructure types. The auditors actively sought to include water supply, bridge and irrigation VIPs in the sample (as they were less common) and tried to ensure that a variety of construction-years were included in the sample (2015, 2016 and 2017). Representatives of village government would accompany the audit team members to view the VIPs. The auditors took many photographs to record details of the VIPs and illustrate their written findings. 4. Field and Office Evaluation Methodologies The field tools were taken to the villages in paper format and were completed by the auditors in the villages. The forms provided areas where simple checkmarks would record Yes or No to specific questions. Other areas required budget data input (for the cost effectiveness study), dimensions of the infrastructure, etc. The auditors were encouraged to write notes on the field tools, describing unique aspects as necessary. These notes were particularly encouraged for when “low” ratings were being assigned to the infrastructure component or aspect under evaluation. The auditors were asked to explain t he “why?” for negative ratings, allowing for discussion and analysis of these items. The written field data was turned into digital spreadsheets later by the auditors and sent to the audit team leader and WB. The digital data from these spreadsheets was extracted and assembled into tabular form. The data was grouped by infrastructure type,province, remoteness, etc. and analyzed. Photographs were gathered and filed according to village administrative number. 21 ANNEX 5 22 Annex 5 – Infrastructure Component Ratings and Construction Deficiencies The technical ratings of VIP components and aspects have been discussed in 5.2 Quality, question B2 of this report. The technical ratings data for the complete VIP sample were aggregated, sorted and studied, according to VIP type. The data can similarly be sorted and studied within each VIP type. This annex will look at each VIP type in turn. A study of the ratings applied to each VIP type’s unique components and aspects can yield valuable insights to current design and construction methodologies being employed by villages and how they might be improved in future cycles. 1 Buildings Roughly half of the buildings examined during this technical evaluation were considered to have met the specifications set out for them ( 47% of aggregated components Meet Spec) with a further 36% considered Slightly Below Spec. The auditors found 16% of the building components to be Below Spec. The field auditor team examined buildings by dividing them into 21 components/ aspects that were individually assessed and rated. An examination of this data shows that those components/aspects most often considered Slightly Below or Below Spec are as shown in the following table Table 1 Annex 8: Building Components/Aspects Considered Slightly Below Spec Building Component/Aspect Percentage of VIP Percentage of VIP (No. of VIP Rated) Rated Slightly Below Rated Below Spec Spec Ring Beam (26) 38% (10) 12% (3) Truss – Structural (16) 56% (9) - Truss – Connection to Ring Beam (16) 31% (5) 13% (2) Roof – Connection to Purlin (13) 31% (4) 23% (3) Plastering (33) 55% (18) 9% 3() Painting (31) 55% (17) 16% (5) Doors and Windows (32) 38% (12) 16% (5) Toilet (23) 35% (8) 35% (8) Septic Tank (15) 20% (3) 53% (8) Ramp for disabled (12) 58% (7) 17% (2) Discussion: Ring beams are those structural members that connect the columns at the top of building walls. The dimensions and connections of these beams (either wood or reinforced concrete depending on 23 the structural design) is an important facet of the building’s strength in hurricanes or earthquake events. Trusses were evaluated in regards to two aspects: structural standards and conformance with drawings (56% Slightly Below Spec); and proper connections to a building’s ring beam (31% Slightly Below and 13% Below Spec). These figures are high. Trusses and their connections are often poorly detailed on the design drawings. Auditor’s notes about these can be found in the Key Issues section of the field tools. Key issues for buildings are poor drawings (15 of 33 VIP), improper connection of roof to truss (9 of 33 VIP), etc. Key Issues are discussed in