"

J,~. , ....

USAID/BELIZE

RURAL ACCESS ROADS AND BRIDGES

PROJECT NO. 505-0007

INTERIM EVALUATION OF BRIDGE COMPONENT

Date: March 25, 1988

Section

TAB L E o F CON TEN T S

I INTRODUCTION.................................. 1

II EVALUATION OBJECTIVES •••..••••••.•••• '.... ••••• 1

III PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ••• •••••••.••.••••••.••.•.• 2

IV ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVES1. Assess Progress of Bridge Construction

Activities in the Bridge Componentof the Projec t .......................•..... 5

2. Assess Institutional Performance inMonitoring, Control of Project Resourcesand Financial Management •••.••.•••..••••••. 9

3. Provide Recommendations for theEstablishment of a System for PeriodicReporting and Evaluation of the BridgeComponent of the Project ••.•••..•..•....... 10

4. Determine Project's Status in Terms of fullUtilization of USAID Financed BridgeCommodities by the Project AgreementCompletion Date 11

5. Provide Recommendations for a Plan toContinue Bridge Construction Activities 16

Schedule

1 . Illustrative Imp 1 e men tat ion P1 an ••••••••••.••• 7

2. Periodic Project Status Report ••••••.•.......• 12

3. Periodic Contract Summary Report •.•••••••••••• 13

-i-

">

A.I.D.

ESF

GOB

MOWH

PACD

PIL

RR&B

USAID

ACRONYMS.

Agency for International Development

Economic Support Funds

Government of Belize

Ministry of Works and Housing

Projeci Assistance Completion Date

Project Implementation Letter

Rural Access Roads and Bridges Project

United States Agency for International Development

-ii-

INTERIM EVALUATION OF BRIDGE COMPONENT

OF THE

RURAL ACCESS ROADS AND BRIDGES PROJECT NO. 505-0007,

I. INTRODUCTION:

At the request of the Ministry of Works and Housing (MOWH) andUSAID/Belize, the services of an A.I.D. engineer, Mr. LynnSheldon, from the Honduras Mission were secured to review theprogress and problems associated with the bridge component ofthe Rural Access Roads and Bridges (RR&B) project, No.505-0007, and to make recommendations. Mr. Sheldon wasassisted by Dr. Gilbert H. Canton from the Belize Mission inconducting the evaluation and preparing this report.

The assessment took place from March 14 - 25, 1988. Theassessment consisted of reviewing project documents, fieldvisits and interviews with MOWH and USAID personnel and bridgecontractors.

II. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES:

1. Assess progress of bridge construction activities in thebridge component of project.

2. Assess institutional performance in project monitoring,control of project resources and financial management.

3. Provide recommendations for establishment of a system forperiodic reporting and evaluation of the bridge componentof the project.

4. Determine Project's status in terms of full utilization ofA.I.D. financed bridge commodities by Project AssistanceCompletion Date (PACD).

5. Provide recommendations for a plan to continue bridgeconstruction activities.

-2-

III. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Bridge Sites:

The bridge sets obtained from excess property have been inBelize ,since December 1984. The components arrived in theiroriginal wooden boxes from Europe and many of the boxesliterally crumbled to pieces as they were off loaded at theport in Belize City.

The 103 bridge sets were stored at the port until August» 1985at which time a decision was made to create a bridge storagepark in Hattieville. The bridge sets were subsequently movedto the new location.

Selection and Prioritization of Bridge Sites:

Under project auspices» rural roads in each district have beenselected and prioritized for rehabilitation. In the firstinstance, some fifty four crossings, which qualified forupgrading to all weather status with project procured bridgesets, were identified on these project roads. Since theinitial identification of crossings, the MOWH and USAID haveprepared a "Bridge Allocation Report" which assigns bridge setsto crossings on project roads. After sufficing project roadrequirements, there remains a number of bridge sets which arenot assigned to any specific site.

The MOWH has been conducting site investigations and preparingbridge designs and cost estimates for the crossings identifiedin the "Bridge Allocation Report".

Although bridge construction sites have been identified, thebridges to be constructed have not been prioritized by orderfor construction. Priorities and construction sequence forbridge construction are planned to be incorporated into a"Comprehensive Bridge Construction Plan" that has beendiscussed at length between the MOWH and USAID but notfinalized.

