Prescribing a Consultant's Performance Evaluation System (ConsPES) for Infrastructure Projects

August 4, 2017

DPWH DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 100-17

 

In line with the continuing efforts of the DPWH to improve the performance evaluation of consultants for infrastructure projects, the revised Guidelines on Consultant's Performance Evaluation System (ConsPES) for Infrastructure Projects is hereby prescribed for compliance by all concerned.

This Order shall supersede Department Order No. 145, Series of 2016 and shall take effect immediately.

MARK A. VILLARSecretary

(SGD.) RAFAEL C. YABUTSenior Undersecretary

ATTACHMENT

Revised Consultant's Performance

A. Objectives of ConsPES

ConsPES seeks to achieve the following objectives:

1. To set an objective and consistent method to evaluate, measure, and rate a Consultant's performance in DPWH projects.

2. To provide the DPWH with a means to incentivize Consultants to perform good work.

3. To provide the DPWH essential inputs in the process of selecting Consultants for its future consulting services project.

4. To give Consultants the opportunity to improve their job performance from one ConsPES rating period to another.

B. Guidelines

1. ConsPES shall be used mainly for the most common types of consulting services engaged by the DPWH — Feasibility Study (FS), Detailed Engineering Design (DED), and Construction Supervision (CS). For other types of consulting services — e.g., preparation of Master Plan, specialized technical jobs such as geotechnical investigations, traffic surveys, parcellary surveys, and institutional capacity development — the Procurement Service (PrS) through its Consulting Services Division (PrS-CSD) — shall customize ConsPES to fit the specific requirements of those services, upon request of the concerned Implementing Unit (IU).

2. The evaluation and rating of a consultant's performance, using ConsPES, shall be done by a ConsPES Team to be formed by the Director of the PrS, with members from the following offices to be designated by their respective heads of office, on a project-to-project basis, depending on the type of consulting services involved:

FS	DED	CS
PrS-CSD	PrS-CSD	PrS-CSD
Planning Service-Project Preparation Division (PS-PPD)	Bureau of Design (BOD)	Concerned Cluster of Unified Project Management Office (UPMO)
BOD	Bureau of Construction (BOC)	BOC

3. The evaluation of the consultant's performance, through ConsPES, shall be carried out upon reaching the following milestones using the criteria given in ANNEX A:

a. 50% of contract period

b. 100% of contract period

4. The IU shall assign the corresponding points for each activity and/or deliverable required in the Terms of Reference (TOR).

5. The IU concerned shall transmit the Consultant's deliverables to the following specialized offices, for review/evaluation of the specific aspects pertaining to their offices:

 

Specialized Offices	FS	DED	CS	Others
PS	✓
BOD	✓	✓
BOC	✓	✓	✓
UPMO			✓
Bureau of Research and Standards			✓
Bureau of Quality and Safety			✓
Others

6. For each consultant's deliverable (except for CS), the specialized offices responsible for reviewing/evaluating the deliverable shall determine whether the defects/deficiencies in the deliverable are major or minor based on their respective checklists. Only one staff from the specialized office concerned shall be assigned to review/evaluate a particular (or a specific aspect of) deliverable throughout the entire contract period. The Director of the concerned specialized office shall synthesize the results of its evaluation of each deliverable using the form in ANNEX B (Summary of Findings) and submit this to the PrS-CSD. In addition, the IU must furnish the PrS-CSD with the exchange of communication/correspondences (e.g., DPWH to Consultant vice-versa, DPWH office to another DPWH office, and the like).

7. For FS and DED, based on the Summaries of Findings for each deliverable submitted by the concerned specialized offices, the ConsPES Team shall evaluate and rate the performance of the consultant using the criteria in ANNEX A. AScHCD

8. The ConsPES Team shall prepare the corresponding Intermediate Evaluation Report (IER) indicating its performance rating using the form in ANNEX C and submit it to the Director of the PrS for review and notation. The IER shall be submitted on the following milestones with their respective weights:

IER No.	Milestone	Weight
1	50% of contract period	50%
2	100% of contract period	50%

9. Upon completion of the consulting services, the ConsPES Team shall compute the final performance rating of the consultant, which is the sum of the weighted ratings obtained in the two evaluation periods. The Team shall then submit its Final Evaluation Report (FER) using the form in ANNEX D to the PrS Director for review.

