1. Quality Assessment Study Capacity Building of Department of Roads Bridge Improvement and Maintenance Project (BIMP) Edited by: Chandra Shrestha Original authors: Rod/Bhagwan Department of Roads Ministry of Physical Planning & Works

2. QA in Projects supervised by Consultants   The quality control procedures adopted on projects supervised by consultants is generally considered satisfactory   Adequate laboratory & testing facilities are generally provided (& paid under the contract) by the Contractor

3. Projects supervised by the employer/DoR   The quality control procedures for projects supervised by DOR staff were less rigorous than those where a Consultant is engaged   Due to the absence of dedicated laboratory facilities & the lack of independent staff for testing   QAP frequently not submitted

4. (c) Works undertaken by DROs   The laboratory and testing facilities within the DROs are inadequate and are poorly maintained and managed   Insufficient staff are deputed to work in the Labs and few are appropriately trained or experienced.  Much of DRO work is off-SRN (ie on LRN)

5. Activities of the Central Roads Lab   CRL functions comparatively efficiently and autonomously, but lacks a clearly defined role and purpose   Current staffing levels are inadequate and much of the equipment is in desperate need of replacement, repair or upgrading

6. Institutional Arrangements for QA Establishment of a “Quality Control Unit” in Planning & Design Branch (1 SDE + 1 Eng) was approved in 2000 (2057) – not implemented DoR Current Organisation includes “Asset Management, Contract Management & QC Project” (AMCMQCP) directly under DG - but with no specific provision for QC Unit No specific responsibility for QC assigned in DoR – although RD is mandated to perform quality checks (not regularly undertaken)

7. Findings regarding QA in DoR Supervision & quality control is very weak in the DROs and projects (w/o Consultants) The main reasons are: No clear cut responsibility/accountability between staff for supervision of works No proper and close monitoring system for supervision No strict adherence for submission or compliance with QAP No proper lab set up (cont…)

8. Findings regarding QA in DoR (2) Low priority for management of Lab and testing of the materials Test reports are required only for payment Samples taken by the Supervising team without knowledge of sampling and testing Site Engineer acts as lab-in-charge for his works and checks/approves the test report SDE not interested in the Lab or testing No monitoring system for quality control Lack of trained Lab Technician and Lab Assistant

9. Requirements for Sustainable QA DROs & projects w/o consultants supervision: Staffing vacancies to be filled One Engineer deputed as Lab-in-charge Submission of QAP to be mandatory 10 basic tests to be conducted in each DRO Lab as per specification & frequency DRO Labs to be upgraded as defined (see next slides) Detailed records to be maintained & filed

10. DRO Labs to be upgraded (1) DRO Labs to be upgraded: adequate space provided with concrete floor; vibrating equipment to be bolted down; working tables provided to conduct tests; equipment etc organized & kept in proper place; fragile items to be stored separately; Expensive/sensitive equipment to be locked up; racks and/or cupboards to be provided; equipment & accessories to be cleaned after use; (cont…)

11. DRO Labs to be upgraded (2) DRO Labs to be upgraded (continued): simple maintenance to be performed regularly & equipment maintained as per guidelines; Lab should be kept clean; broken equipment to be repaired or auctioned & new equipment purchased, if required; equipment requiring calibration to be labeled with details of calibration required (when & where); the minimum load to be read for the mortar cube compressive test should be 100 Kgf

12. Recommendations for CRL (1) CRL to be strengthened & fully staffed as a separate unit under an SDE, with 1 Engineer, Lab Technicians and Ass’t Lab Technicians CRL to undertake all required tests, including rebar using UTM, calibration of equipment from other Labs and Non-Destructive Testing for bridge projects. UTM & Non-Destructive Testing equipment to be purchased & staff trained (cont…)

13. Recommendations for CRL (2) Vacant posts to be filled – Engineer to be appointed to act in absence of SDE (chief) Detailed job descriptions to be prepared Post of Supervisor to be created Equipment to be repaired/maintained 24hr back-up generator of adequate capacity Lab & compound to be kept clean & tidy Register of all samples & tests to be kept