The priorities established for road rehabilitation may notnecessarily coincide with the priorities for bridgeconstruction. For example, a road with high priority may havea bridge that is presently adequate while a road with lowpriority may have a crossing where a bridge does not exist, iswashed out, or is so dilapidated that it is unsafe. Therefore,

-3-

the bridge on the low priority road woul~ be of a higherpriority for bridge construction than the bridge on the highpriority road.

The lack of an established order of priority and constructionsequence for bridge construction has apparently led to ad hocselection of bridges for construction based on political andother considerations at that specific moment in time. Forexample, the bridges constructed and under construction in theBelize district were selected as first priority primarilybecause of the proposed large scale development plan for thearea by Coca Cola Foods. Furthermore, the cost of the bridgeswere higher than originally estimated as the design criteriachanged from single lane to two lane bridges to accommodate theproposed development.

For timely, orderly, and cost effective implementation of thebridge construction component, the MOWH and USAID have todevelop and agree upon a priority list, design criteria (e.g.,single vs. double lane), and construction sequence for bridgeconstruction.

Bridge Construction and Associated Costs:

The first bridges constructed under the project were Sebastian,Bermudian Landing, Lemonal, Big Creek, Mullins River and BillyWhite. The total bridges to be built are about equallydivided between large (70' or more) and small (17' to 30')applications. Most of the larger bridges are more than 100' inlength. As a ~artial result, the costs of the completedstructures have been much greater than expected.

As mentioned above, Sebastian, Bermudian Landing and RanchoDolores, when completed, will provide all-weather access to the50,000 acres of land purchased by Coca Cola to grow citrus andcarryout associated processing. The construction of the finalbridge in this three bridge sequence, Rancho Dolores, has beenstalled since August 1987 due to lack of local funding. Thesebridges when completed will have cost on an averageBz$658,800. The cost is higher than might be expected becausethe bridges provide for two directional traffic. The width ofthe project rehabilitated road is wide enough for two vehiclesto pass each other with caution and with the outside tires onthe shoulder. The MOWH officials indicated a decision was madeto construct two lane bridges accessing the Coca Cola landholding since heavy traffic loads were expected in both

-4-

directions when they were in full operation. There is stillone bridge left to complete and the actual development of the50,000 acres is still pending.

Bridge Construction Funding:i

The MOWH originally was expecting a donation from another donorcountry to help cover the local costs of bridge construction.However, those funds never materialized and the only means toensure that the program would start was through an allocationof Economic Support Fund (ESF) generated local currency funds.USAID and the Government of Belize (GOB) amended the Memorandumof Understanding on ESF local currencies to provideBz$3,OOO,OOO to the bridge construction effort. With a lowprobability for a future ESF program, ESF generated localcurrencies will not be available for further bridgeconstruction. Some relief was provided in that a portion ofthe local currency proceeds generated under the Section 416Sugar Quota Offset Program will be used for bridge constructionin the Orange Walk and Corozal districts. Also, the GOB hasplaced Bz$800,OOO in their Capital II Development Budget forbridge construction under the project. These funds, however,will still not be sufficient to complete the construction ofall the bridges slated for construction under the projectbefore the PACD.

Implementation of Bridge Construction Activities:

As indicated above, this element of the project has beenplagued with continuous problems since its inception. ProblemsolVing and timely implementation has been hampered byconsiderable misunderstandings and disagreements. For example,some individuals believe that bridge design standards areexcessive and this is the reason costs have exceeded originalexpectations. Careful analysis of this issue indicates thatbridge construction is oftenused by GOB politicians to gain theapproval of their rural constituents or to satisfy the desiresof prospective international investors. The results are;several two lane bridges on rural access roads, another bridgestarted and never completed and several built for a reasonablecost.

Several bridges have been wholly built by private contractorsand two have been wholly built by the MOWH. In one case,Bermudian Landing, a contractual dispute between the Contractorand the Ministry led to a decision by the MOWH to terminate thecontract and complete the bridge on their own.

