SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE EVALUATION. REQUEST N 2011/ FWC BENEFICIARIES LOT 2: Transport & Infrastructures EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi

Transcription

1 SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE EVALUATION OF THE NORTHERN CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROGRAMME PHASE I & II REQUEST N 2011/ FWC BENEFICIARIES LOT 2: Transport & Infrastructures EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi 1. BACKGROUND The European Commission has provided support to the Government of Kenya with grant funding targeting the high priority Northern Corridor from Mombasa via Nairobi and Malaba to Uganda and Rwanda, which not only constitutes the backbone of Kenya s road network and is also the key inter-regional and international trade link for the landlocked Central and East African states. 1.1 Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme Phase I (Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei Road Rehabilitation Project) The Financing Agreement for the uro79.5 million Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme phase I (7 ACP KE 101, 7 ACP KE 102, 7 ACP KE RPR 781, 8 ACP KE 31) was signed on 23 rd May The programme covered the rehabilitation of Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei Road (A109), plus a number of other related support services which include technical assistance for road sector reform and axle load control studies. The overall objective of NCRP I was to contribute to the attainment of a sustainable road network facilitating economic growth and improving living standards. Following an international competitive tendering procedure, Strabag International GmbH was awarded the works contract for rehabilitation of Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei Road in the sum of Kshs. 4,642,112, The joint venture team of RRI Beller /Gauff Consulting Engineers was appointed the Supervising Consultants. Works commenced on 1 st April The original construction period was 30 months up to 30 th September The scope of works covered a 131 km road reconstruction including 39 km of a new road alignment and construction of 8 new bridges. The contract was amended in order to accommodate extra works including 3 new bridges, and several access roads within towns along the route. The contract amount was increased to KES 6,348,904,836 and contract period was extended by 5 1 / 2 months and substantial completion was attained on 19 th January The other activities financed under the NCRP I were: Support to Road Sector reform process by funding a consultancy study for preparation of a Road Sector Policy and Strategy. The study which was completed in 2004 laid the framework for finalisation of a Government road sector policy (Sessional Paper no. 5 of 2006) 1

2 A consultancy study on the Best Options for Axle Load Control for Kenya. The study was completed in 2006 and recommended the appropriate legislative framework, physical facilities and management organization for efficient heavy vehicle axle load controls in Kenya 1.2 Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme Phase II (Maai Mahiu Naivasha Lanet Road Rehabilitation Project) The Financing Agreement for the uro 55 million Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme phase II (9 ACP KE 1 / 9 ACP RSA 2) was signed on 23 rd November A subsequent rider for additional uro 3 million (9 ACP KE 15) was signed on 2 nd October The overall objective of the NCRP II was to contribute to a sustainable road network, facilitating economic growth and improving living standards. The main budget component of NCRP II was the Rehabilitation of Maai Mahiu Naivasha Lanet Road. The works contract for the rehabilitation of the Maai Mahiu - Naivasha Lanet Road (95 km) was procured through international competitive tendering procedure and awarded to Sogea-Satom of France for the sum of Kshs. 4,604,867, Works Supervising consultant was Mouchelparkman (UK). The works commenced on 14 th March 2005 and the original construction period for the project was 30 months up to 13 th September However, owing to increases in the scope of works the contract was amended through several contract addenda which resulted in a final contract sum of KES 7,742,212,192 ( 83,858,000) and final completion date of 30 th July The final measured sum was KES 7,386,469,088 ( 80,004,994). Total EDF contribution was 53,530,000 or 64% of the contract amount while Government of Kenya financed the balance. The other activities financed under the NCRP II were: Support to Road Sector reform process by funding a consultancy study for preparation of a Road Sub-sector Investment Plan for the period The client was Ministry of Roads and the study was finalised in October Capacity Building component for Ministry of Roads through a set of supply/installation/training contracts for Road Condition Monitoring and Laboratory Testing Equipment valued at 1,876, DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT 2.1 Global objectives The global objective is to provide decision makers in the Government of the Republic of Kenya and the European Commission with sufficient information to make an informed judgment about the overall impact of the Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme in terms of intended contribution to a sustainable road network, facilitating economic growth and improving living standards in Kenya and in neighbouring landlocked countries. 2