the main body of the Final Report, section 6.2 Quality, question B2. The use of proper connections from a building’s trusses to the ring beam is very important in Indonesia, a country that experiences high winds on a regular basis. This detail was noted missing from design drawings. Local builders will often disregard vague drawings in favour of using traditional methods of wood joinery. Depending upon the locale, the resulting trusses can often be lacking in sufficient strength to survive strong winds or earthquake shaking. The use of bolts to connect the truss to the ring beam or columns of a building is imperative. Roofs can start to leak within a few years if the roof sheeting has been improperly installed or if other elements of the roof structure allow vibration during strong winds (roof connection to purlin: 31% Slightly Below Spec, 23% Below Spec). Proper fasteners (wind ties, cleats) and attention to correct roof construction methodologies will prolong the life of galvanized sheet steel roofs. Doors and windows were noted as being 38% Slightly Below Spec (12 VIPs) and 16% Below Spec (5 VIPs) within a sample of 32. These ratings are directed at sagging and fractured panels that are only a few years old. Properly constructed doors and window panels, using high-grade wood, should last a decade before needing major repair or refurbishment. The use of lower-grade woods, inadequate millwright techniques and inexpensive hardware serve to cheapen a building for its users. Eight of 15 septic tank facilities inspected had no portal or lid to allow access to the tank for inspection or cleaning. Drawings typically do not show this feature. Ramps and accessibility features for the disabled were missing for 2 of 12 buildings requiring such facilities, with another 7 have some deficiencies (overly steep ramps). 2 Bridges The technical quality ratings for bridges built using village funds is good, but could use some improvements: 55% Meets Spec, 34% Slightly Below Spec, 11% Below Spec). The following table provides an abbreviated list of bridge components, showing those that exhibited problems. 24 Table 2 Annex 8: Bridge Components Ratings (% and No. of VIP) Percentage of VIP Percentage of VIP Bridge Component Rated Slightly Below Rated Below Spec Foundation (15 VIPs 40% (6) - evaluated) Erosion Protection (13) 54% (7) 15% (2) Abutments (15) 47% (7) - Wingwalls (12) 50% (7) 14% (2) Apron/Ramp/Road Access (15) 33% (5) 33% (5) O&M (15) 33% (5) 40% (6) Discussion: Fifteen (15) bridges that were improved through Village Law funding were evaluated during the fieldwork. The bridge components that most often are rated Slightly Below or Below Specification are as follows, with explanations and suggestions for corrective measures that might be taken on future Village Law VIPs. Note that all components are not found on all bridges, so that some components are represented in a subset of the bridge sample. Erosion protection measures were inadequately designed or implemented at 54% of the bridges (7 of 13 visited). The auditors were instructed to write detailed explanations for components rated Slightly Below and Below Spec. Public Works engineers should consider these descriptions and suggestions for improvement. The auditors found faults with important parts of bridge structures: Abutment and Wingwall components were rated Slightly Below 47% and 50%, respectively, while 14% of wingwalls were deemed Below Spec. Proper orientation and design/ implementation is important for these components of bridges. Abutments and wingwalls are particularly susceptible to damage in flooding disasters. Erosion protection measures should be carefully planned and executed/maintained. Apron/ramp/road accesses were considered Slightly and Below Spec 33% for both ratings. These bridge approaches are often allowed to degrade, with settlement and pot holes developing as materials slip into the watercourse. Regular maintenance of these areas is important. Adequate erosion protection measures are a key element for the protection and ease of use of bridges. 