-5-

The Project Paper and Agreement state that the privatecontractors will do the construction whiie the Ministry'sEngineering Services Division will prepare the design andprovide supervision. Apparently. this has not routinelyoccurred since. on several occasions. MOWH officials havereceived political pressure to start certain bridgesimmediately. The only way to respond to such a request withoutallowing for the necessary time for bid document preparation.proposal submission and review. and contract award was for theMOWH to construct the bridge by force account.

To further complicate the issues. on sever~l occasions the costof construction has exceeded the value of contracts orestimates.

To conclude. the MOWH does not foresee how financing will besecured to construct the remaining bridges utilizing all thebridge sets. by the end of the project. April 30. 1991.

IV. ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVES

1. Assess Progress of Bridge Construction Activities in theBridge Component of the Project

Review of project documents indicates that this project wasoriginally to be completed January 1. 1987~ The project wasextended without additional funding to June 30. 1987. and thenlater to December 31. 1987. An amendment to the project wasexecuted in September. 1987 which extended the PACD to April30. 1991 and prOVided additional loan and grant funds to theproject. None of the loan or grant funds are earmarked forbridge construction activities. Furthermore. the Project PaperAmendment dated September 30. 1987. does not list completion offifty-four bridges as a Logical Framework Output. however. thetext discusses trying to complete ten bridges by mid-1988 andnotes that the design has been finished for eleven additionalcrossings.

In August. 1987 an audit of the USAID/Belize Portfolio andOperating Expenses cited several areas where projectimplementation and management of commodities could beimproved. Two project evaluations have been held. and bothreported minimal progress in the installation of the fifty-fourproposed bridge crossings.

-6-

Review of this element of the project indicates the activity isnot even close to meeting its original objective of fifty-fourcrossings. Discussions with the MOWH Chief. EngineeringServices Division. responsible for bridge design. indicate thathis department would commence the design of new bridges if heknew the order of priority and if funds would be available todo the construction.

In general bridge construction in Belize should start betweenJanuary 15th and March 1st to take advantage of the dry season(February-May). The first crucial construction activity ispile driving. The bridge contractors believe if they can getthe piles driven and abutments started in the dry season theycan continue construction during the rainy season. since theywill be able to keep ahead of tne rising river levels. Inorder to commence construction between January and March it isobviously necessary to have previously completed allcontracting actions. In practice. if all of the activities canbe put into cycles each individual activity will be moremanageable. (See Schedule No. 1: Illustrative ImplementationPlan).

To highlight the importance of starting the bridge constructionat the beginning of the dry season the following cases arecited:

Sebastian - This bridge was started by MOWH as a force accountproject in April 1986. The site was soon mobilized andactivities were commencing well. Flooding during the last weekof May 1986 caused a delay of two and a half months because theentire site was under water. After flooding. work recommencedand the bridge was finished in August 1987 (approximately 70weeks after starting).

Bermudian Landing - This bridge was started under contract andfinished by force account due to a contractual dispute betweenthe MOWH and the contractor. The contract was signed April 23.1986. Again the May flooding in the area created problems forthe contractor. To further complicate the situation. the ferryat Bermudian Landing sunk on May 27. 1986 and was neverrefloated. The ferry was finally replaced in late November1986. Because the contractor was depending on the ferry tomove commodities and equipment across the river he was delayedfor almost six months. The bridge was finally completed by theMOWH. in December 1967. 85 weeks after starting construction.

Schedule No.1: Illustrative Impe1emntation Plan

~F M A M J J A SON D/J F M A

1988 I 1989 I . 1990 1_19_9_1 _

(1 c;;;r;;r;;;J (k~/';;M A M J J A SON D/J F M A M J J A SON D/J

0-J F

GOB Financing Bidding AAward

AID Financing Prequa1ification IBidding AAward

I n"''''''.ge Walk

Dry Season( 1Secure financing •

PriOrity· sites I~~e Survey. i

Designs

Bid Documents

Dry Seasoll

Contracts

1Dry Season

• I

I.I

I-....JI

Bidding A Award

Second Year Contracts

I

-8-

Rancho Dolores - This bridge was started, May 1986. Again.since it is in the a~ea where heavy flooding occurred in 1986this force account project was also delayed. This particularriver's flood waters did not subside as quickly as the otherrivers and construction was postponed even longer.Additionally. a decision was made by the MOWH to continueconstruction of Rancho Dolores only after Sebastian bridge wascompleted.

