flood damage emergency reconstruction project...

KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA

Nation Religion King

Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology

Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project (FDERP)

ADB Loan No 2852-CAM (SF)AusAid Grant No. 0285-CAM(EF)

PPRROOJJEECCTT CCOOMMPPLLEETTIIOONN RREEPPOORRTT

For Output 3: Irrigation & Flood Control

MAIN REPORT

Version 230 July 2015

Document quality information

General information

Author(s) Mark Schiele, Egis Eau Team Leader; Khoun Sambo, Deputy TL (KCC)

Project name Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project (FDERP)

Document name PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

Date 30 July 2015

Reference FDERP- PCR-V2-0715

Addressee(s)

Sent to:

Name Organisation Sent on (date):

H.E. Ponh Sachak Project Director, PIU 23rd April 2015

Copy to:

Name Organisation Sent on (date):

2 PIU

2 PCMU

3 ADB

History of modifications

Version Date Written by Approved by:

Draft Jan-Mar 2015Data compilation, Khoun SamboDeputy Team Leader

Version 1 22 April 2015 Mark Schiele, Team LeaderThierry Delobel – Egis ProjectDirector

Version 2 30 July 2015 Mark Schiele, Team LeaderThierry Delobel – Egis ProjectDirector

Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project – Project Completion Report

CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 1

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................... 4

A Antecedents ............................................................................................................... 4

B NWISP subprojects inclusion .................................................................................. 5

C Retroactive financing................................................................................................ 5

D Co-Financing & Project Costs.................................................................................. 6

E Organizational structure of overall FDERP project ............................................... 6

F Objectives .................................................................................................................. 7

G Components............................................................................................................... 8Stage 1 ............................................................................................................................... 8Stage 2 ............................................................................................................................... 8Stage 3 ............................................................................................................................... 8

H Implementation Methodology .................................................................................. 8

I Safeguards ................................................................................................................. 9Gender and Labour ............................................................................................................ 9Resettlement .................................................................................................................... 10Social safeguards............................................................................................................. 11

J Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 11

K Procurement Plan.................................................................................................... 12

L Description and justification of changes in components ................................... 12

M Outputs..................................................................................................................... 14

II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................... 15

A Schedules................................................................................................................. 15

B Stage 1 Works.......................................................................................................... 15

C Stage 2 Works.......................................................................................................... 15

D Stage 3 Works.......................................................................................................... 18

E Cost Estimates......................................................................................................... 20

F Recruitment of Consultant ..................................................................................... 22

G Procurement of Goods, Services........................................................................... 24Civil Works........................................................................................................................ 24Goods and equipment ...................................................................................................... 26

H Loan Covenants....................................................................................................... 26


CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC ii

I Loan Utilization ........................................................................................................29

J Appraisal of Sub-projects .......................................................................................31

III. INITIAL OPERATIONS........................................................................................................32

A Initial operations/transitional problems ................................................................32

B Measures taken ........................................................................................................32

C Project Benefits / achievements.............................................................................32Socio-economic evaluation...............................................................................................33Crop production surveys ...................................................................................................35

IV. EVALUATION OF THE BANK’S AND EA PERFORMANCE ............................................35

A Performance Assessment of ADB..........................................................................35

B Performance of PCMU .............................................................................................35

C Problems encountered with ADBs procedures ....................................................36

FIGURES & TABLES

FIGURE 1 FDERP ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................7FIGURE 2 OVERALL OUTPUT 3 PROGRESS .................................................................................15FIGURE 3 PHYSICAL PROGRESS STAGE 2 CIVIL WORKS.............................................................16FIGURE 4 PHYSICAL PROGRESS STAGE 3 CIVIL WORKS.............................................................18FIGURE 5 OUTPUT 3 DISBURSEMENTS BY QUARTER ...................................................................30FIGURE 6 CIVIL WORKS PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE ...................................................................38

TABLE 1 PROJECT COSTS ESTIMATE SUMMARY -OUTPUT 3 (SOURCE: ADB PAM) ........................6TABLE 2 LABOUR AND GENDER ACTIONS ....................................................................................9TABLE 3 LIST OF ELIGIBLE (PP) / SELECTED SUBPROJECTS ........................................................10TABLE 4 STAGE 3 CONTRACT DATA..........................................................................................17TABLE 5 STAGE 3 CONTRACT DATA..........................................................................................19TABLE 6 DETAILED COST BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY – OUTPUT 3..........................................20TABLE 7 PROJECT COSTS _ OUTPUT 3- UPDATED .....................................................................20TABLE 8 FINANCING PLAN; APPRAISAL V ACTUAL _ OUTPUT 3 ....................................................21TABLE 9 FINANCING PLAN IN USD_ FDERP OVERALL IDC & UNALLOCATED ..............................21TABLE 10 VARIATIONS TO SERVICES AGREEMENT ......................................................................22TABLE 11 PAYMENTS TO CONSULTANT......................................................................................24TABLE 12 CIVIL WORKS_ COSTS AND FINANCING, CONTRACTORS...............................................26TABLE 13 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOAN COVENANTS .....................................................27TABLE 14 AUSTRALIAAID GRANT DISBURSEMENTS....................................................................29TABLE 15 RE-ALLOCATION OF LOAN (OUTPUT 3-IRRIGATION & FLOOD CONTROL) .......................31TABLE 16 FIRST GENERATION IMPREST ACCOUNT (FGIA) .........................................................31

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1 SUBPROJECTS LOCATION MAP ................................................................................40APPENDIX 2 OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR SELECTED STAGE 3 SUB-PROJECTS.......41APPENDIX 3 SUB-PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS.................................................44


CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC iii

APPENDIX 4 PROJECT DESIGN & MONITORING FRAMEWORK (APPENDIX 9 OF PAM) ................... 46APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF FUND DISBURSEMENT....................................................................... 49APPENDIX 6 CONSULTING SERVICES SCHEDULE – ADDENDUM 3................................................. 50APPENDIX 7 SUMMARY OF CIVIL WORKS PROCUREMENT ........................................................... 51APPENDIX 8 PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 52APPENDIX 9 PROJECT RESULTS PROFILE .................................................................................. 53APPENDIX 10 SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE FROM THE ADB LOAN ................................................. 54APPENDIX 11 OUTPUT 3 REPAIR COSTS/HA BY SUB-PROJECT ...................................................... 55APPENDIX 12 ADB WITHDRAWAL APPLICATION DISBURSEMENTS................................................. 56APPENDIX 13 REPORTS SUBMITTED BY CONSULTANT................................................................... 57APPENDIX 14 CONSULTANTS RESOURCES_ CONSUMED AND BALANCE .......................................... 62APPENDIX 15 SUMMARY OF FDERP STAGE 2 SUB-PROJECT PROFILE DATA .................................. 63APPENDIX 16 SUMMARY OF FDERP STAGE 3 SUB-PROJECT PROFILE DATA .................................. 59


CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

CARM Cambodian Resident Mission (of ADB)

CMAC Cambodian Mining Action Centre

DC Direct Contracting

DMF Design and Monitoring Framework

DS Dry Season

EA Executing Agency

FDERP Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project

FGIA First Generation Imprest Account

FWUC Farmer Water User Community

IA Implementing Agency

IEE Initial Environmental Examination

IPC Interim Payment Certificate

LFIS Loan Financial Information Services (ADB)

ME Monitoring & Evaluation

MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance

MLMUPC Ministry of Land Mapping Urban Planning and Construction

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MOWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology

MPWT Ministry of Public Works and Transport

MRD Ministry of Rural Development

NWISP Northwest Irrigation Sector Project

PAM Project Administration Manual

PCMU Project Coordination and Monitoring Unit (MEF)

PDLMUPC Provincial Dep. of Land Mapping Urban Planning and Construction

PDWRAM Provincial Department of Water Resources and Meteorology

PIMD Participatory Irrigation Management and Development

PIU Project Implementation Unit

PRC Procurement Review Committee

PP Procurement Plan


CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC v

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

ROW Right-of-way

RP Resettlement Plan

RRP Report and Recommendation of the President (to the board of directors)

SAH Severely Affected Households

SGIA Second Generation Impress Account

SSS Single Source Selection

TA Technical Assistance

TOR Terms of Reference

VO Variation Order

WS Wet Season


CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC vi

BASIC DATAA. Loan Identification

1. Country2. Loan Number3. Project Title4. Borrower5. Executing Agency6. Implementing Agency7. Amount of Loan (Output 3 allocation)8. Project Completion Report

Number

Cambodia2852-CAM (SF)Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction ProjectKingdom of CambodiaMEFMOWRAM

B. Loan Data1. Appraisal

– Date Started– Date Completed

2. Loan Negotiations– Date Started– Date Completed

3. Date of Board Approval

4. Date of Loan Agreement

5. Date of Loan Effectiveness– In Loan Agreement– Actual– Number of Extensions

6. Closing Date– In Loan Agreement– Actual– Number of Extensions

7. Terms of Loan– Interest Rate– Maturity (number of years)– Grace Period (number of years)

8. Terms of Relending (if any)– Interest Rate– Maturity (number of years)– Grace Period (number of years)– Second-Step Borrower

15-22 December 2011 (recon. Mission)26 January-10 February 2012 (Fact finding mission)

04 April 2012

14 May 2012

30 September 2015

1.0 %4010

Include items as appropriate

9. Disbursementsa. Dates

Initial Disbursement3 Sept 2012

Final Disbursement{day month year}

Time Interval{months}

Effective Date{day month year}

Original Closing Date{day month year}

Time Interval{months}

b. Amount ($ million)

Category orSubloan

OriginalAllocation

Last RevisedAllocation

AmountCanceled

Net AmountAvailable

AmountDisbursed

UndisbursedBalance

01 7.67 8.97 8.00 2.1502 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.0003 1.38 1.36 1.01 0.2804 0.42 0.41 0.20 0.2105


CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC vii

0607

Total

10. Local Costs (Financed)- Amount ($)- Percent of Local Costs- Percent of Total Cost

C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign Exchange Cost 13.09Local Currency Cost

Total

2. Financing Plan ($ million)


Implementation CostsBorrower Financed 1.12 1.01ADB Financed 9.60 10.24Other External Financing – AusAID 1.00 1.19Beneficiaries

Total 11.72 12.43

IDC CostsBorrower FinancedADB Financed 0.14 0.14Other External Financing - AusAID 0.00

Total 13.09

D. Grant Data

AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM(EF)Date convention signedTotal A$5 overall USD $1 USD 1.19

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Missiona DateNo. of

PersonsNo. Days Specialization of

Membersb

ADB Mission visit 31 March 2012 1 Mr. Kunio Senga,Director GeneralADB”s

ADB Inception mission visit 16 July to 31 July 2012 9 16 ADB and FDERP

ADB Inception mission 17 August 2012 ADB

ADB Press tour Toul Skear 4 to 5 September 20122 ADB, EA, IAs and

MPWT


CONTENTS

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC viii

ADB presidential visit Toul Skhear 21 November 2012 1 ADB president,CARM staff, PIU andMEF

ADB Joint Review Mission21 January to 8February 2013

12 19

ADB Audit 3-7 June 2013FDERP-CW1,MOWRAM, PCMU,PIU, TA and PDWRA

FDERP Progress review 20 August 20131 ADB CARM Office,

staff from allparticipating agencies

ADB Joint Review Mission 3-16 June 20148 14 Australian Aid

/Australian Embassy,ADB CARM, PCMU

ADB Joint mid-term review mission25 November to 13December 2013

19

ADN officer for VDO 25 February 2014

ADB Joint review mission 24 November to 22December 2014

3 28Australian Aid/Australian Embassy,ADB CARM, PCMU

ADB Joint review mission 29 June to 17 July 2015 8 19 ADB CARM, PCMUAustralian Aid

Project {Program} Completion Reviewc

Note: {Insert notes as needed.}a Include identification, fact-finding, pre-appraisal, appraisal, project {program} inception, review, special loan

administration, disbursement, project {program} review mission. If more than one of each type of mission,number consecutively as Review Mission 1, 2, etc.

b May use reference letters in table, e.g., a - engineer, b - financial analyst, c - counsel, d - economist, e -procurement consultant or specialist, f - control officer, g - programs officer.

Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project _ Output 3; “Irrigation & Flood Control”ADB Loan No. 2852-CAM (SF)

AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM (EF)

Project Completion Report

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC page 1July 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project (FDERP) consists of five projectoutputs, as defined in the ADBs RRP of which three comprise physical implementation:

Output 1: National and Provincial Roads_ implemented by MPWT

Output 2: Rural Roads_ implemented by MRD

Output 3: Irrigation and Flood Control_ implemented by MOWRAM

Furthermore the emergency repairs were categorised into 3 phases, Stage 1 to 3 as: Stage 1- Immediate repairs to re-establish use of the infrastructure on a temporary basis

and restore communications.

Stage 2- Fast track repairs where it was considered necessary to fully repair the damage

before the next wet season (WS) to secure the existing (undamaged) works

Stage 3- Remaining flood damage restoration to complete the remaining damage repairs,

preferably within the following two dry season construction periods.

This report covers progress and activities of the MOWRAM component; “Output 3:Irrigation and Flood Control” of the Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project.The actual FDERP Project Completion Report is the responsibility of the PCMU as requiredin the PAM1.

In essence the Output 3 of FDERP commenced implementation immediately after the flooddamage that occurred between August and the end of October of 2011, with work byMOWRAM on immediate repairs under Stage 1 with support funds from ADB. Stage 2procurement work commenced in March 2012 through retro-active financing. The FDERPloan agreement was signed in April 2012 and declared effective on 30th May 2012. It wasoriginally scheduled for completion (loan closure) at the end of September of 2015.

Broadly speaking the Project’s Output 3 hoped to provide economic and social recoveryfrom the 2011 floods impacting on two levels:

(i) Infrastructure level _ repair to irrigation and flood protection schemes(ii) Production level – maximise irrigated area and increase agricultural

production through improved infrastructure and enhanced protection works

As an “emergency” project, FDERP _ Output 3 did not include the usual components andobjectives common to irrigation rehabilitation projects except for basic safeguards, andconsequently was designed to be completed in a much shorter time line and with fewerresources.

As part of FDERPs emergency strategy, a fast-track initiative for initial procurement wasintroduced and this included use of Direct Contracting (DC) and Single Source Selection(SSS).

A total of 20 irrigation schemes were rehabilitated in the 5 FDERP provinces. The total costof the rehabilitation engineering works was USD$ 9.88 million which includes additionalworks for flood damage caused by the extreme flood events of October 2013. The grossirrigation area rehabilitated amounts to some 25,408 hectares.

In regards to attainment of objectives, the FDERP Project can claim success in relation tothe production goal. Irrigable areas were put back into production, yields and productionlevels are increasing. Each subproject has an existing farmer water user group to continueoperation and maintenance (O&M) activities.

1 ADB PAM for FDERP; Section IX, D ‘Reporting’, para 62





Lessons learned from FDERP include:

Direct Contracting for construction of civil works to speed up procurement for anemergency project is an effective stratagem, provided that stakeholders andprocurement processors do not lose sight of the objective.

Retroactive financing also was a successful approach coherent with the emergencystrategy, and allowed the engagement of TA consultant and the processing forimplementation prior to loan signing and effectiveness; this lesson was lost on thefollow-up project (FDERP-AF).

Employing extra levels of bureaucracy is at variance with the concept of ‘emergency’.

ADB and other stakeholders should be heedful of the emergency concept andcautious in requesting exigent/additional requirements (for which neither time norresources have been provided).

Where PCMUs are used, they should be more focussed on facilitating the project andits components, and with due regard to planning with foresight, and taking intoconsideration the requirements of the IAs.

There should be correlation between subprojects selected by different ministriesincluded in the same project; e.g. rural access roads repair under MRD could beidentified that integrate with other project component providing a more holisticapproach. Thus, improved access to irrigation schemes would result and reducecommunication and supply problems particularly during construction.

Use of full time on-site inspectors to support the supervising engineers significantlyimproves construction quality and monitoring.

TOR for consultants should be better prepared, realistic and related to the projectsdesign, objectives and requirements, cross-referenced to the project designdocuments.

Project documents (PAM) should include clear guidelines on the monitoring andevaluation baseline data required.

Provision should be considered of a cost item for civil works to cover the maintenanceof water supplies to farmers during construction.

Resources cannot be employed on two distinct projects at the same time withoutrisking detrimental effect on work quality and progress as has occurred with FDERPand FDERP-AF.

The Project Completion Report Format

The Consultants are required in their TOR to prepare a component Project CompletionReport (PCR) for the PIU. The format used here is an ADB format for PCR2 to be preparedby borrowers, and which was supplied previously to the Ministry and TA consultant by theResident Mission (CARM) in June 2011. The consultant has followed this format accordingto the information and data available, and has added material to ensure that project impacton beneficiaries and lessons learned from implementation are given adequate discussion.

This completion report for the Output 3_‘Irrigation and Flood Control’ of the FDERP consistsof the Main Report as one document, with supplementary and separate annexes forIrrigation Infrastructure Reconstruction, Safeguards (includes Resettlements, Labour andGender, Environmental), Socio-Economic (includes Field Data surveys and analysis), O&Mand FWUC, Stage 3 Sub-project profiles, Topographic Surveys, O&M and Monthly reports.

2 ADB Project Administration Instructions; Appendix 4 of PAI 6.07A, revised March 2009





The main report text considers project at component rather than subproject level. The MainReport is supported by appendices including subproject summary profile data sheets thatsummarise the detailed data included in the volume Annex I – ‘Irrigation InfrastructureReconstruction’. The main text of the Annex I provides a general overview and containsmore specific information on the performance and progress achieved of each specific sub-project.





I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. This report is the completion report by the IA of the borrower for the Output 3 of theFlood Damage Emergency Project (FDERP) normally due within 3 months of the projectcompletion3. The report presents the Project and discusses key issues and progress, by topicsas recommended by ADB for the borrowers completion reporting. The report has beenpresented in the standard format provided in PAI No.6.07A as recommended by CARM, andincludes annexes on specific components:

(i) Annex I; Infrastructure Reconstruction and sub-project data(ii) Annex II ; Safeguards (Environmental, Labour & Gender, Resettlement)(iii) Annex III; Socio-economic evaluation report(iv) Annex IV; O&M, FWUC(v) Annex V; Subproject Profiles(vi) Annex VI; Topographic survey data(vii) Annex VII; Monthly Reports; 2012-2015

A Antecedents

2. Following the 2011 floods in Cambodia that caused widespread damage to infrastructure,the Government of Australia and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved funding underthe Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project (FDERP) to assist the RoyalGovernment of Cambodia (RGC) with implementation of repairs. These repairs werecategorised as ;

Stage 1 - Immediate repairs to re-establish use of the infrastructure on a temporary basis and

restore communications. The most urgent work had already been implemented by the RGC

using its own resources.

Stage 2 - Fast track repairs where it was considered necessary to fully repair the damage before

the next wet season (WS) to secure the existing (undamaged) works and thus avoid more

extensive damage in the coming wet season.

Stage 3 - Remaining flood damage restoration to complete the remaining damage repairs,

preferably within the following two dry season construction periods.

3. All parties agreed that the Project should focus on the three most critical infrastructuresectors, as well as strengthening flood management / disaster preparedness. Hence, fiveproject outputs were proposed as follows:

Output 1: National and Provincial Roads – to be implemented by MPWT.

Output 2: Rural Roads – to be implemented by MRD.

Output 3: Irrigation – to be implemented by MOWRAM.

Output 4: Flood Risk Management to strengthen capacity for prevention, mitigation, and

preparedness to deal with future floods, with implementation agencies to be determined prior to

the loan fact-finding mission.