3 Water Supply Systems The technical quality ratings for water supply systems built using village funds is not good, and could use some improvements: 34% Meets Spec, 30% Slightly Below Spec, 35% Below Spec). The following table provides an abbreviated list of water supply components, showing those that exhibited problems 25 Table 3 Annex 8: Water Supply Component/Aspect Ratings (% and No. of VIP) Percentage of VIP Water Supply Component/ Percentage of VIP Rated Rated Aspect Slightly Below Below Spec Watershed protection (7) 71% (5) - Water system design (13) 15% (2) 77% (10) Borehole (2) 100% (2) Reservoir – Structural Integrity (9) 78% (7) 22% (2) Reservoir – Easy to clean (7) 43% (3) 29% (2) Public taps – Locations (8) 38% (3) 25% (2) Public taps –Fixtures (7) 29% (2) 43% (3) Public taps – Platforms (6) 50% (3) 50% (3) O&M (12) 17% (2) 58% (7) Discussion: Watershed protection was observed in 5 systems of 7 to have some deficiencies. This finding is often directed at hillsides being used intensively for agriculture. The proximity of sanitary facilities too close or uphill of water sources is sometimes seen. Water system design was faulted by the auditors for problems with 10 of 13 systems examined. Poor design can result in low pressures within the system, unequal distributions within villages, periodic lapses in service, pipe blockages, etc. Two boreholes were examined during this audit and both were found to be Below Spec and not delivering any water. It is unknown if the geology of the areas is lacking sufficient ground water or if the borehole pump systems have been installed incorrectly. Reservoirs - Structural integrity: All of the reservoirs inspected during the audit had flaws, 78% were considered Slightly Below, with a further 22% rated Below Spec. The reservoirs exhibited poor concrete, cracks, missing overflow pipes (resulting in slimy outside walls). Reservoirs - Easy to Clean: 5 of 7 water supply reservoirs were rated Slightly Below (43%) and 29% Below Spec. Drawings should clearly show details of the location and installation of a clean-out pipe and valve at the base of reservoirs. Access portals should be located above these pipe outlets. Public tapstand locations, fixtures and platforms: These aspects of water systems were consistently poorly rated, with between 29 – 50% being Slightly Below Spec and 25 – 50% being Below Spec. Tapstands are where the village population access the water systems – these aspects of water supply systems should be improved for the sake of the users. O&M: poor or a lack of proper maintenance practices were observed at 9 of 12 systems visited (with 7 of these considered Below Spec). Auditors wrote comments such as “ There is no organizational maintenance team & no maintenance activities”. 4 Road, Drainage and Retaining Wall 26 Roads were rated using a field tool that identified 12 aspects that are typical road problems or common issues. These are outlined in the following table. Each road evaluation aspect is noted as being most closely associated with functional cause (or two in some cases); these are Poor Design, Improper Construction Techniques, and Faulty Materials. For an example, a road that has been constructed too narrow for its proper and safe use might have as a cause either Poor Design or Improper Construction Techniques. The roads were walked during the audit and each 100 m section inspected under the criteria for 12 aspects (see table below), and given a rating for “% Affected by Problem”. Two of these aspects, #3 and #12, were also noted with an indication of how many missing drainage structures or safety concerns were apparent. Table 5 Annex 8: Typical Road Problems – Classification of Cause Improper Problem Poor Design Construction Faulty Materials Techniques 1 Poor Cross Section ✔ (Crown/Camber) 2 Inadequate Roadside Ditches ✔ 3 Missing Drainage Structure ✔ 4 Improper Construction ✔ Materials 5 Slippery when wet ✔ 6 Very muddy during rainy season ✔ ✔ 7 Unstable slope above (too ✔ steep) 8 Unstable slope below (too steep) ✔ ✔ 9 Narrow width ✔ ✔ 10 Surface below standard ✔ ✔ 11 Pavement below standard ✔ ✔ 12 Safety concerns ✔ The ratings for each 100 m length were averaged for each road VIP to determine where the majority of Village Law road design or implementation problems lie. The following table shows the relative percentages of causal factors affecting the roads – design, construction techniques, or materials (some problems commonly stem from two causes). 