10. The PrS Director shall recommend the approval of FER to the approving authority concerned.

11. Prior to the approval of the FER, the PrS-CSD shall provide a copy of FER to the consultant concerned for his information. If requested by the consultant within five (5) calendar days from the date of receipt of the FER, the ConsPES Team shall discuss with the consultant the said report.

12. The PrS-CSD shall maintain a ConsPES database which shall include, among other things, the findings and performance ratings of the consultants evaluated.

13. The latest ConsPES rating of the Consultant shall be used by the BAC as an input in the shortlisting and evaluation of technical proposal of the Consultant for the next bidding. The Consultant will be rated in two (2) phases as shown on the table below:

 

Consultant being rated	Phase 1 Rating	Phase 2 Rating
FS Consultant	Based on completed FS	Based on implemented FS*, done by DED Consultant/IU (not necessarily the FS Consultant)
DED Consultant	Based on completed DED	Based on implemented DED*, supervised by the CS Consultant/IU (not necessarily the DED Consultant)
CS Consultant	Based on completed CS	Based on the findings of the IU and ConsPES Team during the Defects Liability Period (DLP)

* provided the scope of works is the same, otherwise use the Phase 1 rating

 

14. The latest ConsPES Rating to be used in the succeeding biddings shall be the Phase 2 rating of the Consultant.

15. All the firms in a joint venture or association shall be given the same ConsPES rating in a particular contract.

16. The ConsPES Rating of a consultant in a packaged contract, i.e., a contract with multiple projects awarded to a single consultant, shall be computed by obtaining the weighted (according to cost) average of its performance ratings in all projects in the contract.

C. Basic Criteria and Weights by Type of Consulting Services

ConsPES shall use the following basic criteria, with their corresponding weights, for the common types of consulting services — Feasibility Study, Detailed Engineering Design, and Construction Supervision:

Phase 1:

 

Criteria	Feasibility Study (FS)	Detailed Engineering Design (DED)	Construction Supervision (CS)
Quality (of Output)	50	60	60
Cost (of Output)	20	20	20
Schedule (of Deliverables)	30	20	20
Total	100 pts.	100 pts.	100 pts.

 

Phase 2:

 

Criteria	FS as evaluated after DED stage	DED as evaluated after CS stage	CS as evaluated after the DLP
Quality (of Output)	50	60	60
Cost (of Output)*	20	20	20
Schedule (of Deliverables)*	30	20	20
Total	100 pts.	100 pts.	100 pts.

* The same rating in Phase 1 will be used in Phase 2.

 

D. Basic Rating System

ConsPES shall use the following numerical and adjectival ratings:

Numerical	Adjectival
95% to 100%	Very Satisfactory
85% to <95%	Satisfactory
70 to <85%	Fair
<70%	Unsatisfactory

E. Application of ConsPES Ratings

The ConsPES ratings shall be used by the concerned Bids and Awards Committees as inputs in the shortlisting and the evaluation of technical proposals of consultants, as follows:

 

PROPOSED

	With ConsPES	Without ConsPES*
For Shortlisting:
1. Applicable Experience of Firm	25%	35%
2. Qualification of Personnel of the entire Firm	30%	40%
3. Job Capacity	20%	25%
4. ConsPES Rating	25%	-
Total	100%	100%
For Evaluation of Technical Proposals
1. Applicable Experience of Firm	10%	10%
2. Work Plan and Methodology	15%	20%
3. Qualification of Personnel to be assigned to the Project	55%	70%
4. ConsPES Rating	20%	-
Total	100%	100%

* For firms without ConsPES ratings, the weights in this column shall be used.

 

For the procurement — i.e., shortlisting or evaluation of technical proposals — of a specific consulting services contract, the ConsPES rating to be used shall be that for a similar completed services contract. In case the consultant has two or more ConsPES ratings, the average ConsPES rating of the last two similar consulting services contracts shall be used for shortlisting and evaluation of technical proposals.

F. List of Annexes

Annex	Title	Responsible Office
A	DPWH ConsPES Criteria and Rating System by Type of Services • Feasibility Study (FS) • Detailed Engineering Design (DED) • Construction Supervision (CS)	ConsPES Team
B	Summary of Findings • Feasibility Study (FS) • Detailed Engineering Design (DED)	Specialized Office
C	Intermediate Evaluation Report (IER) • Feasibility Study (FS) • Detailed Engineering Design (DED) • Construction Supervision (CS)	ConsPES Team
D	Final Evaluation Report (FER) • Feasibility Study (FS) • Detailed Engineering Design (DED) • Construction Supervision (CS)	ConsPES Team
E	Monitoring Control for Construction Supervision of Flood Control Projects	-