Output 5: Project Management and Support – through the Ministry of Economy and Finance

(MEF) as the EA

4. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Royal Government of Cambodia(RGC) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) was signed 13th February 2012 after Factfinding missions carried out in December 2011 and January-February 2012.

5. The Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP) was submitted in March 2012.The project was classified as multi-sector, the primary sector being Road Transport and this

3 This is the normal time, however there is no requirement for IA to produce PCR in the ADBs FDERP. A completion report is requested of theTA consultant by the IA





was reflected in the sector allocations whereby Irrigation component - Output 3 representedless than 20% of the total base cost.

6. The Project started officially on 14 May 2012 when the ADB Loan No 2852-CAM (SF)became effective, and according to the original implementation schedule, was due forcompletion by March 2015 with Loan Closure on 30 September 2015.

7. Through retro-active financing actual Output 3 component start was 5th March with theengagement of the TA consultant with limited mobilisation, to assist the IA (MOWRAM) withimplementation of Stage 2 work focussing on the direct contractor selection and the tenderingprocess.

8. A proposal for extending the project completion to the loan closure date4 was made bythe ADB Joint Review Mission of Nov-Dec 2014. The rationale for this appeared to bethreefold: i) Desire for some TA support to the PIU during the closure period, which normally isonly dealing with financial matters i.e. processing late payments etc.; ii) Support to PIU duringdefects liability period and iii) the availability of some remaining funds in the loan that could beutilised for further civil works construction.

9. Thus, a variation order was prepared using some of the remaining available resources toallow the Consultants to continue up to 30th September 2015, the loan closure date.

10. During September-November 2013 floods from Mekong River and heavy rainfall again hitCambodia and neighbouring countries, causing severe flooding that affected many parts ofCambodia at the level that was similar to that in 2011. The flooding triggered theRGC/ADB/AustraliaAID5 emergency aid actions leading to another flood emergency projectFDERP-AF, as well a review of damage to recently repaired infrastructure for FDERP.

B NWISP subprojects inclusion

11. Following the flooding of 2011 and prior to FDERP formulation, at the request of ADB,MOWRAM with the support of AFD and the NWISP TA consultants prepared designs and costestimates for emergency repairs to 9 sub-projects of the North West Irrigation Sector Project(NWISP _ ADB Loan No. 2035-CAM (SF)). The intention was to contract the original buildersthrough direct contracting (it was too late for variation orders) to repair the damaged worksusing the rates based on the previous contracts and with funding using the remaining budgetfrom the NWISP allocation. Although the PRC was in agreement, several months were lost asthe ADB prevaricated reconsidering its position and eventually did not accept DirectContracting for these repairs.

12. This impasse led do an agreement by the RGC and ADB during FDERP projectpreparation to include the NWISP repairs under FDERP Stage 2 interventions, which wouldcover payment for eight (8) NWISP sub-projects using direct contracting (with documentationand designs already prepared) and retroactive financing. Thus, the NWISP sub-projects wereincluded in the initial procurement plan of the MOU for funding through FDERP Stage 2.However, these interventions were later included in the Stage 3 planning for intervention.

C Retroactive financing

13. Given that many works needed to commence before the expected date of loan approvalin late March 2012 and to ensure that the project activities commenced in a timely manner, theRGC requested the use of retroactive financing and advance procurement to cover at leastpart of the expenditure it had incurred under Stage 1 and 2 Works. A summary note on

4 MOU Joint Review Mission of 24 November-22 December 2014; para. 6_ Draft (final signed never issued)5 Previously and in all project documents known as AusAID





retroactive financing and advance actions was attached as Appendix 7 to the MOU ofJanuary/February 2012.

D Co-Financing & Project Costs

14. The civil works component was partly financed through a grant6 from the AustralianGovernment that was signed on the 4th April 2012 through which Output 3 (MOWRAM) wasinitially allocated 1 million dollars out of a total grant of 5.25 million dollars.

15. A summary of the project costs and financing of the Output 3 as of loan effectiveness isprovided in Table 1 below and differentiates the funding from the different externaldevelopment financiers and the RGC. These are the base costs and do not include theadditional costs applied to the FDERP total (contingencies, IDC, unallocated). The total basecost for FDERP amounted to USD 59.82 m, and thus only 19.6% of FDERP was allocated tothe Output 3 Irrigation and Flood Control component of the project under the control ofMOWRAM.

16. Under the loan agreement the ADB financed 100% of total expenditure claimed for thecivil works7. The government of Australia similarly paid 100% of the cost of the civil works thatwere financed through AusAID Grant.

Table 1 Project costs estimate summary -Output 3 (Source: ADB PAM)

Financing Total Estimated

Cost (Output 3)

% of Output 3

Project Cost

USD million %

RGC Cat 01: Civil Works (Construction of Subprojects) 0.96 8.2%

Cat 02: Vehicles and Equipment 0.04 0.4%

Cat 04: Incremental Management 0.12 1.0%

Subtotal 1.12 9.6%

ADB LOAN

Cat 01: Civil Works (Construction of Subprojects) 7.67 65.5%

Cat 02: Vehicles and Equipment 0.12 1.0%

Cat 03: Consulting Services 1.38 11.8%

Cat 04: Incremental Management 0.42 3.6%

Subtotal 9.60 81.9%

AusAID GRANT

Cat 01: Civil Works (Construction of Subprojects) 1.00 8.5%

Subtotal 1.00

Total Cost 11.72 100%

Category and description

E Organizational structure of overall FDERP project

17. A chart showing the management structure of the project is presented in Figure 1 below.Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) is the executing agency (EA) and MOWRAM is one ofthree implementing agencies (IAs). The Project Coordination and Monitoring Unit (PCMU)within MEF has the very important coordinating and monitoring function and is supported byconsultants (ADB TA-8051(CAM). Financial management was in accordance with ADB

6 AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM(EF)7 % and basis for withdrawals from the loan account exclusive of taxes and duties imposed within the territories of the Borrower





disbursement requirements and the IA (MOWRAM) operated a second generation imprestaccount (SGIA).

Figure 1 FDERP Organisational structure

FLOOD DAMAGE EMERGENCY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (FDERP)

ORGANISATION CHART FOR FDERP

RESPONSIBILITY / ROLE

EXECUTING AGENCY

(EA)

PROJECT COORDINATION AND MONITORING

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

(IA)

IMPLEMENTATION

ACTIVITIES

RECONSTRUCTION

MPWT

PIU

MRD

PIU

MOWRAMPIU

OUTPUT 1 OUTPUT 2 OUTPUT 3

PCMU(MEF)

MEF

National & Provincial

Roads

Rural Roads Irrigation

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

TA will provide assistance

in project management and

implementation

TA's will provide assistance

in project management and

implementation

F Objectives

18. The overall project objectives were laid out in the ADB Report and Recommendations ofthe President (RRP) issued in March 2012, the goal being the economic and social recovery inflood damage affected areas of Cambodia, to be achieved for Output 3 through reconstructionand rehabilitation of small to medium scale irrigation schemes and water control infrastructurethat had been damaged by the extreme flood events of late 2011.

19. Five provinces were targeted for development initiatives for identifying and selectingsuitable sub-projects or irrigation schemes, (i) Kampong Cham, (ii) Battambang, (iii) KampongThom; Prey Veng and (iv) Siem Riep. For Stage 2, 10 small to medium scale8 irrigation sub-projects were screened and selected by ADB/MOWRAM for fast track repair. Thus, the Projectdesign hoped to improve irrigation for about 35,000 ha for approximately 120,000 beneficiaries.

20. Benefits were assumed to accrue from future losses avoided and, through restoring basicinfrastructure and improving connectivity to improve the welfare of affected people. Someincreased paddy yields for wet season were expected from improved infrastructure and, incertain cases a small amount of dry season cropping.

21. Social development would extend beyond incremental household incomes as farmerbeneficiaries, including poor and vulnerable sections and particularly women, would participateactively in the project reconstruction activities. The direct poverty reduction impact would comefrom the provision of short-term employment and much-needed cash income to poor womenand men using labour-intensive approaches where appropriate. The repaired irrigation andembankment infrastructure would indirectly reduce poverty by helping to restore livelihoods andreduce vulnerability by improving physical access to markets and social services as well as byincreasing agricultural productivity

8 Less than 3,000 ha





G Components

22. Strictly speaking the FDERP-Output 3 consists of only one component; Irrigation andFlood Control as defined in the ADBs RRP. But it is subdivided into separate but relatedinitiatives as outlined below. The RRP calls for the repair of about 26 flood damaged irrigationschemes covering about 25,000 ha in at least 5 provinces.

Stage 1

23. Stage 1 works involved immediate repairs to re-establish use of the infrastructure on atemporary basis and restore minimum functioning levels. The most urgent work had alreadybeen implemented by RGC using its own resources, mainly using sand bags and pumps.

Stage 2

24. Supposedly relatively small-scale Stage 2 works were to be constructed before theimpending 2012 wet season in 19 schemes to restore most of the irrigation operations, and tosecure undamaged works for the next wet season. The MOU identified 10 subprojects and thenadded NWISP subproject repairs. The selected subprojects were verified for environmental andresettlement categorisation and confirmed by ADB for continuing to implementation throughDirect Contracting procurement procedure. As part of a fast-track process work was to goahead prior to actual loan agreement signing through retro-active financing described in theMOU

Stage 3

25. Stage 3 covered works that would require more detailed investigations, and this work wasto commence after the 2012 wet season, following subproject compliance with project criteria.The initial ADB procurement plan tentatively listed 16 subprojects.

H Implementation Methodology

26. The Executing Agency (EA) is MEF, and inter-ministerial coordination was achievedthrough the Project Management Coordination Committee (PMCC) composed of membersfrom each participating line agency.