3 2.2 Specific objective(s) An independent assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and relevance of the Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme phase I and II with respect to the originally stated project objectives, purpose and results, and drawing useful lessons and making recommendations that may guide future decision-making. 2.3 Requested services The Consultant will evaluate the operational details of the two projects, taking into account all policy, technical, economic, financial, institutional, management, environmental, sociocultural, and gender-related aspects; Physical works implementation: Carry out a broad analysis of the road improvements, cost effectiveness, sustainability of the road works, road safety installations and environmental impact Capacity Building and Technical Assistance Assess the impact of the study on the Best Options for Axle Load Control for Kenya in terms of the national transport sector as a whole and the project sustainability in particular Evaluate the extent and impact of the EC Support to the Kenya road sector reform process through the Road Sector Policy and Strategy study (2004) and the 2006 Road Sub-sector Investment Plan study for the period Analyse the effect and impact of the supply/installation/training contracts for Road Condition Monitoring and Laboratory Testing Equipment to the capacity enhancement of Ministry of Roads Socio-economic impact of the project; The Consultant shall carry out analysis of travel time and costs of transit freight and passenger service, accessibility and trade facilitation from user surveys The Consultant will conduct road roughness tests on both roads to derive International Roughness Index (IRI) values applicable for post-construction; derive Vehicle Operating Costs for representative vehicles on the roads with relevant input from bus and freight truck operators; carry out traffic and axle load studies to determine traffic volumes and composition, supply and quality of transport services and types of goods being transported along the Northern Corridor and existing axle loading spectrum and collate historical accident data relevant for the two roads from Police records and carry out an analysis Economic benefits accruing to users and operators The consultant will perform an economic cost-benefit analysis of the two projects separately, using the HDM-IV computer model based on the before project and after project simulations and compare results to original projections at project design stage. The basic HDM-IV calibration parameters relating to vehicle operating costs shall be provided by the MoR. However, the Consultant shall derive road roughness levels and traffic time savings and other necessary inputs for themselves Sustainability: Evaluate the demand and economic sustainability, as well as maintenance and traffic enforcement 3

4 2.3.6 Overall efficiency, effectiveness and impact Evaluate the project results and the overall efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of the two projects and compile any lessons or recommendations that may guide future decision-making. 2.4 Required outputs An evaluation of the Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme incorporating an assessment of the following key issues: Efficiency: How well the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended outputs (results), in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. Effectiveness: The contribution made by the project s results to the achievement of the project purpose Impact: The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider sector objectives summarised in the project s Overall Objective, and on the achievement of the overarching policy objectives of the EU. Sustainability: The likelihood of a continuation in the stream of benefits produced by the project after the period of external support has ended. Relevance The appropriateness of project objectives to the real problems needs and priorities of the intended target groups and beneficiaries that the project is supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operates. 3. EXPERTS PROFILE Three (3) experts are required to carry out the assignment as described below. Expert 1: Team Leader- Transport Economist (category Senior expert) - 25 man days Qualifications and skills: A qualified transport economist with at least a Masters Degree and registration with recognised professional institution; or equivalent professional experience of at least 20 years. General professional experience: At least 10 years post-qualification experience in planning, feasibility studies and economic evaluation of transport projects. Specific professional experience: A good understanding of HDM IV or similar investment and maintenance evaluation software is mandatory. Experience with road projects in East Africa will be an advantage. Similar evaluation experience in ACP countries is essential. Experience with EDF procedures an advantage. Expert 2: Roads Engineer (category - Senior expert) - 25 man days Qualifications and skills: Qualified civil engineer with at least a Masters Degree and registration with recognised professional institution; or equivalent professional experience of at least 20 years. General professional experience: At least 10 years post-qualification experience in planning, design and construction and maintenance of major highways. Specific professional experience: Experience with road pavement design, road roughness measurements and falling weight deflectometer measurements and data interpretation is essential. Working experience in East Africa will be an advantage. Similar evaluation experience in ACP countries is essential. Experience with EDF procedures an advantage. 4