ANNEX A

DPWH Consultant's Performance Evaluation System (ConsPES)Criteria and Rating System by Type of Services

A. FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)

Criteria	Points
1. Quality	50
1.1 Adequacy and accuracy of FS assumptions, data, analyses, and outputs vs. Terms of Reference (TOR)	20
1.2 Cost-effectiveness of FS recommendation, including PED	20
1.3 Tenure of Consultant's key personnel	10
2. Cost	20
2.1 Completeness of FS/PED cost estimates vs. TOR cost items/requirements	8
2.2 Comparison of FS/PED cost estimates with accepted benchmarks	12
3. Schedule	30
3.1 Adherence to schedule of accepted FS deliverables	30
Total	100

1. Quality: 50 Points

2. Cost of Output: 20 Points

 

3. Schedule: 30 Points

 

NOTES:

*Phase 2 Evaluation

If the IU, together with the DED Consultant, finds additional errors and discrepancies in the FS output during the DED phase (Phase 2), this criteria (Indicator A of 1.1) shall also be used to compute the Phase 2 rating of the FS Consultant. The same rating in Phase 1 shall be applied for other criteria.

**Major FS Errors/Deficiencies:

— Use of "table" survey instead of actual field survey (e.g., traffic, socio-economic, road and river profile/cross-section surveys).

— Use of wrong benchmarks, coordinates.

— Use of inadequate/inappropriate assumptions (e.g., traffic parameters/adjustments factors, VOC, growth rates).

— Errors in geotechnical investigation such as inadequate spacing and depth of boreholes. AcICHD

— Wrong preliminary design analysis on the main frame that will affect the structural integrity of the project (e.g., seismic coefficient, design flood level/return period).

— Inadequate preliminary design data used in structural analysis (e.g., thickness, materials).

— Inadequate value engineering to determine the most cost-effective design.

— Non-compliance with the major environmental requirements for environmentally critical projects and projects in environmentally critical areas.

— Inappropriate cost estimate of right of way acquisition.

— Other major FS errors/deficiencies, as may be added by PS, depending on the project.

FS errors/deficiencies not stated above are considered minor FS errors/deficiencies.

***Possible adverse comments of DPWH on Consultant's evaluation of alternatives:

— Failure of the Consultant to meet the minimum number of proposed alternative schemes as per TOR requirement.

— Major omission of a potential cost-effective alternative.

— Inadequate economic cost-benefit analysis to determine the most cost-effective scheme.

— Non-consideration of possible conflict with other ongoing government infrastructure projects.

— Use of secondary traffic data in traffic analyses.

— No reference/s cited for the report on the profiles of the location of the subject project.

— Other adverse comments, as may be added by PS, depending on the project.

B. DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN (DED)

Criteria	Points
1. Quality	60
1.1 Adequacy and accuracy of DED surveys and plans, analyses, and outputs vs. Terms of Reference (TOR)	36
1.2 Cost-effectiveness of DED	12
1.3 Tenure of Consultant's key personnel	12
2. Cost	20
2.1 Completeness and accuracy of DED cost estimates in the DUPA vs. TOR cost items/requirements	8
2.2 Comparison of DED cost estimates with accepted benchmarks	12
3.  Schedule	20
3.1 Adherence to schedule of accepted DED deliverables	20
Total	100

1. Quality: 60 Points

2. Cost: 20 Points

3. Schedule: 20 Points

NOTES:

*Phase 2 Evaluation

If the IU, together with the CS Consultant, finds additional errors and discrepancies in the DED output during the CS phase (Phase 2), this criteria (Indicator A of 1.1) shall also be used to compute the Phase 2 rating of the DED Consultant. The same rating in Phase 1 shall be applied for other criteria.

**Major DED Errors/Deficiencies:

— Use of table survey instead of actual field survey.

— Use of wrong benchmarks, coordinates, topographical data, mean sea level elevation.

— Errors in geotechnical investigation, such as inadequate spacing and depth of boreholes, lack of understanding of subsurface condition.

— Wrong design analysis on the main frame that will affect structural integrity of the project (e.g., seismic coefficient, design flood return period, maximum experienced flood elevation).

— Inadequate design data used in structural analysis (e.g., thickness, materials).

— Inappropriate value engineering to determine the most cost-effective design.

— Non-consideration of socio-political issues — e.g., historical landmarks, densely populated area — resulting in non-implementation or major realignment/revision of project.