27. The IA for Output 3-Irrigation and Flood Control is MOWRAM, and a ProjectImplementation Unit (PIU) was set up in the MOWRAM offices composed of support staff asper the project management arrangements described in the PAM. The Output 3 has beenmanaged by the National Project Director, heading the PIU within MOWRAM. The PIUassumed management responsibility and assigned a dedicated Project Manager to direct aproject team formed by staff from relevant MOWRAM departments.

28. The Project was supported by co-financing, whereby AusAID grant initially financed100% of total expenditure for Output 3 (MOWRAM) for the Category 1 allocation ‘Civil Works’for a sum of USD 1 million, for assistance in implementing the project.

29. The Project through the ADB Loan specified the procurement of consulting services tocarry out specific technical assistance activities. For Output 3 a TA consultant was procuredthrough Single Source Selection (SSS).

30. Under Stage 1, the ADB supported Output 3 through emergency fund budget to assistMOWRAM with fuel costs for pumping.

31. Under Stage 2, subprojects already selected and verified by ADB/MOWRAM forcompliance with project criteria, continued to procurement of civil works. Designs were





prepared by MOWRAM and the agreed strategy was procurement through Direct Contractingwith assistance from the TA Consultant.

32. Under Stage 3, Site selection process followed the project plan that requiredcompliance with selection criteria. On approval of subproject profiles, selected sub-projectscontinued to detailed design stage through the services of the TA consultant. This is describedin detail in the Annex I: ‘Infrastructure Development’, where the framework for selection ofirrigation schemes is presented.

33. The sub-projects were selected from the PP list and prioritised during rapid appraisal fieldvisits. The design teams then defined the emergency reconstruction works in consultation withthe beneficiaries. Field investigations secured socio-economic, agricultural, water managementand engineering data that was collated and included in brief sub-project profile reports for eachsubproject. These were submitted to ADB for no-objection for continuing to detailed designstage. These profiles included appended hydrology study and the environmental andresettlement check lists for categorisation of the sub-project. The subproject profile reports areincluded in Annex I: ‘Infrastructure Development’

34. The selection of sub-projects followed the agreed selection process provided in the RRP.Counterpart funds were provided by the Borrower for project implementation and the selectioncriteria are included here in Appendix 3. The eligible list of subprojects is presented in Table 3,which also indicates the selected schemes. More detailed tables containing data specific toStage 2 and Stage 3 subprojects are included in the Annex 1 ‘Infrastructure reconstruction andsubproject data’. The data in Table 3 is the estimate at project formation; actual areas andcosts were to differ on effecting design, though Stage 2 cost estimates were confirmed at PPformulation.

I Safeguards

35. Quarterly Monitoring of the environmental aspects of the overall FDERP project is theresponsibility of the PCMU for the EA. However, the IA provided environmental monitoringthrough services of the TA environmental specialist. Annex 2; Safeguards, includes materialrelevant to the following subjects:

Gender and Labour

36. Gender and Labour matters were addressed through quarterly reporting. The reportswere annexed to the monthly report for the corresponding quarter.

37. The project was expected to have some gender benefits (SGB)9 and a Labour andgender Action Plan was included in the RRP (Annex 9) and may be summarised as:

Table 2 Labour and Gender Actions

No. Action

1 • Contractors will prioritize and report on the use of local unskilled labor

2 • At least 30% of unskilled labor hired will be women (through conditions in bid documents)

3 • Contractors will uphold the Core Labor Standards, including not employing child labor

4 • Men and women will receive equal pay for equal work

5 • Irrigation canals will only be selected for rehabilitation if they have functioning Farmer Water UserCommittees reflecting women’s concerns

The last item is clearly a criteria for selection that was not included in the detailed selection criteria of theproject for Output 3. However, this was taken into consideration during reviews of the existing FWUCs.

9 Project at a Glance; RRP, March 2012





Table 3 List of eligible (PP) / selected subprojects

ProvincePP Contract

NoStage Sub-projects

PP estimate

USD million

Procurement

Method (PP)Final Selection

Wet Season

Area (ha)

Dry Season

Area (ha)

Toul Skea 1,500 2,000 √

Lam Laong 800 √

Ork Ambok 1,150 150 √

Boeung Kamplienh 100 150 √

Toul Skea

Lam Laong √

Phdav Chum 2,730 1,918 √

Por Tatres 1,052 √

Kor Aet 380 650 √

O Tasek 432 395

Tkas Dam 250 762

Srok Dam 650 √

Boeung Kak 1,250 √

CW6 3 Krapeu Main Canal 4,000 500 2.00 NCB √

CW7 3 Krapeu Pram 1,500 500 2.5 NCB

CW8 3 Neang 12 system 1,100 200 1.5 NCB

CW10 2 Kamping Puoy 2,239 102 0.50 DC √

Boeung Kanseng 850 850 √

Kong Piseth 350 350 √

CW14 3 Badak Reservoir 41 308 0.21 NCB

CW12 2 Hun Sen Baray 970 450 0.68 DC √

Prek Touch & Prek Thom 800 150 √

O Ansar 250 150 √

O Thnot 218 60 √

O Tuk 250

Boeung Kvek 375 120 √

Kouch Noup 790

Tram Mneash 1,212

Krouch Seuch 1,000

Anlong Svay 795

Chork Reservoir 1,372

Canal No.1 982 √

Don Aov 1,101

Po Pi Deum 1,142

Punley 440 100

Ta Soam 196

Kork Thnong 154

28,669 13,617 17.12 20Source: ADB PAM and PP 42,286

0.22

Total

Total irrigable area (WS/DS)

Orig

inal

lyN

WIS

Pth

enS

tage

2th

enS

tage

3

3

3

2

2

3

CW15

Pursat

Battambang

Banteay

MeanChaey

Siem Reap

DC

CW2 1.35 DC

2

2

DC

CW13 0.32 NCB

CW3 2.84 NCB

CW4 2.13 NCB

3

NCB

Siem Reap

Kampong Cham

CW9 0.23 DC

Irrigated Area

Kampong Thom

Battambang

CW5 1.00

CW11 0.41

Prey Veng

CW1 1.23

Resettlement

38. Resettlement issues were minimal and matters were addressed by the PIU/TA. Theschemes’ repair design was carried out within a participatory process involving thebeneficiaries to maximise on existing alignments and/or minimise the impact.





39. The FDERP was categorised as Category C for Resettlement during projectestablishment and this was confirmed at subproject level through resettlement categorisationchecks.

40. As the project basically focused on emergency reconstruction to existing flood damagedirrigation schemes or flood protection works, with the exception of one subproject there were noland and resettlement issues other than minor temporary impacts during construction of theworks. These were dealt with through voluntary contribution.

41. The Krapeu Main Canal subproject (FDERP-MOWRAM-CW6) had minor involuntaryimpact (land losses were less than 5% of the APs land ownership) and the affected householdsdonated their land to the project. The process was described in the ResettlementCategorization Report for Krapeu Main Canal (January 2013). An updated resettlementverification report was also prepared in July 2014 for all the subprojects

Social safeguards (FWUC)

42. As an emergency project, FWUC and Social Development was a minor component ofFDERP and there was no extension work and no FWUC formation component included in theProject. The FDERP criteria required eligible subprojects to have farmer water managementorganisations prior to selection and the selected subprojects were checked for compliance priorto implementation. Thus, irrigation schemes were only selected for implementation if theyalready had a FWUC or at least a WUG. CSC formation following government policy wasrequired immediately, once no objection was given by ADB to continue implementation.

43. The overall objective of the FWUC component was to prepare the rehabilitation of sub-projects in a participatory manner and strengthen the capacity of the water users’ community toensure sustainable O&M of the rehabilitated infrastructure. This was done by first identifyingthe water users and then ensuring; participatory preparation of the subproject-profiles andproposed rehabilitation works, developing a capacity building program for MOWRAM toconduct training based on the identify organisational, administrative and financial requirementfor FWUC/FWUGs, provision/confirmation of appropriate rules and regulations includingirrigation service contribution collection and decision making, facilitation of farmers’ involvementin and contribution to infrastructures reparation planning implementation and O&M.

44. The PIU worked with the existing farmer WUGs and FWUCs to establish or reactivate theConstruction Sub-committees (CSC) following government policy to support sustainability inirrigation by strengthening beneficiary communities’ capacity in participation in irrigation design.This component is covered in more detail in Annex IV ‘O&M-FWUC. Some O&M Manualswere produced through the design and TA services, though in fact FDERP assumed theseexisting schemes to actually have manuals that would only require updating. The manualsprepared are included in Annex IV.

J Monitoring

45. A Project Performance Management System (PPMS) for monitoring and evaluation wasintroduced and included in the monthly reports. The first part of PPMS dealing with projectprogress monitoring comprises a range of spreadsheets and S curves that monitor theestimated physical progress against the targets that were set in the third quarter of 2012, up tocompletion of the Project. Included are spreadsheets to monitor financial expenditure. Thesewere updated regularly as part of the day to day management of the Project.

46. For the second part of PPMS dealing with impact monitoring, all field work for thebaseline surveys were carried out by the TA teams and completed by September 2012. Thebaseline survey data reports were downloaded on PIU computers. However, 6 months laterPCMU on 21st March 2013, requested additional annual surveys on crop production for PCMU





analyses (this due to a yearlong delay in recruitment of the EAs M&E consultant). The firstadditional surveys were complete by May 2013, but used up TA resources that were notallowed for in the original plan of work, depleting resources. Thus, the following yearly surveyswere completed by PCMU themselves.

47. The baseline data survey (designed in September 2012) and data processing (data entryto excel database) was completed in October 2012. The survey with a sample of 522respondents had a margin of error of ±5%. The survey covered four provinces where the sub-projects were to be implemented, encompassing 7 districts, 24 communes and 87 villages asshown in the September 2012 Monthly Report. The final follow-up socio-economic survey wascarried out in January 2015 providing the post-project year survey (after construction). Thereport and analysis is presented in Annex III: ‘Socio-economic evaluation report’.