14. Institutional Recommendations 1 Engineer to be designated as Lab-in-charge in each DRO & responsible for QA activities Permanent QC Unit to be established in DoR with appropriate powers to intervene RDs to conduct visits to supervise, monitor & evaluate the quality control aspects of works Senior Materials Engineer to be appointed in each RD to monitor Lab tests in DROs

15. Training Needs Lab Techs & Assist’s to be trained to conduct all tests performed at DRO Labs Periodic refresher training as req’d & records kept of training received Lab-in-charge must be capable of checking & verifying results of tests All training to be conducted/organised by CRL 2-day training programme for 100 Engineers to raise awareness within DoR

16. QA requirements for BIMP Contractor should establish an on-site Lab for new bridge construction: for maintenance works Contractor should use DRO Lab All Contractors to submit QAP & to be approved before start DRO/RD to supervise & ensure QAP followed Regular 4 monthly monitoring & Quality Audit by independent consultant Non-Destructive Testing of quality & strength of concrete to be performed by private Labs

17. Overall Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations

18. Overall Findings Existing QA procedures are not effective Directives & Regulations are adequate – but are not rigorously enforced Payments can be made without test results Conflicts of interest occur – lack of impartiality Problems most severe in DoR-managed projects CRL & DRO Labs have most equipment required but condition of labs & equipment is poor Appropriate staff not deputed to perform tests & training is insufficient

19. Conclusions Necessary to amend legislation so that existing Directives & Rules are followed & to ensure that payments are conditional on QA process Operation of DoR testing facilities (CRL&DRO) should be improved – equipment maintained & staff trained to perform tests effectively Responsibility for the QA process rests with the RDs, supported by CRL to provide training & check on Lab facilities & capabilities

20. Recommendations Completion of all QA measures to be made a mandatory requirement of the Internal Audit QA procedures to be formalised within the proposed CMS – payment only when QA complete The CRL & DRO Labs to be maintained, staffed & operated: 1 engineer deputed as ‘in-charge’ Revised procedures, manuals & guidelines for DRO Labs to be provided by CRL

21. Action Plan ActionTiming Responsibility 1Improve DRO Labs & fill vacancies4 mthsDoR/DRO 2Transform AMCMQCP into QCU3 mthsDoR 3Depute Lab-in-Charge in all DROs1 mthDRO 4Improvements to CRL: clean, new equipment, etc1-4 mthsDoR/CRL 5Training for Lab-in-Charge, Lab Techs, etcannuallyQCU/DoR 6Revise Manuals, Guidelines, Policy, etc4 mthsQCU/DoR 7Clarify staff responsibilities & accountability4 mthsDoR 8Provide Snr Materials Eng/QCE in RDO4 mthsDoR/RD 9Set up Unit in CRL for UTM, NDT & calibration4 mthsQCU/CRL 10Provide Supervisor in CRL4 mthsCRL

22. Laboratory Photographs Biratnagar – adequate space & some new equipment

23. Laboratory Photographs Butwal – adequate space but equipment not fixed

24. Laboratory Photographs Pokhara – some new equipment Nuwakot– limited equipment

25. Laboratory Photographs Kathmandu – cramped & equipment dumped Lalitpur – new facility

26. Laboratory Photographs CRL – adequate space but equipment old & needs repair

27. Thank You

28. Workshop on 3 June 2-12 Discussion groups –Group A: Legal issues –Group B: Central Research Laboratory Strengthening –Group C: Divisional Level Strengthening –Group D: Organisational issues

29. Group A: Legal Issues Basis for accepting bids Simplification of test requirements for small contracts No competition on test requirements (provision through PS) abnormally low bidding 6 Million ceiling for non-qualified user committees to be reviewed

30. Group B: CRL Strengthening Insufficient Trained Manpower Insufficient Equipment (Lab) Provide non disruptive test UTM Purchase Technical Personnel are reluctant to engage in CRL Traditional record keeping system Unclear ToR of CRL

31. Group C: Strengthening of Divisional Laboratories Upgrade existing lab with additional space Additional budget and human resources A dedicated vehicle for the lab Retention of 50% revenue generated by labs

32. Group D: Organisational Issues Make contractor accountable for quality assurance Provision of lab facilities at Divisional offices and convert CRL to Central Road Research and Laboratory Outsource additional expertise if required