Sebastian was completed in August 1987 and work re-commenced atRancho Dolores in July 1987. The reinforcing steel wasprepared at Burrell Boom and moved to the site in July 1987.Shortly afterwards another decision was made to furtherpostpone construction. Thus far. there are two piles driven. abridge approach on one side of the river and many materialssuch as bridge parts. reinforcing steel. formwork. etc •• on thesite. Meanwhile. the MOWH is spending approximately Bz$700 perweek for on site guard service. There are presently noimmediate plans to re-start construction. The MOWH states thatsome of the Bz$800.000 recently allocated in the Capital IIDevelopment Budget for bridge construction will be used tocomplete the Rancho Dolores bridge.

Lemonal - This bridge is accessed by the Sebastian andBermudian Landing bridges. As mentioned previously. thesinking of the ferry at Bermudian Landing stalledconstruction. This site was mobilized by the contractor. May8. 1986. Construction on this site was impeded until the ferryat Bermudian Landing was operable in late-November 1986. Asthe contractor gained momentum, he was ready to start steelerection in mid-August 1986. At this point he asked the MOWHto provide the steel erection supervision as provisioned in thecontract. The MOWH asked him to wait and they would inform himas to their decision. Finally. in mid-November 1987 thecontractor was informed he could proceed with steel erectionand did not need continuous on-site MOWH supervision. Thebridge is still under construction and should be completed inearly April 1988 (approximately 92 weeks after starting).

Conclusion:

The MOWH was forced to deal with some very difficult issuesrelated to the construction of these four bridges primarilybecause of the time of the year that construction began. Hadthey started work two or three months earlier the bridges wouldhave been completed much sooner. they would have avoided most

-9-

of the problems associated with flooding .and they may have beenable to complete Rancho Dolores bridge before other Ministrypriorities used the funds.

2. Assess Institutional Performance in Monitoring, Control ofProject Resources and Financial Management

Assessment of the MOWH contracting procedure shows contractsare provisional sum contracts. In effect, these aremeasurement contracts. In essence, the MOWH is gambling thattheir estimate is accurate enough to stay within the allocatedcontract budget. The contractors like these contracts becausethere are a large number of unknowns, and if the quantity ofwork is larger than the MOWH estimate they know they will bepaid for the additional effort. The contract documents arecomposed of Specification, Conditions of Contract, Bills ofQuantities and the Construction Drawings. Review of thesedocuments indicates that a reasonable process for contractingbridges has been established. Inspection of a representativesample of the bridges, due to limitations in time, (Sebastian,Bermudian Landing and Lemonal) confirms that the constructionis satisfactory.

An area of financial management that warrants review is theprocess in making additional funds available when a contractgoes over budget. This is not a clear cut issue. A.I.D.normally works with fixed price contracts and views approval ofcontract price as the maximum cost of the work. Theprovisional sum contract, in effect, can exceed the totalcontract price if the actual measurements exceed thoseestimated.

Anotner area of financial control that could be improved is thedetermination of costs associated with individual bridges. Itappears that while close control is maintained for the totalbridge effort, separation to individual bridge efforts isunclear. The MOWH and USAID should establish a system,probably on the computer, for cost control on an individualbridge basis.

Discussions with the MOWH Chief Engineer and Chief, EngineeringServices Division, ascertain that both individuals are quitecapable and, with funding, could fully implement the bridgebuilding component of the project. However, the EngineeringServices Division is short staffed if a major effort 1s to beplaced on bridge design and construction supervision. The MOWH

-10-

has numerous other projects which compete for the limited staffand resources. It may be necessary that'additional staff behired on an open vote, short term basis if the bridge programis to receive a major acceleration.

Discussions with several private bridge contractors verify thatthe associated MOWH officials have adequate expertise toprOVide necessary direction to the bridge building effortduring design and contract implementation.

The contractors, by and large, are satisfied with theresponsiveness of the MOWH in terms of processing pay vouchersand conducting timely site inspections.