48. These surveys were supported by additional surveys on agricultural production andhousehold income carried out in the first instance by TA for MEFs specialist. For this,household income and rice yield were considered the important indicators to be monitored

49. The PIU established a finance system and contracted a financial specialist to assist theaccounts department at PIU with the accounting and loan management and financial reporting.The second generation imprest account (SGIA) was set up by PIU on 15th June 2012 andactivated on 15th August 2012 with an advance deposit of USD 70,000.

K Procurement Plan

50. A procurement plan (PP) was drawn up and included in the MOU for the Fact FindingMission (26 January – 10 February 2012) and in RRP support documents. The PP providedprocurement thresholds and listed the sub-projects identified by the mission with estimatedcosts and suggested procurement packages. The threshold for NCB is $3.5 million and none ofthe contract packages were expected to exceed this. The first sub-project to be carried outunder Stage 3 following NCB was subject to prior review and approval by ADB. The PPpresented here in Appendix 8, included both Stage 2 and Stage 3 subprojects. The Stage 2subprojects were verified by ADB to conform to ADB criteria for selection includingenvironmental and resettlement and were to go ahead with procurement through directcontracting. The PP was updated during review missions.

L Description and justification of changes in components

Component_ Stage 2 changes

51. The original list of subprojects for Stage 2 identified by the ADB fact-finding mission10

during project formulation continued unaltered in the final project documents (PAM). This listincluded repairs to NWISP subprojects damaged by flooding, for which designs had alreadybeen prepared by NWISP staff as discussed further above (paragraph 12 and 13). Theimplementation of these subprojects suffered more delays awaiting endorsement and noobjection from ADB, and so these projects were eventually placed in the FDERP Stage 3 list inthe revised PP resulting from the ADB inception mission of July 2012. This was effectively achange of scope and increase of work for Stage 3. Thus, the NWISP subproject repairseventually were not included in the Direct Contracting for Stage 2 works.

52. Two Stage 2 subprojects were affected by the 2013 floods mentioned in paragraph 11above. The necessary repairs to Kamping Pouy main canal in Battambang province and LamLaong dyke in Prey Veng province (Contracts CW10 and CW1) created changes to completionschedules and cost. In the case of Lam Laong the original scope of work for Stage 3 works was

10 MOU for proposed Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project _26 January to 10 February 2012 ‘Fact-Finding Mission’





reduced and the repair costs were incorporated within the contract price. For Kamping Pouythe works were repaired under the Stage 3 contract (see below).

Component_ Stage 3 changes

53. The procurement plan originally listed 16 tentative subprojects under Stage 3. However,Stage 3 subprojects were subject to the selection criteria as well as conformance to animplementation process laid out in the PAM.

54. As part of a fast track approach all Stage 3 subprojects were visited and those thatevidently did not conform to the most basic criteria were disregarded. This included thesubprojects of:

O Tasek in Kampong Cham province

Thkas Dam in Kampong Cham province

Neang Dop Pi in Siem Riep province

55. Furthermore, one subproject O Tuk in Kampong Thom was cancelled due to conflict withanother ADB project11, and one other subproject, Badak reservoir was similarly droppedbecause on commencing review of the procurement plan for subproject selection it was foundto be already under reconstruction under Battambang PDWRAM management.

56. The list of Stage 3 subprojects identified at inception was altered by the addition of theNWISP schemes. Furthermore, the designs for emergency reconstruction works dated fromNovember 2011 and the scope of work and the bills of quantities required revision andupdating. The early estimates did not include mobilisation and other costs since it wasassumed the original contractors would be employed under DC as previously agreed with ADB;hence the cost estimates during the NWISP negotiations with the DC contractors were higherand amounted to some USD 0.36 million. The review carried out under FDERP re-estimatedthese projects’ reconstruction at USD 0.79 million after the application of 2013 unit rates andthe list of NWISP subprojects to be included in the PP was consequently reduced to 3.

57. The original PP grouped subprojects together into packages prior to screening andselection. Thus there was inevitable change to some PP packages. For PP contract CW4, thispackage originally contained both Phdav Chum and Por Tatres (see Table 3 above andprocurement schedule Appendix 7) but was altered to comprise only Phdav Chum subproject,which by itself was to cost about USD2.5 million. Meanwhile the Por Tatres project was addedto Kor Aet in PP package CW5.

58. The Stage 3 list of subprojects selected for implementation was altered again as a resultof the 2013 floods mentioned above. The funds set aside for the CW15-A&B (NWISPsubprojects Kork Thnong and Ta Saom) were diverted to the repairs at Kamping Pouy (Stage 2Contract CW10) through a variation order following the decision of the Joint Review Mission ofNovember 2013. Thus only one NWISP 2011 flood damaged subproject CW15-C remained inthe PP.

59. One subproject, Krapeu Main Canal (CW6) was designed in 2012 but procurement wasnot pursued owing to lack of sufficient funds in the Category 1 Loan Allocation for Civil Works.Eventually, the damage reconstruction for this scheme was reduced in scale from an estimatedUSD 1.16 million to USD 0.52 million estimate. This was achieved by reducing the areairrigated and the length of the supply canal and associated structures. The canal was reducedfrom 7.7 km to a 3 km head reach. Following the re-allocation of the loan funds by category inJune 2013, this downsized subproject finally proceeded to procurement, construction andcompletion by September 2014.

11 WRMSDP-Component C_ ADB Loan No.2673-CAM(SF)





60. Following the recommendation of the Joint Review Mission of November/December2014, a variation order (VO#2) for the Krapeu Main Canal was prepared to enlarge the schemeusing the already prepared designs and using up remaining funds in the loan. Thus, thescheme was extended by a further 2.5 km of main canal, for an increase in the price of USD0.3 million and in area irrigated by about 950 ha. Thus, the remainder of 2.2 km of canal of theoriginal design was excluded.

M Outputs

61. The outputs of the FDERP-Output 3 'Irrigation and Flood Control' presented in this reportare described in more detail in the accompanying annexes, and are further listed in the ProjectResults Profile framework presented in Appendix 9. In summary, the outputs comprise thereconstruction of 20 subprojects in 5 targeted provinces with a total irrigated area of 25,370 ha.





II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A Schedules

62. The original project schedule for Output 3 that included physical progress indicators wasprepared in third quarter 2012 and was used up to project completion for monitoring physicalprogress in Monthly Reports. The project overall progress is displayed in Figure 2 below.

63. A Projects Results Profile was also used to monitor targets and progress and ispresented in Appendix 9. The outputs and indicators were based on the original ProjectFramework. The Project Framework (revised) is provided in Appendix 4. The schedule for theoverall implementation for the 10 Stage 3 selected sub-projects is provided in Appendix 2,which shows the critical activities. The table in Appendix 7 presents the procurement process.

Figure 2 Overall Output 3 progress

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

A-J J-S O-D J-M A-J J-S O-D J-M A-J J-S O-D J-M A-J J-S O-D

100

100

99

98

100

100

100

98.2

96.5

96.5

100.0 0.18 18.20 36.10 52.20 65.70 70.40 74.80 87.30 91.30 95.60 98.00 99.20 100.00 100.00 100.00

0.18 16.20 32.30 43.00 49.40 54.20 58.90 73.01 85.26 92.03 94.20 98.80 100.00

TASK / ACTIVITY

100

15.961 Design/Preparation

4 Construction

%

80

TASK

NO.

2 Safeguards60

YEAR 2015YEAR 2012

% WT

Plan

versus

Actual

YEAR 2013 YEAR 2014

Consultant Services 17.37

Cumulative Quarterly Schedule

21.13

7.04

38.50

5

3 Procurement

Cumulative Quarterly Actual

20

40

0

Schedule

Actual

Project completion

B Stage 1 Works

64. Stage 1 works involved temporary measures during 2011, mainly using sand bags andpumps and using force account to restore irrigation or flood protection as far as possible.MOWRAM force account work was supported by US$ 0.48 million fuel/oil contract formachinery in 23 provinces and Phnom Penh, provided through the Humanitarian AssistanceProject (ADB Grant No. 0268-CAM).

C Stage 2 Works

65. It was proposed in the FDERP planning to complete selected relatively small-scale Stage2 works before the 2012 wet season to restore most of the irrigation operations, and to secureundamaged works for the next wet season. This was obviously very ambitious planning sinceeven with retro-active financing the procurement process was not even about to commenceuntil late March. Direct Contract selection and NOL took 42 days alone. Bid evaluation and bidnegotiation and award however was relatively speedy and allowed all DC contracts tocommence before the end of June. However, this was already wet season. Overall theprocurement process for Stage 2 direct contracts took 3 months, which can be considered fastas compared to the NCB process.

66. During the ADB fact finding mission in January and February 2012, some interventionswere identified as Stage 2, and furthermore it was agreed that all Stage 2 subprojects shouldbe classified as category “C” for resettlement. The Stage 2 Works commenced prior to the loanagreement signing and were eligible for retro-financing as described above and in accordance





with the Appendix 7 ‘Summary Note on Retroactive Financing and Advance Actions’ of theMOU of January-February 2012.

67. Furthermore, as part of the advance actions, Stage 2 works were to be procured usingDirect Contracting, contingent and in accordance with stated procedures.

68. It was also agreed by the RGC and ADB that the Stage 2 interventions were to includeeight NWISP sub-projects as well as the ten sub-projects identified during project preparationand as included in the procurement plan of the MOU. This was because a previous attempt byMOWRAM to use direct contracting (employing the original contractor) for emergency repairs tothe damage to NWISP failed after many months of prevarication by ADB.

69. Thus, the Stage 2 subprojects were identified, screened and selected by ADB andMOWRAM prior to services. As part of the fast track process the TA Consultant commenced inMarch 2012 with two staff to assist PIU select contractors through direct contractingprocedures. By the end of June 2012 contracts for construction of civil works were signed for 5packages comprising 10 sub-projects identified in the PP. Contractors mobilised immediatelyand despite the wet season conditions the works initially advanced significantly asdemonstrated in Figure 3 below. The effect of the wet season on progress is clearly shown(period between July and October 2012). Work immediately picked up at the start of thefollowing dry season.