27 Table 6 Annex 8 : Typical Road Problems – Aggregated % Affected by Causal Factor Improper Poor Design Construction Faulty Materials Techniques % of Road Lengths Affected by 8% 49% 30% Causal Factors Discussion: Here it can be seen that fully half of the roads inspected during this audit were adversely affected by improper construction techniques and just slightly less so by poor materials (30% of road VIPs). 5 Irrigation The technical quality ratings for irrigation systems built using village funds is good, showing the involvement of government sector forces: 56% Meets Spec, 33% Slightly Below Spec, 11% Below Spec. The following table provides an abbreviated list of water supply components, showing those that exhibited problems. Table 7 Annex 8 : Irrigation Components/Aspects Ratings (% and No. of VIP) Percentage of Percentage of Irrigation Component/Aspect VIP rated VIP (No. of SPs reporting) Slightly Below Rated Spec Below Spec Slopes – Fill (8) 38% (3) - Slopes – Cut (8) 25% (2) - Field outlets (10) 40% (4) 30% (3) Control structures (2) - 100% (2) Discussion: Slopes – fill and cut: several of the irrigation schemes feature slopes where the steepness of the gradient were considered to be inappropriate. Overly steep slopes are more easily adversely affected by erosion forces. Field outlets and system control structures: irrigation canals should be equipped with field outlet controls so that water can be easily directed to fields or diverted away. Irrigation systems should also have concrete (or well-built mortared stone) control structures at key parts of the system, where flows are diverted or split between command areas. 28 29 ANNEX 6 30 2018 PRF Beneficiary Assessment and Technical Audit Bridge Brief Sub-Project Description: brief description of the SP will provide a few sentences that include type of infra, size (or length, width, etc.) of infra, approximate number of users, special characteristics of Prov Kab Kec Vill Infra infra, etc. Notes and Comments from Audit: Type - The rehabilitation of concrete bridge in Sukaluyu village was carried out by the community on a self-managed basis, funded through the Village Fund of Fiscal Year 2016, consisting of widening the 7,5 meter wide 1.20 meter bridge deck floor and replacement of the 6.20 meter long iron railing; - This activity is an enhancement of function - by increasing the floor width of the bridge - from the old bridge that has - No TOS and list of analysis; - in the plan drawing is not been built in 2011, with the aim that the explained the rehabilitated part; - no maintenance/O&M infrastructure is more secure and team was formed; - no community land effected by sub- 32 03 09 2008 B comfortable to use. project development. 53 12 80 8 B Strong construction, workmanship less tidy 0 11 1 6 2017 B 0 0 no routine maintenance, no real price survey - only apply 11 1 5 2017 B 0 kabupaten price list, Ada keretakan pada bagian non-struktural jembatan akibat gempa besar yang menghantam Pidie Jaya pada Desember 11 18 1 2006 B 0 tahun 2016. Tapi keretakan ini terlihat tidak membahayakan. 31 2018 PRF Beneficiary Assessment and Technical Audit Building Brief Sub-Project Description: brief description of the SP will provide a few sentences that include type of infra, size (or length, width, etc.) of infra, approximate number of users, special Prov Kab Kec Vill Infra characteristics of infra, etc. Notes and Comments from Audit: Type This building is rehabilitation intended for early childhood, building area 7.5 m x 9.15 m The roof frame uses steel, function is well except toilet This building has no good drainage so that potential because it is not connected with water, Number water puddles in front of the building, Functioning as a 32 13 9 4A of students is 23 children school is supposed tolet works properly. Installation of Electricity and Clean Water is 53 12 80 10 A waiting 0 1. The building is built in Gemo hamlet. The beneciaries are some household close by. 2. There is no maintenance team. Ony household that stay close to MCK maintenances. 3. There is no erotion protection for this SP 4. There is no information Standard price for building from kabupaten. 