Conclusion:

Institutional capability is probably adequate to maintainprogram effort as presently being implemented. However, ifprogram is to be accelerated then institutional capability willhave to be augmented, especially at the focal point, theEngineering Services Division.

Lack of adequate financing is the major issue associated withcompleting the bridge crossings. According to the ProjectAgreement, the GOB is responsible for providing funds forbridge construction as part of the Host Country Contribution.ESF local currencies have been the major source of bridgeconstruction financing, but this source is no longer availablefor additional financing above the level already allocated.The GOB will have to identify new sources of funding for bridgeconstruction. The lack of sufficient funds is the mostcritical constraint to completion of the bridge constructionprior to PACD.

3. Provide Recommendations for the Establishment of aSystem for Periodic Reporting and Evaluation of theBridge Component of the Project

The present system for reporting on the bridge component ismainly through oral briefings. Although the MOWH engineers atthe technical level are very aware of day to day progress andare able to obtain quickly most information sought by thePermanent Secretary, and other MOWH officials, there is felt aneed to formalize the information transfer regarding activitiesof the bridge component.

-11-

Formal reports, probably on a monthly basis, should bedeveloped and distributed among the responsible MOWH and USAIDofficials. The reports should contain the necessaryinformation for effective monitoring and control data can beentered into the Ministry's micro-computer to make periodicupdating easier. Utilization of computer programs availablesuch as Time Line, Micro-Soft Project Manager. Lotus 123 anddBase 111+ will improve project management. Attached is asample data format that could be completed and routinelyupdated (Schedule 2). In addition. financial expenditures canbe recorded to track drawdown on contracts. An example of thetype of data that could be useful for MOWH upper management isattached (Schedule 3).

Conclusion:

Present reporting on bridge construction activities does notadequately meet the requirements of the agencies involved toprovide effective monitoring and control. While theinformation is available it needs to be compiled and reportedin a form useful to management. It is recommended that USAIDprovide short-term technical assistance to the MOWn toestablish useful reporting and tracking procedures.

4. Determine Project's Status in Terms of Full Utilization ofUSAID Financed Bridge Commodities by the Project AgreementCompletion Date

The MOWH has built two bridges under force account and havefinished one (bridge steel erection) started by a contractordue to a contractual dispute. Conversations with MOWHofficials indicate they have plans to construct Orange Walk andSan Roman Bridges utilizing force account administration sincethey claim there is not enough time to utilize the biddingprocess if construction is to be realized in 1988.Interestingly, there are four bridges that have been bid andaward of contract held because of insufficient funds. ProjectAgreement Amendment No.4 dated September 30. 1987, in theAmplified Project Description states, " ••• Phase II constructionand installation will be carried out by private contractors whoare prequalified and have demonstrated their competence. Therole of the Bridges Division will be in the design andsupervision of the additional crossings and the maintenance andrepair of all bridges ••• " Discussions with MOWH officialsacknowledge there is a competence in bridge construction by

-12-

2.~.~

~

•

..

,0' ",",?I~

~I.;t lnn't~tf-,O=i-";:\i~+-+--+--I----'--I--+---1---1---4---+---l-~I---I---J.

J'W~-"~~iN

I"J litVI'il-:r., Jnml'~,LI U:~:I--+---J--+---1---+---+---I----j..--4--l--lr---Il--I----I-

pII""~~IJMlOj;) W~::+--l-I---l'---+---I--'I---I-I---I---j---1--1i---!---l-

~ttL-P:fff~~,,2iU~~.I---r-~r--r·-·'--I---1--II----I---1--1---+--I--+---1-..:....j..