70. The table presented in Appendix 15 summarises data for all Stage 2 subprojectsincluding the principal interventions and facilities, general information (social, agriculture),procurement and progress dates. The contract process for Stage 2 is presented in Table 4below.

Figure 3 Physical Progress Stage 2 Civil Works

Jun 12 Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12 Oct 12 Nov 12 Dec 12 Jan 13 Feb 13 Mar 13 Apr 13 May 13 Jun 13 Jul 13 Aug 13 Sep 13 Oct 13

Target 0 19.18 46.45 72.43 86.48 95.03 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 0 25.06 41.04 51.02 53.32 60.07 65.61 75 81.96 84.8 87.29 90.59 94 98.9 99.7 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PER

CEN

TAG

EO

FP

RO

GR

ESS

%

RATE OF WORK EXECUTION FOR OVERALL STAGE 2





Table 4 Stage 2 Contract Data

STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Basic Data Updated JUNE 2015

Start Date Completion Defects

Liability

Date

Completion Delay Defects

Liability

FDERP-

MOWRAM-USD USD Date Date Date Months Date USD USD USD USD Month Month

1Lam Laong & Toul

SkearCW1

Meas Sovuthidy

Construction Co., Ltd1,140,859.39 171,128.91 28-Jun-12 28-Dec-12 28-Dec-13 28-Oct-13 10.1 28-Oct-14 1,140,581.68 1,083,552.60 57,029.08 57,029.08 * 6 16

2Ork Ambok & Boeung

KamplienhCW2

Ung Sim Sia

Construction Co., Ltd1,188,483.46 28-Jun-12 28-Dec-12 28-Dec-13 25-Apr-13 3.9 25-Apr-14 1,185,330.94 1,185,330.94 0.00 0.00 6 10

3Srok Dam & Boeung

KakCW9

Punleu Banteay

Srey Construction

Co., Ltd

318,842.81 28-Jun-12 28-Dec-12 28-Dec-13 19-Apr-13 3.7 19-Apr-14 318,811.57 318,811.57 0.00 0.00 6 10

4

Kamping Puoy,

Boeung Kanseng and

Kong Piseth

CW10/11

Royal Mekong

Construction and

Development Pte.,

Ltd

898,489.89 134,773.48 28-Jun-12 28-Jan-13 28-Jan-14 18-Sep-13 7.8 18-Sep-14 898,475.48 898,475.48 0.00 0.00 7 15

5

Kamping Puoy, VO

#2, Repair to Year

2013 Flood damage

CW10

Royal Mekong

Construction and

Development Pte.,

Ltd

116,230.21 NA 01-Jun-14 29-Aug-14 29-Aug-15 17-Nov-14 2.7 17-Nov-15 116,230.21 116,230.21 0.00 0.00 3 6

6Baray Hun Sen Main

CanalCW12

Soeun Soknan

Construction Co., Ltd877,937.49 28-Jun-12 28-Dec-12 28-Dec-13 10-Jul-13 6.5 10-Jul-14 877,931.74 877,931.74 0.00 0.00 6 13

4,540,843.25 4,537,361.62 4,480,332.54

Note: Award and final price includes contingency item

Defects liability period retention = half of retention

* retention repayment claimed and pending disbursement

Actual

Constr.

Period

Constr.

Period

IPCs

pendingNo Subproject

Contract

No.Name of Contractor Award Price

Advance

PaymentBalance

Retention

(defects

period)

Contract Schedule Actual Construction Schedule

Disbursement

to DateFinal Price




Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC page 18March 2015

D Stage 3 Works

71. Stage 3 covered the works that required more detailed investigations and design, tocomplete damage restoration and were programmed to be completed during the following dryseasons, and which therefore requires selection based on the project selection criteria, designand bid preparation through competitive bidding process during the 2012 wet season. Prior tocommencing detailed design the PIU were required to submit details (sub-project profiles) ofthe proposed sub-project interventions together with the sub-projects’ safeguards classification,to the PCMU for endorsement and to the ADB for no objection.

72. The schedule for the NCB package for Phdav Chum subproject FDERP-MOWRAM-CW4was impacted by an unsuccessful tender in December 2012; the Procurement ReviewCommittee (PRC) recommended a re-bid and a change to bid requirements as no bidder hadbeen able to meet the conditions regarding similar experience and turnover. The contract wasre-advertised and all bidders who had previously purchased documents were requested toresubmit bids. The delay effectively pushed construction to the following dry season.

73. The difficulty of the NWISP subprojects’ inclusion in PP FDERP-MOWRAM-CW15continued; individual bid documents were prepared under shopping procedures for the 3 smallsubprojects recommended by ADB for inclusion in the revised PP. The tender process wascancelled following ADB objection and the IA was ordered to combine two subprojects togetherobliging the bid method to change to NCB12. One subproject (CW15-C) went ahead to bidunder shopping. As only one bidder responded, the EA (MEF) requested ADB NOL of the BERwhich was given and thus the CW15C subproject was eventually constructed. For the other twosubprojects CW15-A&B combined in NCB continued to bid but the PRC found the one and onlybid to be non-responsive in several aspects and declared this procurement non-responsive.

74. The table presented in Appendix 16 summarises data for all Stage 3 subprojectsincluding the principal interventions and facilities, general information (social, agriculture),procurement and progress dates. The contract process for Stage 3 is presented in Table 5below and progress is displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Physical Progress Stage 3 Civil Works

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Target 0 6.71 18.69 34.05 54.46 76.67 90.46 98.45 99.93 100 100

Actual 0 5.74 14.93 31.90 46.33 57.11 79.98 90.7 98.34 99.84 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

PER

CEN

TAG

EO

FP

RO

GR

ESS

%

RATE OF WORK EXECUTION FOR OVERALL STAGE 3

12 Shopping threshold being USD 100,000.




Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC page 19March 2015

Table 5 Stage 3 Contract Data

STAGE 3 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Basic Data Progress as of JUNE 2015

Contract No.

ADB LFIS

Contract

No

Advance

PaymentCompletion

Progress

Award Price Period Request Date Start Completion Start Date Completion to date CompletionDefects

LiabilityDate USD Month USD / date Date Date Date Date % Date Date USD USD Month

1 Lam Laong CW3 29 SBPH Construction Co., Ltd 30/Jul/13 521,873.83 4 01-Dec-13 31-Mar-14 03-Feb-14 31-May-14 100% 18-Jul-14 18-Jul-15 521,502.00 521,502.00 8

PhdavChum CW4 28 SBPH Construction Co., Ltd 2/Oct/13 2,574,150.13 8 386,122.52 15-Nov-13 12-Jul-14 100% 19-Sep-14 19-Sep-15

17/Dec/13

Kor Aet & Por Tatres CW5 22Tan Kim Eng Construction

Co., Ltd21/May/13 754,784.58 6 113,217.69 01-Dec-13 29-May-14 01-Jan-14 29-Jun-14 100% 30-Sep-14 30-Sep-15

17/Jun/13

Krapeu Main Canal CW6 33Punloeu BanteaySrey

Construction Co., Ltd23/Dec/13 455,109.17 6 68,266.38 23-Dec-13 20-Jun-14 19-Sep-14 19-Sep-15

31/Dec/13

VO#2 17/Feb/15 300,857.05 19-Feb-15 19-Jun-15 100% 300,857.05 4

5

O Thnot, O Ansar, Prek

Touch & Prek Thom and

Boeung Kvek

CW13 30 KBH Construction Co., Ltd 30/Jul/13 686,982.25 6 01-Dec-13 29-May-14 01-Dec-13 30-Jun-14 100% 21-Aug-14 21-Aug-15 667,067.51 667,067.51 9

7 Canal No. 1 CW15C T.S.K Construction Co., Ltd 5/Aug/13 67,809.60 3 01-Jan-14 31-Mar-14 01-Jan-14 30-Apr-14 100% 26-May-14 26-May-15 67,808.00 67,808.00 5

5,361,566.61 499,340.21 100.0% 5,340,752.11 5,039,895.05

Revised Start &

Completion

Overall completion

455,106.12

Final Price

2,573,660.00

754,751.43

Actual

Total Award value

Agreed Contract

ScheduleNo Subproject Name of Contractor

FDERP-

MOWRAM

2

3

4

Construction Contract Actual

Constr.

Period

10

10

9100%

Disbursement to

Date

2,573,660.00

754,751.42

455,106.12





E Cost Estimates

75. A summary of expenditure under the ADB loan is presented in Appendix 10. Total sub-project civil works construction costs per ha (US $/ha) are provided in Appendix 11. Theaverage cost per ha for civil works overall amounts to about $423 based on the design irrigablearea that allows for cropping intensity.

76. The criteria for the project Output 3 presented in Appendix 3 require that the repair costsof an individual scheme are $1,000 or less of the gross area irrigated after repairs arecomplete, for implementation to proceed without the need to verify economic viability. Thisproved the case for all selected subprojects as can be seen in the table Appendix 11.

77. The total project cost was estimated in the RRP at $67.17 million equivalent includingtaxes and duties. The Output 3 portion amounted to $11,719,397 as shown below in Table 6.