5. NA on Land Acquisition means land owner 1. There was a Facilator in 2016. The building was donates his land but there is no letter recieved designed by KPMD (village cadre) assisted by TA from 53 9 1 2019 A confirmation. kabupaten. 1. The building is bulit on Village land 2. There is no maintenance team. 1. SP has proposal, design & budget 3. There is no erotion protection for this SP 4. There is no information Standard price for 2. Good quality of building. Electricity & water supply 53 9 1 2020 A are okay. building from kabupaten. 32 2018 PRF Beneficiary Assessment and Technical Audit Apr 2 Brief Sub-Project Description: brief description of the SP will provide a few sentences that include type of infra, size (or length, width, etc.) of infra, approximate number of users, special Prov Kab Kec Vill Infra characteristics of infra, etc. Notes and Comments from Audit: Type This sub-project is financed by village funds for No local material price survey document was Fiscal Year 2016, the total cost Rp. 217,467,000.00 found but found prices agreed by TPK and including Tax da Pph (11.5%). The channel length is suppliers. The price of the value is much higher 592 m, and the small dam has a width of 3 m. than the price of the audit team's survey results. There is no community self-help. RAB is created for a total subproject because it is The function of buildings to irrigate rice fields in based on a typical image only, there is no the rainy season, and before the dry season, measurement survey at the subproject location, whereas while the dry season there is no water. and no RAB details of the work. The widespread area of rice field service is not There is no written certification of the accuracy of found in the document, the results of field volume and quality of work. interviews they estimate about 8 Ha. There is no organizational maintenance team & no maintenance activities. 32 8 2005 2012 E 53 11 52 16 E Optimal Fungtion 0 11 18 1 2006 E 0 0 Saluran ini lebih tepat sebagai saluran pembuang (drainage) dari pada saluran irigasi karena lebih banyak berfungsi sebagai saluran pembuangan dari pada saluran untuk mengairi sawah. Saluran irigasi ini adalah sambungan saluran irigasi Pemeliharaan dilakukan hanya pada saat yang dibangun dengan dana desa tahun 2015 diperlukan (masa tanam yang perlu air) oleh 11 18 1 2006 E diatasnya. petani terkait. 33 2018 PRF Beneficiary Assessment and Technical Audit Apr 2 Brief Sub-Project Description: brief description of the SP will provide a few sentences that include type of infra, size (or length, width, etc.) of infra, approximate number of users, special Prov Kab Kec Vill Infra characteristics of infra, etc. Notes and Comments from Audit: Type 1. There are no SP proposal and information about number of beneficiaries. So there is no data of men, wowen, and chilldren who get benefit from the SP. 2. NA on Land Aqcuisition means there is no land donation because road concrete road on top old gravel road. 3. I didn't see the design of SP. All information According to survey materials from supplier near about SP that fill in this form according to actual Kecamatan office, however TPK didn't do survey materials. They used materials price following Kabupaten situation (on site). 4. We have no information about Road-Standar unit cost standar, that is more expensive than supplier Unit Cost from Kabupaten and Facilitator. price near Kecamatan Mande office at the same year they 32 3 8 5D 5. SP has no O&M committee constructed the SP. 34 2018 PRF Beneficiary Assessment and Technical Audit Water Supply Brief Sub-Project Description: brief description of the SP will provide a few sentences that include type of infra, size (or length, width, etc.) of infra, approximate number of users, Prov Kab Kec Vill Infra special characteristics of infra, etc. Notes and Comments from Audit: Type 53 11 13 5C Pipe Connection is poor Pipe is not dumped 0 53 12 10 19 C Pipe Connection is Good, Pipe is not dumped 0 Pipanisasi (rehab pipa) dengan dana desa tahun 2017 ini merupakan kelanjutan rehabilitasi perpipaan air bersih dengan dana desa tahun 2015. Rehabilitasi pipa ini untuk mengganti pipa air bersih yang yang telah rusak yang dulunya dibangun dengan dana Gambar kontruksi yang tersedia adalah sangat PNPM tahun 2012, sepanjang 800m. Dana desa minim (tidak lengkap); tidak menggambarkan tahun 2015 mengganti 250m; dana desa tahun sistem secara keseluruhan dan bagian-bagian 11 1 5 2022 C 2017 mengganti 500m. yang direhab/diganti. 