— Other major DED errors/deficiencies, as may be added by BOD, depending on the project.

DED errors/deficiencies not stated above are considered minor DED errors/deficiencies.

C. CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION (CS)

Criteria	Points
1. Quality	60
1.1 Consultant's efficiency in ensuring contractor's compliance of its construction work with the approved DED, particularly plans and specifications	30
1.2 Quality of Consultant's const. supervision (CS) system	24
1.3 Tenure of Consultant's key personnel	6
2. Cost	20
2.1 Consultant's efficiency in controlling cost overruns	20
3. Schedule	20
3.1 Consultant's efficiency in ensuring contractor's adherence to approved construction schedule	8
3.2 Consultant's prudent evaluation of proposed contract time extensions	6
3.3 Consultant's timeliness in submitting required reports and documents	6
Total	100

1. Quality: 60 Points

 

Criteria	Weight	Indicators	Rating System
1.1 Consultant's efficiency in ensuring contractor's compliance of its construction work with the approved DED, particularly plans and specifications* -------------- *See Notes on Phase 2 evaluation (page 16).	50%	Incidence of construction defects/deficiencies** stated in the Statement of Works Accomplished (SWA) recommended by Consultant for payment, but found by DPWH to be not in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. -------------- ** See Notes on major construction defects (page 16).	100%: Very Satisfactory — All workmanship stated in the SWA, carried out by the Contractor, and recommended by the Consultant for payment are in accordance with the duly approved plans and specifications. Noted defects/deficiencies (if any) are within the acceptable tolerance set and prescribed in the monitoring/control matrix. (Please refer to Annex E for Flood Control Projects) 85%: Satisfactory — SWA recommended by Consultant for payment is found by DPWH to have defects/deficiencies in major work items requiring rectification works and/or costing 10% and below of the aggregate works accomplished. 70%: Fair — SWA recommended by Consultant for payment is found by DPWH to have defects/deficiencies in major work items requiring rectification works and/or costing 20% and below of the aggregate works accomplished. 50%: Unsatisfactory — SWA recommended by Consultant for payment is found by DPWH to have defects/deficiencies in major work items requiring reconstruction and/or costing above 20% of the aggregate works accomplished. -------------- Three (3) minor errors shall be equivalent to one (1) major error.
1.2 Quality of Consultant's const. supervision (CS) system: a. Organization of key personnel b. Control of Quality of Workmanship (Inspection and supervision) c. Control of Quality of Materials (Sampling and testing) d. Documentation [Reporting and records management (e.g., log book, test results, site instructions, progress reports, etc.)] e. Other Management Consideration • Construction Health and Safety Management • Traffic Management • Environmental Management	40%	Incidence of deficiencies in the Consultant's CS system***, covering the five (5) criteria (column 1). -------------- ***See Notes on major CS system deficiencies (page 18).	100%: Very Satisfactory — All the five (5) criteria are satisfactorily complied. 85%: Satisfactory — Has incurred 1-2 cases of major infractions/deficiencies in any of the criteria. 70%: Fair — Has incurred 3-4 cases of infractions/deficiencies in any of the criteria. 50%: Unsatisfactory — Has incurred 5 or more cases of infractions/deficiencies in any of the criteria. -------------- Three (3) minor errors shall be equivalent to one (1) major error.
1.3 Tenure of Consultant's key personnel (Upon award of contract)	10%	Incidence of replacement of key personnel (weighted according to their roles) with or without valid reasons.	100%: Very satisfactory — No replacement of key personnel over the duration of Consulting services. 85%: Satisfactory — Replacement of less than 20% of the number of key personnel. 70%: Fair — Replacement of 20%-30% of the number of key personnel. 50%: Unsatisfactory — Replacement of Project Manager and/or more than 30% of the number of key personnel.

2. Cost: 20 Points

Criteria	Weight	Indicators	Rating System
2.1 Consultant's efficiency in controlling cost overruns.	100%	Incidence of variation orders (VOs) with cost overruns, recommended by Consultant, but disapproved/reduced by DPWH, except VOs initiated itself by DPWH and VOs initiated due to fortuitous events.	100%: Very Satisfactory — Each VO recommended by Consultant are approved by DPWH.   85%: Satisfactory — Each VO recommended by Consultant is reduced by less than 5% by DPWH.   70%: Fair — Each VO recommended by Consultant is reduced by 5% up to 10% by DPWH.   50%: Unsatisfactory — Each VO recommended by Consultant is disapproved or reduced by more than 10% by DPWH.