~~,,~~

'- 10 -1st;)

~~~~

-\----J---J---j---1---/---t---iI--i--of---+

--- --I----.,I...---l,--,I---+---l---1---1-_-!-

II

N

.,.-, ~3co c? • - ~wQi ~ ,--;,_0 I

~ '(iL :~~...~ I)r""'!t~ Ma --:,~~c;r.i1,+--+-+--t---t---jr--r---r---r--r--r-4---t--t--t~ '2.I~'t~i~(J -m~~w·~·ool---4--I--~--+---I--l--I---+--l---f--+--i--I----t

:g ~;:~~~n+,'--t-.--1-------1---- ------.-'0. ··-,-1--11----1---1---1---\'t: ,,~ ~~!'it~ -,-;r"~,.~ft--t--I--·~-t--+--r--r---t- r---r-t---r--r--t

, 'S~~"".o.:

----, 0" ,--:'---I._--"~-,---,. ,, __ ,0 __ ,' __ --..-- , --,-::-"-- -- ---I-_..,.L,__'

-13-

Schedule No.3: Periodic Contract Summary Report

Contract: San Antonio (Example)

Contractor:

Date of Contract:

Date of Update:

Months into Implementation:

Contract Period:

Percentage of Work Completed:

General Summary of Bills of Quantities

Activities

1. Preliminaries

2. Earthworksa.b.

3. Pile Driving

4. Pier Constructiona.b.

5. Abutmentsa.b.

6. Bridge StructuralSeel Erection

7. Bridge Deck

8. Railwork

9. ketal Cleaning andPainting

10. Provisional Sum

TOTALS

ContractPrice

ExpenditurePaid to Date

FundsRemaining

Estimated Dateof Completion

-14-

numerous local contractors. It was stat~d by one MOWH officialthat there are at least eleven local contractors that have thecapability to build medium and large size bridges. Whereasthere are four or five more who could qualify for the smallsize bridges.

A decision needs to be made to utilize purchased projectcommodities, namely use the 103 bridge sets by the end of theproject or liquidate the commodity through established A.I.D.procedures. Bridge construction is a high priority since thebridges are needed to provide all weather access toagricultural lands.

The MOWH has confirmed, if funds are available, it is possibleto utilize all bridge sets by the PACD, April 30, 1991,utilizing private sector contractors. The contracts should beoffered in packages as large as possible in order to obtain thelowest prices per bridge and afford local contractors anopportunity to improve their operations. A bridge packagecould consist of four to twelve bridges depending on the levelof complexity and the value. MOWH officials indicate manysmall packages will be the most palatable to the GOB since itwill give more opportunity to more contractors. This approachwill increase the contract administrative burden on the MOWH.

Historically, the following gives an accounting of bridgeprogress to date:

Site

Big Creek

Billy White Creek

Mullins River

Sebastian

Bermudian Landing

Rancho Dolores

Lemonal

Method of Construction

MOWH (completed)

Contractor (completed)

U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers with theMOWH providing materials (completed)

MOWH (completed)

Contractor and completed by MOWH(completed)

MOWH (suspended)

Contractor (under construction)

Juan Chun

Crique Jute

Rio Blanco

-15-

Contractor (under construction)

Contractor (under construction)

Contractor (under construction)

The most logical approach to completing the bridge component ofthe project is to have the MOWH contract with local contractorscapable of building the structures. It is not in the bestinterest of the project to have the MOWH implement under forceaccount administration since they are not committed to acontract they may start but never finish a bridge due to otherMOWH priorities for limited funds. Rancho Dolores is anexample of this. The bridges should be grouped in largecontract packages to allow one contractor for the package tospread his profit over numerous bridges and thus the profitmargin on each is reduced and therefore more bridges can bebuilt for the same amount of money. Also. this will providecontractors an unique oppoitunitJ to look toward the future anduse the bridge construction as a stepping stone towardincreasing their size and improving equipment. This ispossible because the uncertainty of how much work their firmwill have for the next year or two will be removed and it isexpected they will more readily make capital improvements.

In general. the road approaches for the bridges should not becombined in the same contract with the bridge work. The reasonbeing. road approaches are very straight forward and simpleworks. Also approaches can easily be done by the MOWH whoalready has the equipment or by a small contractor who may notqualify for bridge erection but can satisfactorily buildembankments. This is to the advantage of the project becausethe small contractors have much less overhead than the largerfirms and will cost less per unit of quantity. The MOWH woulddo the work only if their cost estimate for force account isconsiderably less than that of the small contractor. Theexception would be. road approaches for the small bridges(17'-30' spans) since it would not be worth the administrativeburden to monitor the road approach and bridge constructionunder two contracts.

In the event USAID loan fundsconstruction. firms will havecomply with A.I.D. criteria.modify the type of contract.