11 1 6 2020 C 0 0 35 ANNEX 7 36 VILLAGE LAW 2018 TECHNICAL EVALUATION Infrastructure Type A – BUILDING Checklist 1 Province Construction Year Kabupaten Not remote Remoteness: Kecamatan Remote, Border Area, Disadvantaged Village Swakelola Contractor Joint Village ID New construction Rehabilitation Dana Desa Source of Alokasi Dana Desa Inspection date: Inspection by: funding Other (specify): Evaluation Details Evaluation Result Buildings, e.g. School, Community Centre, Meets Slightly Below Not Not Toilet block (detached from the building) etc. Spec. Below Spec Spec. inspected applicable 1 Foundation 2 Ground beam/plinth beam 3 Wall 4 Column 5 Ring beam 6 Truss a. Structural assembly and components b. Connection to ring beam 7 Roof structure a. Roof sheeting/tiles/fasteners b. Connections to purlin 8 Floor 9 Plastering 10 Ceiling 11 Painting 12 Doors and windows 13 Toilet 14 Septic tank 15 Ramp and handrail 16 Service utilities a. Water b. Electrical installation c. Drainage 17 Other structures 18 Operation and Maintenance Beneficiaries: Men __________ Women ____________ Children ______________ Total __________________ Households:________________ 1 37 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation 4A Operation and Maintenance/Sustainability Province Kabupaten Kecamatan Village Project ID Building 1 Major repairs or rehabilitation performed Yes/No 2 Major repairs or rehabilitation required Yes/No 3 Environmental ✓nature of defect 4 Design 5 Construction 6 Materials 7 O&M Other - Make notes next page 8.1 Repair costs Rupiah 8.2 Estimate costs Rupiah Village labour Contractor Gov't 9 Repair by whom ✓ 10 Repair date MM/YYYY Routine maintenance (make notes next page) 11 Roof repair ✓active areas 12 Mechanical (hinges, locks, etc.) 13 Plumbing 14 Concrete repair 15 Plaster repair 16 Washing 17 Painting 18 Drainage 19 No entry 1 38 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation 5A Key Issues Key Infrastructure Issues Noted During Technical Evaluation Province Kabupaten Kecamatan Village Project ID KEY ISSUES - BUILDING Design Sanitary Facilities 1 Lack of construction details on drawings 24 Toilet building not provided 2 Inaccurate drawings of connection details 25 No water connection to public system 3 Improper steel reinforcement design 26 Poor drainage/ponding on floor 4 Constructed dimensions differ from plan 27 Exposed PVC pipe 28 No access lid to septic tank Roof/Truss 29 High watertable in septic tank 5 Inadequate overlap of roof sheeting 6 Improper connection of roof to truss (no cleat, etc.) 7 Unreinforced splices in truss members 8 Missing steel strapping 9 Use of nails rather than bolts Electrical 10 Undersized/missing truss members 30 No junction box at wiring connections 11 Improper connection of truss to ring beam 31 Low/unattached wiring in public area 32 Broken switch Steel Reinforcement 33 Wiring installed but not energized 12 Short development length in steel reinforcing 13 Improperly bent reinforcing cage stirrups 14 Lack of tie bar wiring 15 Missing anchors, foundation to ground beam Miscellaneous 16 Missing anchors, column to wall 34 Broken mechanical fixtures 35 No handicap ramp/too steep Concrete/plaster 36 Ponding on the floor 17 Absence of concrete mix design 37 Poor drainage around building 18 Honeycombing in concrete 19 Exposed/shallow reinforcing steel 20 Improper materials or poorly mixed concrete 21 Undersized concrete column/beam 22 Improper plastering technique 23 Poor plastering and finishing 39 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation 2 Environmental and Social Safeguards Province Kabupaten Kecamatan Village Sub-Project ID Environmental Practices 1 Site inspection confirms that appropriate environmental standards were followed during construction ✓or ✗ Land Acquisition 2 Voluntary land donation conditions met ✓or ✗ or n/a Social Safeguards 3 Village Law social safeguard mechanisms followed ✓or ✗ Notes and commentary: 40 