5 Expert 3: Roads Technician (category - Junior expert) - 18 man days Qualifications and skills: A qualified road materials technician with at least a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering or relevant discipline and registration with recognised professional institution; or equivalent professional experience of at least 10 years. General professional experience: At least 3 years post-qualification experience in traffic counting, axle load measurements, pavement evaluation and laboratory testing. Specific professional experience: Familiarity with asphaltic mix testing procedures, including Marshall's tests as well as bump integrator and Falling Weight Deflectometer measurements is mandatory. The working language shall be English, and all experts will be required to be fluent in written and spoken English. The Consultant shall also provide support staff necessary for field work, the cost to be included in the fees for key experts. 4. LOCATION AND DURATION 4.1 Starting Period Mid October Foreseen duration The duration of the assignment is a maximum of 60 calendar days. Total number of persondays to be provided is 25 for each senior expert and 18 for junior expert. 4.3 Planning including the period for notification for placement of the staff The Consultants will hold an inception meeting during week 1 at the EU Delegation in Nairobi with the key representatives of the EU Delegation, Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA), the Ministry of Roads and the respective project supervising consultants. The purpose of this inception meeting will be to inform all the parties concerned of the nature and scope of work to be undertaken, to outline the timetable of the assignment and to make practical arrangements. In order to prepare for this meeting the Evaluation Consultant may request in advance copies of certain documents detailed in Annex 2 as well as any other supplementary documents which may be considered useful. Further information and documents will be made available at the start of the assignment. During their assignment, the Consultants will hold regular briefing sessions for the EU Delegation and Ministry of Roads at least once every two weeks to inform about progress in relation to the work planning and of any circumstance or event that may affect the development of the mission, or its outcome. Upon completion of the Draft Report, the mission will provide all the parties with the draft final report and convene a final meeting to make a PowerPoint presentation of the Consultants key-findings, conclusions and recommendations. 5

6 4.4 Location of assignment The assignment shall be in Nairobi. The Consultant shall be required to make brief visits to the respective project sites. 4.5 Special Arrangements for field and Laboratory Testing The Consultant may be required to hire bump integrator equipment, Falling Weight Deflectometer and towing vehicles and accessories using the reimbursable item (incidental expenditure) included in the budget. Also to be included in the item will be charges for any laboratory analyses and testing of pavement core samples deemed necessary in suitable private laboratories in Nairobi or overseas. This item may only be expended in the event that the Materials Testing and Research Department of Ministry of Roads is unable to provide free use of these resources. 5. REPORTING 5.1 Content The Consultant shall produce an evaluation report of maximum 50 pages (main text, excluding annexes) which shall address efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and relevance of the project relating to, but not be limited to the areas under Article 2 "Description of the assignment: 2.3 Requested services", above. The detailed analyses which underlie the Consultants' recommendations will be presented in annexes to the main report. 5.2 Language of the specific contract English 5.3 Submission/comments timing Inception Report of maximum 12 pages to be produced within 3 days of the start of the Consultants' mission. In the report the Consultants shall describe the first finding of the study, status of staff mobilization, programme of work, specific data and information required from the major stakeholders, propose a structure of the final report and report on any difficulties encountered or foreseen as well as proposals for addressing them, where appropriate. The Consultants shall proceed with his work without waiting for comments to the inception report. Draft Evaluation Report: The Consultant shall submit a draft evaluation report for discussion with the Contracting Authority and other concerned parties within 30 days after commencement of the assignment. Final Evaluation Report: The Consultant shall submit the final evaluation report corresponding to the Draft Report, and incorporating any comments received from the Contracting Authority within 10 days after receipt of comments. Annex 3 provides the layout for the final report. 5.4 Number of report(s) copies 6 copies of inception report 6 copies of draft report 6 copies of the final report + 2 electronic copies (CD Rom) of the final documentation prepared in the course of the consultancy work 6

7 6. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 6.1 Interviews The Contracting Authority/EU Delegation reserves the right to invite candidates to interview (in the form of a video-conference or by teleconference where appropriate). Candidates for all three positions must be prepared for interview immediately following submission of bids. 6.2 Subcontracting Sub-contracting is possible with respect to hire of equipment and services for pavement evaluation and testing. 6.3 Language of the specific contract English 6.4 Request for a succinct methodology Framework contractors will be required to submit a succinct methodology with their bids, max. 3 pages, providing his proposed methodology accompanied by an action plan/work programme towards its implementation with due consideration of described activities, requested services and required outputs and available resources as described in the present ToRs. 6.5 Management team member presence required for briefing and debriefing All team members shall attend the inception briefing meeting. The Team Leader shall attend the final debriefing meeting. 6.6 Other authorized items to foresee under Reimbursable Provision for incidental expenditure covering the ancillary and exceptional eligible expenditure incurred under this contract including payments for hire of any specialised equipment and or testing services necessary. The Provision for incidental expenditure for this contract is EUR 5,000. This amount must be included without modification in the Budget breakdown. 7