3. Scheduled: 20 Points

Criteria	Weight	Indicators	Rating System
3.1 Consultant's efficiency in ensuring contractor's adherence to approved construction schedule.	40%	Extent of slippage of planned accomplishment vs. actual accomplishment.	100%: Very Satisfactory — Work accomplishments are completed ahead of, or on schedule (+, or no slippage).   85%: Satisfactory — Has incurred 10% and below negative slippage due to Consultant's laxity/fault.   70%: Fair — Has incurred above 10% up to 15% negative slippage due to Consultant's laxity/fault.   50%: Unsatisfactory — Has incurred above 15% negative slippage due to Consultant's laxity/fault.
3.2 Consultant's prudent evaluation of proposed contract time extensions	30%	Incidence of contract time extensions recommended by Consultant but disapproved/reduced by DPWH — except time extensions for VOs due to faulty DED, due to fortuitous events or for VOs initiated by DPWH.	100%: Very Satisfactory — All proposed contract time extension recommended by Consultants are approved by DPWH   85%: Satisfactory — The proposed contract time extension recommended by Consultant is reduced by less than 5% by DPWH.   70%: Fair — The proposed contract time extension recommended by Consultant is reduced by 5% up to 10% by DPWH.   50%: Unsatisfactory — The proposed contract time extension recommended by Consultant is disapproved/reduced by more than 10% by DPWH.
3.3 Consultant's timeliness in submitting required reports and documents	30%	Extent of Consultant's compliance with prescribed schedule to submit project reports and other documents, e.g.: a. As-staked plans b. Progress reports c. Request for Payment of Materials on Hand d. Material Test results/report e. Site instructions f. Progress billings g. As-built plans h. Recommendations on VOs and time extensions	100%: Very Satisfactory — All the required reports/documents are satisfactorily prepared and submitted within the prescribed schedule   85%: Satisfactory — All the required reports/documents are satisfactorily prepared and submitted within 1-2 days behind the prescribed schedule   70%: Fair — All the required reports/documents are satisfactorily prepared and submitted 3-4 days behind the prescribed schedule   50%: Unsatisfactory — All the required reports/documents are satisfactorily prepared and submitted above 5 days behind the prescribed schedule, and/or Incomplete submission of reports/documents

NOTES:

* Phase 2 Evaluation

If the IU and the ConsPES Team find construction defects/deficiencies during the Defects Liability Period (Phase 2), this criteria shall be used to compute the Phase 2 rating of the CS Consultant. The same rating in Phase 1 shall be applied for other criteria.

**Major Construction Defects: TAIaHE

General:

— Structural failure due to faulty construction.

— Inappropriate size and type of materials used for critical components of structures vs. plans and specifications. 1

— Inappropriate dimension of structures, such as insufficient thickness, width and/or depth. 1

— Inadequate concrete strength based on coring. 1

 1Not included in Phase 2 evaluation

Roads and Bridges:

— Pavement or base failure, major cracks due to insufficient compaction, inadequate concrete mix, especially on structural and load bearing components (e.g., girders, columns, piles).

— Major scaling and faulting in PCCP.

— Asphalt raveling, shoving and corrugation.

— Scouring on bridge abutment.

— Erosion of earth materials from the top due to non-compliance with cut slope requirement.

— Settlement of bridge approaches

a. Clearing and Grubbing

— No/insufficient clearing and grubbing done within the limits of the project

— Damage to structure designated to remain

— Improper disposal of materials/debris from the clearing and grubbing operations

— Insufficient provision of the required equipment for clearing and grubbing as per POW

— Undisposed materials from excavation

b. Embankment

— Eroded/scoured embankment materials

— Embankment materials not spread and compacted in layers

— Deficient width/length/thickness of embankment

— Loosed/uncompacted in-placed embankment

— Presence of oversized aggregates/rubberized materials on the in-placed selected borrow for topping

c. Subgrade Preparation

— Eroded/scoured subgrade

— Insufficient compaction on subgrade preparation

— Insufficient cut below subgrade level

— No/insufficient vertical control during subgrade preparation

— Insufficient provision of the required equipment for subgrade preparation as per POW

d. Aggregate Subbase Course

— Compaction of prepared aggregate subbase not done to full width

— Eroded/scoured/damaged aggregate subbase course shoulder

— Incorrect slope of aggregate subbase course shoulder

— Unsuitable aggregate subbase course material on the stockpile

— Deficient width/thickness of aggregate subbase course

— Irregular/uneven surface of aggregate subbase course materials

e. Aggregate Base Course

— Compaction of prepared aggregate base not done to full width

— Eroded/scoured/damaged aggregate base course shoulder

— Incorrect slope of aggregate base course shoulder

— Insufficient compaction of aggregate base course materials

— Oversized aggregates on the in-placed aggregate base course

— Deficient width/thickness of aggregate base course

— Irregular/uneven surface of aggregate base course materials

f. Pavement

— Chipped-off edges on the completed concrete pavement

— Concrete beam samples not meeting the minimum flexural strength requirements

— Concrete mix containing too much water, based on visual inspection and slump test