Table 6 Detailed Cost by Expenditure Category – Output 3

PROJECTED COSTS (ADB_ PAM)

Total FDERP

Cost

Total

Output 3

Cost

Output 3

%

funding

ADB Govt of

Australia

RGC

1 Civil Works 51,217,222 9,638,197 19% 7,674,377 1,000,000 963,820

2 Equipment & vehicles 555,000 162,200 120,200 42,000

3 Consulting Services 6,284,900 1,380,200 1,380,200

4 Incremental Mngmnt 1,759,200 538,800 422,400 116,400

Total Base cost 59,816,322 11,719,397 9,597,177 1,000,000 1,122,220

Note: Source: ADB PAM

Contingencies and interest excluded

The contribution of RGC in the incremental costs are in kind, and taxes and duties will be funded through govt; excluding project safeguard costs ($600,000 )

Table 7 Project Costs _ Output 3- updated

ACTUAL OUTPUT 3 COSTS AT COMPLETION (Revised ADB allocation of February 2015)

Total Cost ADB Govt of

Australia

RGC

1 Civil Works 11,163,155 9,014,004 1,185,331 963,820

2 Equipment & vehicles 174,450 132,450 42,000

3 Consulting Services 1,367,301 1,367,301

4 Incremental Mngmnt 407,885 407,885

Total Base cost 13,112,790 10,921,639 1,185,331 1,005,820

Note: Values in USD as of Jun-15

Source: MEF; LFIS

The contribution of RGC in the incremental costs are in kind, and taxes and duties will be funded through govt.





78. The Table 7 presents the updated project costs at completion; this includes changes toallocation from loan and grant and actual costs for categories; and Table 8 compares theAppraisal Estimate with the Actual for the Financing Plan for implementation costs of Output 3.Table 9 similarly lists the Interest during construction (IDC) and unallocated costs but for thewhole project. Thus some of these costs would be allotted to Output 3.

Table 8 Financing Plan; appraisal v actual _ Output 3


March 2012 PAM Jun-15

Borrower Financed 1,122,220 1,005,820

ADB Financed 9,597,177 10,921,639

Other External Financing – AusAID 1,000,000 1,185,331

Beneficiaries

Total 11,719,397 13,112,790

Implementation Costs

79. As shown in the financing plan Tables 4-7, the project was co-financed by AusAID. Thecurrency for the co-financed component was dollars.

Table 9 Financing Plan in USD_ FDERP overall IDC & unallocated

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual Allocation Estimate

March 2012 PAM Jun-15

Borrower Financed

ADB Financed 870,000 841,356

Other External Financing - AusAID

Total 870,000 841,356

Unallocated

ADB Financed 5,617,400 489,091

Other External Financing - AusAID 436,012

Miscellaneous - AusAID 250,000 250,000

Total 6,487,400 1,766,459

IDC = interest during construction

Source: LFIS Jun-15

IDC Costs

80. A summary of actual fund disbursement as of 30 March 2015 is included in Appendix 5,which also summarises the grant disbursement through Australia AID, and Appendix 10displays the summary of expenditure from the loan by category.





F Recruitment of Consultant

81. The TA Consultant (DDIS in some ADB terminology) was recruited under AdvanceActions that were specified in the original project MOU and described in the PAM Section VI.The procurement was through single source selection (SSS) and following guidance from ADBand in accordance with ADBs permitted procedures for emergency assistance.

82. The Consultant was requested on 27th February 2012 by MOWRAM and pendingengagement under SSS for FDERP, to mobilise urgently for the Advance Actions to assistMOWRAM with the Stage 2 subprojects procurement through retro-active financing asrecommended in the ADBs MOU.

83. Thus, Egis Eau in partnership with KCC commenced work on 5th March 2012 mobilising 2staff, the Team Leader and Deputy Team Leader as agreed with MOWRAM. The process forSSS recruitment commenced on 2nd April 2012 with the request for proposals (RFP). Theprocurement review committee (PRC) proceeded with negotiations on 18th and 21st May 2012with the Consultant and in the presence of the ADB project preparation team.

84. Finally, full TA services were procured through ADB procedures for Single SourceSelection (SSS) with ADB’s endorsement and the contract agreement between the Client andthe Consultant was signed on 21st June 2012 for the amount of 1,360,275 US Dollars. Howeverthe Consultant had partially mobilized on 5th March 2012 to provide Advance Services at therequest of MOWRAM with endorsement of ADB/MEF, through the retro-active financingstratagem that had been advance in the MOU13.

85. Subsequent amendments to the Contract were submitted to the MEF for approval. A totalof 4 addendums to the Contract were effected during the project, two of which were toincorporate a new project (FDERP-AF) through ADB Loan No.3125-CAM (SF) and whichimpacted FDERP.

86. For this FDERP-AF project, the Consultant received the RFP on the 9 June 2014 for SSSprocedure for the FDERP-AF project. The Consultant’s proposal was submitted on 19 June2014. Initial bid negotiations commenced and after considerable delay, the contractincorporated in the Addendum #3 that was finally signed by 2nd August 2014 for a contractprice of USD 1,360,275 including contingencies. Table 10 shows the evolution of the contractfor services through the project implementation period and Appendix 6 the schedule for theconsulting services up to Addendum 4, which includes the contract quantities, use and balanceto date. Major adjustments to the TA schedule and inputs occurred after ADB formulation of anew project named FDERP-Additional Financing. Explanation of the variations follows below.

Table 10 Variations to services agreement

Date AddendumNo.

Increase inContract

RevisedFDERP

Contract sum

Purpose of variation

22-Mar-13 1 No change 1,360,275 Use of contingency amount, revised allocations

04-Apr-13 2 -138,263 1,222,012 Transfer resources to FDERP-AF

02-Aug-13 3 +138,262.23 1,360,274.23 Agreement for FDERP-AF; restoration of resources

30-Jan-15 4 No change 1,360,274.23 ADB requested extension to Consultant up to Loan Closure

13 MOU of Fact Finding Mission; 26 January – 10 February 2012, Section III F and Appendix 7 ‘Summary Note on Retroactive Financing andAdvance Actions





Addendum #1

87. The first addendum to the agreement ‘Addendum #1’ was signed on 22nd March 2013.The addendum used the entire contingency amount in the agreement and there is no change inthe contract price. The changes were based on revised allocation inputs as well as reallocationof resources on a financial basis for implementation of the MOWRAM priority sub-projectsthrough four (4) of the procurement contracts FDERP-MOWRAM-CW3; CW4; CW5; CW13.The addendum presumed that there would be a following addendum that would provideadditional resources to permit adequate coverage of all the FDERP-MOWRAM subprojectsactivities.

Addendum #2

88. A second addendum was proposed and submitted in August 2013 that would have drawnon the revised allocation for Cat.3: ‘Consulting Services’ of the loan (see further in Chapter 4) inorder to adjust resources to correspond to all planned work for Output 3 implementation(including procurement contracts CW6 and CW15 A&B and CW15C). This variation order wasrejected by the PRC on 8 October 2013 apparently following advice from PCMU and withdisregard to forward planning.

89. Thus, the EA and IA did not approve the contract variation requested to increase inputs tostrengthen construction supervision in order to improve quality of civil works and othercomponents and, furthermore left the project with limited support resources. This was laterexacerbated by the subsequent unnecessary temporary transfer of TA resources from FDERPto FDERP-AF.

90. Following the decisions made by RGC and ADB for the implementation of the FDERP-AFproject then in formulation, a new variation order (Addendum #2 _ revised) was prepared totransfer resources from FDERP on a virtual basis to FDERP-AF, on the understanding that thistransfer of resources would be effectively cancelled immediately on signing of the loanagreement for FDERP-AF and a revised agreement with the Consultant.

91. This Addendum #2 was submitted to FDERP PIU in March 2014 and a PRC meeting washeld on 26th March 2014 where the variation order was provisionally approved dependant onEgis Eau providing authorisation for the variation order signing and justification for the rate forthe International Hydrologist (for FDERP-AF advance services) included in the schedule, whichwas duly effected. The addendum finally was signed on the 4th April 2014.

Addendum 3

92. The Consultant had to prepare a third addendum to include a contract for FDERP-AF andto restore the resources to FDERP transferred in Addendum #2. However this took severalmonths during which time the FDERP TA was operating with skeleton staff.

Addendum 4

93. The Consultant was requested to prepare a 4th addendum during the ADB/MEFs’ JointReview Mission of November/December 2014. Two options were considered, one to extendservices for 6 months from April to September 2015 and a second one to rationalise the use ofavailable resources until the initial date of Project Completion (31 March 2015).

94. The first and finally chosen option addressed the request of ADB and the EA for theservices to continue until Loan Closure (September 2015). The rationale for this appeared to bethreefold:

Desire for some TA support to the PIU during the closure period, which normally is only dealing

with financial matters i.e. processing late payments etc.;

To provide support to PIU during defects liability period (There will be some Contracts still in

Defects Liability during this period).





There had been previous proposal by PCMU to use some unallocated budget in FDERP for

extending CW6 Krapeu Main Canal in Siem Riep

95. The addendum was duly prepared and submitted to PIU and after revision by the PRCwas approved and dated 30th January 2015. This variation is named Addendum 4 of FDERPand AF-2 of FDERP-AF and the variation is based on the one used for AF-1 (addendum 3) andthe working sheet provided by PCMU/ADB. The variation allowed for assistance withsupervision of construction with the provision of one Contract Engineer and one site inspector.There was no provision for extended time of the Deputy Team Leader. The Team Leaderposition retained small intermittent inputs through the period until loan closure in September2015 for management purposes.

96. The TA consultant requested and was paid an advance of 25% of the contract value. TheTable 11 lists the claims and disbursements for services through contract duration. There werefrequent delays in reviewing claims and processing payments to the TA Consultant.

97. Actual resources used and the balance are displayed in the Appendix 14. The data isbased on Addendum #4 of the contract, which has a reduced contract price effective fromAddendum 3 or AF-1 variation.