8 Annex 1: Persons who can be contacted 1. Eng. Shadrack Osiro Project Engineer, Ministry of Roads 2. Eng. P. Mwinzi : Chief Engineer (Roads), Ministry of Roads 3. Gerd Weber :Resident Engineer Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei Road Project (RRI Beller/Gauff) 4. Donald Murphy: Resident Engineer Maai Mahiu Naivasha Lanet Project (MouchelParkman) 5. Andrew Gitonga : Project Officer (Transport Infrastructure) EU Delegation to Kenya Annex 2: an indicative list of available documents 1. Data Collection and Analysis for the Appraisal of Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei Road Rehabilitation Project Final Report (BCEOM July 1998) 2. Feasibility Study and design of Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei section of the Nairobi to Mombasa Road (Grabowsky & Poort BV, November 1996) 3. Financing Agreement no. 6107/KE Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme Phse. 1 ( signed 23rd May 2002) 4. Works Contract Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei Road Project (signed 13th December 2002) 5. Works Contract Addenda no. 1 & 2 6. Final Project Completion Report Sultan Hamud Mtito Andei Road Rehabilitation Project October Data Collection and Analysis for the Appraisal of Maai Mahiu - Naivasha Lanet rehabilitation projects Final Report (BCEOM July 1998) 8. Feasibility Study & Design of Mai Mahiu Naivasha Lanet Rd (STIPE, April 1998) 9. Data collection and analysis of the Mai Mahiu Naivasha Lanet Rd (BCEOM February 1999) 10. Financing Agreement no. 9006/KE Northern Corridor Rehabilitation Programme Phse. II ( signed 20th November 2003) 11. Works Contract Maai Mahiu - Naivasha Lanet rehabilitation projects Works Contract Addendum no. 1 ( signed 23rd May 2002) 12. Works Contract Addenda Final Project Completion Report Maai Mahiu - Naivasha Lanet rehabilitation project (May 2009) 14. Final Report on Pavement Investigation on Maai Mahiu - Naivasha Lanet road (June 2010) 8

9 ANNEX 3: LAYOUT, STRUCTURE OF THE FINAL REPORT The final report should not be longer than approximately 50 pages. Additional information on overall context, programme or aspects of methodology and analysis should be confined to annexes. The cover page of the report shall carry the following text: This evaluation is supported and guided by the European Commission and presented by [name of consulting firm]. The report does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the European Commission. The main sections of the evaluation report are as follows: 1. Executive Summary A tightly-drafted, to-the-point and free-standing Executive Summary is an essential component. It should be short, no more than five pages. It should focus mainly on the key purpose or issues of the evaluation, outline the main analytical points, and clearly indicate the main conclusions, lessons learned and specific recommendations. Cross-references should be made to the corresponding page or paragraph numbers in the main text that follows. 2. Introduction A description of the project/programme and the evaluation, providing the reader with sufficient methodological explanations to gauge the credibility of the conclusions and to acknowledge limitations or weaknesses, where relevant. 3. Answered questions/ Findings A chapter presenting the evaluation questions and conclusive answers, together with evidence and reasoning. The organization of the report should be made around the responses to the Evaluation questions which are systematically covering the DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, plus coherence and added value specific to the Commission. In such an approach, the criteria will be translated into specific questions. These questions are intended to give a more precise and accessible form to the evaluation criteria and to articulate the key issues of concern to stakeholders, thus optimising the focus and utility of the evaluation. This annex proposes an indicative list of issues which deserve to be studied in a project/programme evaluation. The evaluation should focus on a limited number of precise issues/questions. It should ensure that there is a balance of evaluation criteria. Further guidance on evaluation questions for the following sectores - health, education, transports, rural development, water and sanitation - is available on the following link The appropriate evaluation questions and sub questions, based on this set of issues, should be elaborated for each project/ programme evaluation case. 3.1 Problems and needs (Relevance) The extent to which the objectives of the development intervention (projects/ programme) are consistent with beneficiaries' requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners' and EC's policies. The analysis of relevance will focus on the following questions in relation to the design of the project: 9