— Concrete vibrator not being used during pouring of concrete

— Honeycombs on the exposed side of the concrete pavement

— Insufficient number of dowel bars in the on-going construction of the concrete pavement

— Undersized dowel bars noted in the on-going concrete pavement which does not conform as per approved plan

— Incorrect spacing of dowel bars in the on-going concrete pavement

Flood Control:

— Any/all deviation(s) determined to be beyond the tolerance set and prescribed in the monitoring/control matrix of the Manual on Construction Supervision of Flood Control Projects, shall be considered as major construction defects.

— Hairline cracks/surface defects

— Stagnant water (for drainage)

— Erosion of soil materials (earthworks)

— Non-provision of mortar collar for pipes

— Scouring of riprap

— Non-compliance with standard requirements for the type/class of boulders (for dikes)

— Insufficient mortar for grouted riprap

— Severe cracks and settlement of structures

— Difficulty of opening and closing the gate, due to structural strain and deformation

— Non-compliance to designed slope

— Major cracks and failure of concrete structure like reinforced concrete canals, box culverts and revetment due to inadequate design mix, insufficient compaction of foundation (e.g., flood occurrence with magnitude below the designed flood level)

— Incurred damages to, and or failure of structure, due to fortuitous events (e.g.: flood occurrence with a magnitude below the designed safety level) is considered major construction defects. 1

 1 Not included in Phase 2 evaluation

Buildings and Other Infrastructure:

— Major cracks especially on structural and load bearing components (e.g., girders, columns, piles).

— Other major construction defects, as may be added by BOC and IO, depending on the project.

Defects not stated above are considered minor construction defects

***Major CS System Deficiencies:

a. Organization of key personnel

— Mismatch of personnel assigned to supervise the project vs. requirements.

• Lack of experience

• Frequent absence from project site.

b. Control of Work (Inspection and site instructions)

— Mismatch of personnel assigned to supervise the project vs. requirements. cDHAES

• Lack of experience

• Frequent absence from project site.

— Inadequate logistical resources for supervision (e.g., lack of testing equipment and service vehicles).

— Poor construction records keeping, e.g., test results, defects noted and corrected.

— Failure to issue or enforce site instructions

— Laxity in enforcing health, safety, environmental requirements, and traffic management.

c. Control of Quality of Materials (Sampling and testing)

— Mismatch of personnel assigned to supervise the project vs. requirements.

• No accreditation

• Lack of experience

• Frequent absence from project site.

— Inadequate logistical resources for testing of materials (e.g., lack of testing equipment and service vehicles).

— Poor construction records keeping, e.g., test results, defects noted and corrected.

d. Documentation [Reporting and records management (e.g., log book, test results, site instructions, progress reports, etc.)]

— Frequent absence from project site.

— Poor construction records keeping, e.g., test results, defects noted and corrected.

e. Other Management Consideration

• Construction Safety Management

• Traffic Management

• Environmental Management

— Inefficiency of personnel assigned to supervise the project vs. requirements.

• Lack of experience

• Frequent absence from project site.

— Inadequate logistical resources for supervision (e.g., lack of testing equipment and service vehicles).

— Poor construction records keeping, e.g., test results, defects noted and corrected.

— Laxity in enforcing health, safety, environmental requirements, and traffic management.

— Other major CS system deficiencies, as may be added by BOC and IO, depending on the project.

CS system deficiencies not stated above are considered minor CS system deficiencies.

ANNEX B

Summary of Findings

ANNEX C

Intermediate Evaluation Report (IER) No. ___

ANNEX D

Final Evaluation Report (FER)-Phase ____

ANNEX E

Annex 3.1. Monitoring Control for Revetment

 

Annex 3.2. Monitoring Control for Spur Dike

 

Annex 3.3. Monitoring Control for Dike

 

Annex 3.4. Monitoring Control for Grounds III