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation 3 Cost Effectiveness Key Infrastructure Information and Dimensions for Unit Cost Calculations Province Kabupaten Kecamatan Village Sub-Project ID Building Width (m) Length (m) = Area Rooms 1 Building dimensions Materials Reinf. Conc. Wood Steel 2 Structural ✓ 3 Trusswork ✓ 4 Building Costs Budget Rupiah 5 Actual cost/sq.m. Rupiah/sq.m. 6 Standard unit cost/sq.m. Rupiah/sq.m. (from Kabupaten records) Bridge Length (m) Width (m) = Area (sq.m.) 1 Bridge deck Materials Reinf. Conc. Wood Masonry Steel 2 Bridge deck ✓ 3 Beams ✓ 4 Columns ✓ 5 Abutments ✓ 6 Railings ✓ 7 Bridge Costs Budget Rupiah 8 Actual cost/sq.m. Rupiah/sq.m. 9 Standard unit cost/sq.m. Rupiah/sq.m. (from Kabupaten records) 1 41 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation 3 Cost Effectiveness Gravity Fed Water Supply Length (m) Diameter (cm) Plastic ✓ Steel ✓ 1 Transmission pipe 2 Distribution pipe 3 Pipe supply and Installation Costs Budget Rupiah 4 Pipe installation - Actual cost/m Rupiah/m 5 Standard unit cost/m (steel) Rupiah/m (from Kabupaten records) 6 Standard unit cost/m (plas) Rupiah/m (from Kabupaten records) Road, Drainage, Retaining Wall Length (m) Width (m) Earth ✓ Gravel ✓ Concrete ✓ Asphalt ✓ 1 Road Spot Improvements Length (m) Width(m) Diam (m) Height(m) 2 Drainage culvert 3 Drainage channel 4 Retaining wall 5 Road installation Costs Budget Rupiah 6 Drainage installation Costs Budget Rupiah 7 Retaining wall installation Costs Budget Rupiah 8 Road installation - Actual cost/sq.m Rupiah/sq.m 9 Drainage installation - Actual cost/m Rupiah/m 10 Wall installation - Actual cost/m Rupiah/m 11 Road - Standard unit cost/m Rupiah/sq.m (from Kabupaten) 12 Drainage - Standard unit cost/m Rupiah/m 13 Retaining wall - Standard unit cost/m Rupiah/m Irrigation Length (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Earth ✓ Masonry ✓ Concrete ✓ 1 Canal 2 Canal Costs Budget Rupiah 3 Actual cost/m Rupiah/m 4 Standard unit cost/m Rupiah/m (from Kabupaten records) 42 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation 4 Operation and Maintenance/Sustainability How good is the O&M Plan? 20 Does this SP have a maintenance plan? Yes/No 21 Linkages to line Ministries? Yes/No 22 Clear division of responsibilities and costs Yes/No 23 Contains estimated costs: Routine Yes/No Capital repair Yes/No O&M Committee 24 In place and functioning Yes/No 25 O&M user fee in place Yes/No 26 User fee for what services? Specify all (water, road, school, etc.) 27 Contributions from other sources Yes/No 28 Current funds within O&M account Rupiah 29 Affordibility of user fees % of users who are able to easily pay 30 Government inputs to schools, medical Yes/No clinics adequate/timely? 31 Labour/material input Community % annually Government % annually O&M Training 32 O&M training received Yes/No 33 Ongoing capacity development Yes/No 34 Annual training budget Rupiah Climate Resiliency - DRM 35 Is the sub-project safe from flooding? Yes/No 36 Erosion protection measures sufficient? Yes/No 37 Low landslide risk; no steep slopes Yes/No 38 Low forest fire risk; clear area between building and forest Yes/No 2 43 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation Brief Sub-project Description, Notes and Commentary, Best Practices Brief Sub-Project Description: Provide a few sentences that include type of infra, size (or length, width, etc.) of infra, materials used to build infra, approximate number of users, special characteristics of infra, etc. Notes and Comments from Audit: Best Practices: * What examples of good practice can be drawn to enhance technical quality, operation and maintenance and sustainability for future Village Law sub-projects? * What are the key lessons learned from the sub-projects undertaken? What practices should be replicated and/or avoided in future sub-projects? Provide a list of key recommendations. 