10 the extent to which the project has been consistent with, and supportive of, the policy and programme framework within which the project is placed, in particular the EC s Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme, and the Partner Government s development policy and sector policies the quality of the analyses of lessons learnt from past experience, and of sustainability issues; the project's coherence with current/on going initiatives; the quality of the problem analysis and the project's intervention logic and logical framework matrix, appropriateness of the objectively verifiable indicators of achievement; the extent to which stated objectives correctly address the identified problems and social needs, clarity and internal consistency of the stated objectives; the extent to which the nature of the problems originally identified have changed the extent to which objectives have been updated in order to adapt to changes in the context; the degree of flexibility and adaptability to facilitate rapid responses to changes in circumstances; the quality of the identification of key stakeholders and target groups (including gender analysis and analysis of vulnerable groups) and of institutional capacity issues; the stakeholder participation in the design and in the management/implementation of the project, the level of local ownership, absorption and implementation capacity; the quality of the analysis of strategic options, of the justification of the recommended implementation strategy, and of management and coordination arrangements; the realism in the choice and quantity of inputs (financial, human and administrative resources) the analysis of assumptions and risks; the appropriateness of the recommended monitoring and evaluation arrangements ; 3.2 Achievement of purpose (Effectiveness) The effectiveness criterion, concerns how far the project s results were attained, and the project s specific objective(s) achieved, or are expected to be achieved. The analysis of Effectiveness will therefore focus on such issues as: whether the planned benefits have been delivered and received, as perceived by all key stakeholders (including women and men and specific vulnerable groups); whether intended beneficiaries participated in the intervention in institutional reform projects, whether behavioural patterns have changed in the beneficiary organisations or groups at various levels; and how far the changed institutional arrangements and characteristics have produced the planned improvements (e.g. in communications, productivity, ability to generate actions which lead to economic and social development); if the assumptions and risk assessments at results level turned out to be inadequate or invalid, or unforeseen external factors intervened, how flexibly management has adapted to ensure that the results would still achieve the purpose; and how well has it been supported in this by key stakeholders including Government, Commission (HQ and locally), etc.; whether the balance of responsibilities between the various stakeholders was appropriate, which accompanying measures have been taken by the partner authorities; how unintended results have affected the benefits received positively or negatively and could have been foreseen and managed.; whether any shortcomings were due to a failure to take account of cross-cutting or over-arching issues such as gender, environment and poverty during implementation; 10

11 3.3 Sound management and value for money (Efficiency) The efficiency criterion concerns how well the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended results (sometimes referred to as outputs), in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. Comparison should be made against what was planned. The assessment of Efficiency will therefore focus on such issues as: the quality of day-to-day management, for example in: a. operational work planning and implementation (input delivery, activity management and delivery of outputs),and management of the budget (including cost control and whether an inadequate budget was a factor); b. management of personnel, information, property, etc, c. whether management of risk has been adequate, i.e. whether flexibility has been demonstrated in response to changes in circumstances; d. relations/coordination with local authorities, institutions, beneficiaries, other donors; e. the quality of information management and reporting, and the extent to which key stakeholders have been kept adequately informed of project activities (including beneficiaries/target groups); f. respect for deadlines; Extent to which the costs of the project have been justified by the benefits whether or not expressed in monetary terms in comparison with similar projects or known alternative approaches, taking account of contextual differences and eliminating market distortions. Partner country contributions from local institutions and government (e.g offices, experts, reports, tax exemption, as set out in the LogFrame resource schedule), target beneficiaries and other local parties: have they been provided as planned? Commission HQ/Delegation inputs (e.g. procurement, training, contracting, either direct or via consultants/bureaux): have they been provided as planned?; Technical assistance: how well did it help to provide appropriate solutions and develop local capacities to define and produce results? Quality of monitoring: its existence (or not), accuracy and flexibility, and the use made of it; adequacy of baseline information; Did any unplanned outputs arise from the activities so far? 3.4 Achievement of wider effects (Impact) The term impact denotes the relationship between the project s specific and overall objectives. 11