are used directly for localto be prequalified again toAlso. it may be necessary to

-16-

As of this writing the MOWH has not finalized a listing thatwould detail the number of bridges remaining to be built, to ineffect, fully utilize the USAID financed bridge commodities.It is suspected the numbers are: five-completed; four-underconstruction; one-stalled (Rancho Dolores); thirteen-designedand thirty-one remaining to be designed. Of the thirty-onebridges remaining, there are thirty-six bridge sets available.

It is highly likely if all the bridge sets are utilized thefinal total of bridges constructed will be less than theoriginal target of fifty-four bridges. This is because severalsets may be combined for one bridge. Of those bridges designedor approved for construction five are utilizing 17' bridgesets; one is utilizing six sets of 21'; three are utilizing 27'and 30' bridge sets; two are utilizing a single 70' span each;and one will utilize two spans of 70'.

The MOWH rough estimated cost of construction of the designedbridges is approximately Bz$2.0 million. If the remainingthirty-six sets are utilized as single spans a rough costestimate for construction is Bz$4.0 million. In summary anapproximate total of Bz$6.0 million is required to complete thebridge building program.

Conclusion:

USAID and the MOWH should more aggressively pursue and finalizefinancing arrangements to assure that the bridges will beconstructed prior to the project PACD. Simultaneously, acomprehensive bridge plan that sets forth priorities,construction schedules, contracting mechanisms, etc., should befinalized as soon as possible. Having an established planagreed upon by both USAID and the MOWH will insulate theactivity from political and other interference which wouldattempt to influenc. priorities and contracting mechanisms.The present rate of construction will precipitate the situationthat at PACD project commodities, i.e., bridge sets, will nothave been fully utilized. A project completed without allcommodities utilized is not a desirable situation to be in.All effort should be made to avoid such a situation.

5. Provide Recommendations for a Plan to Continue BridgeConstruction Activities.

Recognizing that the GOB and USAID have entered into anagreement that requires utilization of purchased commodities by

-17-

the PACD of April 30~ 1991, it is apparent there is a greatdeal of work remaining. Recommendations 'for futureconstruction follows:

(A) GOB and USAID agree to dedicate adequate funding to bridgeconstruction.

(B) Bridges to be built are prioritized by MOWH and listdiscussed with USAID with selected bridges identified in aProject Implementation Letter (PIL).

(c) Prepare a comprehensive plan for: (a) design schedule and(b) contracting and construction.

(D) Finalize designs for those bridges already designed andprepare bid documents, obtain proposals and evaluate andaward contracts.

(E) From prioritized list determine those sites requiring sitesurvey, design and bid documents. These will be preparedfor first and second year's dry season constructionstartups. Review existing site surveys for accuracy andthoroughness.

(F) Utilize contractors to build bridges and contractors orMOWH to build access approaches. It is important tocontract separately the approaches and bridge at the samesite. (The exception could be small bridges with minimumwork on approaches).

(G) Newly financed technical assistance personnel will assistMOWH as appropriate.

(H) Ensure all bridge commodities are in a secure area.

(I) Establish a bridge maintenance and repair program.

As mentioned above the major constraint to the completion ofthe bridge construction activities by PACD is the lack ofadequate funding. It appears highly unlikely that the GOB willbe able to come up with the necessary financing from their ownsources to meet their commitment. Several options should be

·.

-18-

explored by USAID and the GOB to secure the necessary fundingto complete the activity. These options 'are summarized asfollows:

Option No.1:

The GOB assigns the necessary funds to construct the remainingbridges. These funds can be allocated through the Capital IIbudget. Local currencies generated under the Sugar QuotaOffset Program should be allocated by the GOB to construct allthe bridges in Orange Walk and Corozal districts. Bridges inthe remainder of the country will have to be constructed withfunds from within the GOB resources or from funds secured fromother donor agencies.

Option No.2:

USAID request an increase in funding from AID/Washingtonprobably on the basis that the GOB cannot come up with thefunds to fullfill their commitment •

Option No.3:

The GOB seeks funding for bridge construction from otherexternal donors, e.g., World Bank.

Option No. -4:

As a last resort USAID and the GOB will have to considerreallocating sufficient funds within the recent amendment tothe bridge activity to assure that bridges are constructed byPACD.