44 Village Law 2018 Technical Evaluation 7 Process Assessment - Village Administration (One Questionaire/Village) Did the process of infrastructure prioritization 1 within the village follow Village Law requirements? Is there an awareness of the official requirements? Fully met requirements Somewhat met requirements Did not meet requirements Did the procurement process (either swakelola or 2 contractor) follow all laws and norms? Is there an awareness of the laws pertaining to procurement? Fully complied with laws Somewhat complied with laws Did not comply with laws 3 Accountability and Governance Examine records and meeting minutes from Badan Kerjasama Antar Desa and documents from Inter- Village Community Forum. How many persons have been participating in these meetings and how effective are these community committees? Are the records being kept in an orderly fashion? Lots of participation. Highly Effective Some participation. Effective Limited participation. Moderately Effective Little participation. Ineffective Women's participation in prioritization, 4 procurement and community meetings Lots of participation (>50%). Highly Effective Some participation (about 50%). Effective Limited participation (<25%). Moderately Effective Little participation (<10%). Ineffective 45 Technical Evaluation Checklist Building Sub-Project name Village ID Overall Project Assessment 19 The project construction quality is: Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Comments: Moderately satisfactory Moderately unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Highly Unsatisfactory 20 Design completeness (dimensions, details, engineer’s signature, code compliance, etc.): Good Average Comments: Poor 21 Sub-project functionality is: High Average Comments: Low None, not finished 22 Was there adequate design consultation with users: Yes No Comments: Sub-Project File Inspection and Evaluation 23 File completeness (meeting notes, land donation records, design drawings, etc.): Yes No 24 Kabupaten Engineer and TF inspection notes to file: Yes No 25 Final sub-project inspection report, in file and fully completed: Yes No 26 As-Built Drawing: Yes No 27 Quality of Technical Facilitation: Good 28 Frequency of TF site visits: Average Number of visits Poor Construction period (no. of months) 2 46 ANNEX 8 47 Annex 8 – Infrastructure Components and Aspects for Technical Evaluation Building 1 Foundation 2 Ground beam/plinth beam 3 Wall 4 Column 5 Ring beam 6 Truss a. Structural assembly and components b. Connection to ring beam 7 Roof structure a. Roof sheeting/tiles/fasteners b. Connections to purlin 8 Floor 9 Plastering 10 Ceiling 11 Painting 12 Doors and windows 13 Toilet 14 Septic tank 15 Ramp and handrail 16 Service utilities a. Water b. Electrical installation c. Drainage 17 Other structures 18 Operation and Maintenance Bridge 1. Layout 2. Foundation 3. Erosion protection 4. Abutments 5. Pier/supports 6. Wingwalls 7. Concrete 8. Deck beams 9. Deck 10. Submerged concrete laneway 48 11. Handrail 12. Connections (nails, bolts) 13. Apron / ramp / access to road 14. Other structure 15. Operation and Maintenance Water Supply 15. Water Source a. Smell, colour b. Chemical analysis c. Watershed protection 16. Water system design 17. Borehole and pump system 18. Reservoir a. Structural integrity b. Easy to clean 19. Transmission and distribution pipe – proper installation 20. Public taps a. Number and locations b. Fixtures c. Platform d. Drainage e. Fencing 21. Water pressure and quantity 8. Other structures 9. Operation and Maintenance Road, drainage 1 Cross Section (Crown/Camber) * 2 Inadequate Roadside Ditches * 3 Missing Drainage Structure 4 Improper Construction Materials 5 Slippery when wet 6 Very muddy during rainy season 7 Unstable slope above (too steep) 8 Unstable slope below (too steep) 9 Narrow width 10 Surface below standard 11 Low shoulder * 12 Safety concerns 13 Retaining Wall 49 a. Structural integrity (batter, etc.) b. Weep holes c. Erosion protection d. Construction techniques e. Dimensions 14 Culvert a. Layout b. Construction techniques 15 Small bridge a. Layout b. Construction techniques 16 Operation and Maintenance Irrigation 22. System layout 23. Reservoir design 24. Weir 25. Water level controls 26. Ditches 27. Culvert and pipes 28. Embankments a. Fill slope – 1 vert.:4 horiz. maximum b. Cut slope – 1 vert.: 2 horiz. max. 29. Irrigation channel a. Dimensions b. Field outlets 9. Channel control structures 10. Retaining Wall a. Structural integrity b. Erosion protection 11. Operation and Maintenance 50