Table 11 Payments to Consultant

ClaimAdvance

repayment

Amount less

installments

Amount

Disbursed

USD USD USD USD

Advance 20-Jul-12 03-Sep-12 340,068.00

1 Invoice 1 to 7 18-Oct-12 Mar - Sep 2012 376,809.50 376,809.50 04-Feb-13 376,809.50

2 Invoice 8 to 10 12-Feb-13 Oct – Dec 2012 211,204.64 52,801.16 158,403.48 07-May-13 158,403.48

3 Invoice 11 to 13 05-Apr-13 Jan – Mar 2013 167,206.16 68,013.60 99,192.56 13-Sep-13 99,192.56

4 Invoice 14 to 16 17-Jul-13 Apr - Jun 2013 80,751.36 68,013.60 12,737.76

5 Invoice 17 to 19 17-Jul-13 Jul - Sept 2013 90,267.51 68,013.60 22,253.91

Invoice 20 to 22 06-Feb-14 Oct – Dec 2013 28,180.20 68,013.60 -39,833.40

Invoice 23 06-Feb-14 Jan 2014 42,205.00 15,212.44 26,992.56 24-Apr-14 22,158.03

7 Invoice 24 to 25 07-Apr-14 Feb-Mar 2014 79,765.25 79,765.25 10-Sep-14 79,765.25

8 Invoice 26 to 31 06-Oct-14 Apr - Sept 2014 96,670.12 96,670.12

9 Invoice 32 to 34 30-Jan-15 Oct – Dec 2014 23,151.15 23,151.15

Invoice 35 to 36 06-Mar-15 Jan - Feb 2015 43,047.50 43,047.50 04-Jun-15 162,868.77

10 Invoice 37 06-Apr-15 Mar 2015 43,788.45 43,788.45

1,283,046.84 340,068.00 942,978.84 899,197.59

TOTAL OF OUTSTANDING CLAIMS TO DATE 43,781.25

DATING FROM Apr-15 to Jun-15

6

Claim ItemSubmittal

dateBilling Period

Disbursement

Date

Payment

Claim

G Procurement of Goods, Services

Civil Works

98. The overall implementation schedules for the selected subprojects (ten in Stage 2 andnine in Stage 3) are included in Appendices 2 and 4. This shows the range and timing of theservices described below.





99. Civil Works procurement followed ADB guidelines as included in the SOP. Appendix 7contains a summary of the civil works procurement. All Stage 2 civil works were procuredthrough Direct Contracting as recommended during project formulation. This procedure workedwell despite the lack of experience in this method by all stakeholders. Stage 3 works were onthe whole procured through NCB as per the procurement plan. Only one subproject wentahead through Shopping method (CW15-C).

100. Recruitment of contractors for Stage 2 was by Direct Contracting. Five (5) contracts wereawarded that included a total of 10 subprojects. The process for recruitment took 65 days for all5 contracts as these were all processed together.

101. Recruitment of Contractors for Stage 3 works used Post Qualification. The average timefor recruitment took 5.7 months (4.2 m minimum, 9.2 months maximum) not counting onecontract (CW4) that had to be re-bid.

102. The civil works procurement process is covered in more detail in Annex I_‘Infrastructure Development’. There was a total procurement of 11 contract packages for the20 sub-projects from both components, employing a total of 9 contractors (see Table 12).Thus, 2 companies won 2 contracts. The quality of the work and progress varied amongcontractors. Overall the quality of major works such as spillways was satisfactory as wasproven for Stage 2 works during the September to November 2013 extreme flood event.

103. Flood protection works and repair: The overall cost of civil works was substantiallyincreased by a Variation Order (#2) for extra remedial and protection works that resulted fromthe extreme flood events of September to November 2013 and impacted the PP.

104. These floods similar in effect to those of 2011, triggered RGC/ADB/AustraliaAIDemergency response that lead to a new project FDERP-AF. They also caused damage torecently rehabilitated infrastructure of the FDERP at Lam Laong in Prey Veng province andKamping Pouy in Battambang province. Thus, two variation orders were added to sub-projectcontracts for construction of civil works for Kamping Pouy subproject and Lam Laongsubproject. These variation orders were supported by ADB in order to address damage to theinfrastructure of these two Stage 2 project schemes that had already been repaired.

105. The VO for the Kamping Pouy subproject (Stage 2 Contract CW10) amounted to US$116,230.21 and used funds originally allocated to proposed works for Ta Saom and KorkThnong subprojects (PP Stage 3 Contract No. CW15-A&B).

106. The repairs for Lam Laong subproject (Stage 2 Contract CW1) amounted to USD25,650.50. However the VO was added to the Stage 3 contract for Lam Laong (CW3) and usedfunds within the existing contract price. This was done at the expense of an access roadincluded in the specified works.

107. The total cost of FDERP Output 3 civil works amounts to USD 9.88 million of which USD8.7 million was required from the loan allocation (the remainder coming from AusAID grant andRGC). The final price for Stage 2 civil works was USD 4,537,361.64 and for Stage 3 the finalprice was USD 5,340,752.11.

108. Table 12 below lists the contracts, contractors, procurement stages and modes, finalprices and financing versus original PP estimates.





Table 12 Civil Works_ Costs and financing, contractorsNo. Sub-project Stage Contract

Mode

Cost (Final

Price)

PP estimate

Amount

ADB Finance AusAID RGC Contractor

USD USD USD USD USD Name

CW1 Lam Laong & 2 DC 1,140,581.68 1,140,581.68

Toul Skear

CW2 Ork Ambok & 2 1,185,330.94 1,185,330.94

Boeung Kamplienh

CW3 Lam Laong 3 NCB 521,502.00 2,842,460 521,502.00 SBPH Construction Co., Ltd

CW4 Phdav Chum 3 NCB 2,573,660.00 2,573,660.00 SBPH Construction Co., Ltd

CW5 Kor Aet & Por Tatres 3 NCB 754,751.43 658,500 754,751.43

Por Tatres

CW6 Krapeu Main Canal 3 NCB755,963.17 755,963.17

Punloeu Banteay Srey Construction

Co., Ltd

CW9 Srok Dam & 2 DC 318,811.57 318,811.57

Boeung Kak

CW10 Kamping Puoy, and 2 DC 1,014,705.69 898,475.48

CW11 Boeung Kanseng

Kong Piseth

Kamping Puoy, VO #2,

Repair to Year 2013 Flood116,230.21

CW12Baray Hun Sen Main Canal 2 DC 877,931.74

675,763877,931.74

Soeun Soknan/Seak Cheav Leng

Joint Venture

CW13 O Thnot 3 NCB 667,067.51 315,934 667,067.51

O Ansar

Prek Touch& Thom

Boeung Kvek

CW15-C Canal No. 1 3 NCB 67,808.00 220,000 67,808.00 T.S.K Construction Co., Ltd

Totals 9,878,113.73 8,420,278 8,692,782.79 1,185,330.94

Note: DC = Direct Contracting

NCB = National Competitive Bidding

CW6 cost includes additional works VO#2

DC

Tan Kim Eng Construction Co., Ltd

Royal Mekong Construction Co.,

Ltd

Ponleu Banteay Srey Construction

Co., Ltd.

KBH Construction Co., Ltd

1,229,339

1,350,006

227,376

900,900

Meas Sovuthidy Construction Co.,

Ltd.

Ung Sang Sia Construction Co., Ltd

Goods and equipment

109. Goods and equipment procured through the loan are listed in Appendix 8 ‘Procurementof Goods and Equipment’.

110. Procurement of vehicles was the responsibility of MEF who were designated in the PP topurchase the project vehicles for all IAs. The ADB approved purchase of all project vehicles on11th July 2012 for USD 323,950. Three (3) vehicles were subsequently delivered in October2012 to the IA Output 3_ MOWRAM for FDERP. The value of the Output 3 vehicles amountedto USD 88,350 excluding taxes.

111. Procurement of other goods and equipment was effected through two contract packagesusing shopping procedures, as shown in Appendix 9; office equipment was purchased for atotal value USD 40,987. Furniture was provided by the PIU.

112. The total goods and equipment procurement amounted to USD 147,529 of which USD132,909 was required from the loan. The difference is due to tax payments that were requiredfor some goods and which under the loan agreement are covered by RGC.

113. The ADB Joint Review of 24 November to 22 December 2014 recommended that two ofthe three project vehicles and some office equipment should be transferred to the PIU forFDERP-AF, ADB Loan No.3125-CAM at project completion date 31st March 2015. The FDERPPIU and the TA extended until September 2015, will have to make do with one vehicle and willretain two computers and one printer to loan closure.

H Loan Covenants

114. Loan covenants are specified in Article IV, Section 4 of the Loan Agreement and includeobligations detailed in Schedule 3, 4 and 5. The key covenants are listed below in Table 13. In





general, the Particular Covenants of Article IV, Section 4 have been complied with to asatisfactory level. Some of those specified in Schedule 5 require additional comments, as madebelow:

115. Environment: EMPs were prepared for all the subprojects and were included in thecontracts for civil works with an onus on the contractor to provide periodic monitoring reports. Infact the environmental monitoring was implemented and reported quarterly by the TAsEnvironmental Specialist. The specifications included also a section on protection to theenvironment.

116. Resettlement: Resettlement impacts were minimal and the covenants were compliedwith. This included categorisation and monitoring reporting. There was no RPs required.

117. Gender: Covenants on the whole were complied with, and the project made full efforts toimplement and apply the gender action plan. Reported participation data was disaggregated bygender. The GAP called for a 30% inclusion of women for unskilled labour. Actually, theaverage number of female unskilled labour at the project construction sites duringimplementation amounted to approximately 24%.

Table 13 Status of Compliance with Loan Covenants

CovenantsReference

in LOAStatus of

ComplianceSector

The Borrower shall ensure and cause each of MWPT, MRD and MOWRAM to ensurethat any bidding document for Works contracts includes provisions to require thecontractors to (a) use local unskilled labor and prioritized employment of women andthe poor based on targets set forth in the LGAP; (b) provide equal pay for equal work;(c) provide the timely payment of wages; (d) comply with all core labor standards andthe applicable labor laws and regulations, including stipulations related to employment;and (e) not employ child labor.

Schedule 5,Para 9

Complied with.

Financials

(a) Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the Borrower shall establish, and cause to beestablished, immediately after the Effective Date, (i) a first generation imprest accountat the National Bank of Cambodia, and (ii) second generation imprest accounts forMPWT, MRD and MOWRAM, respectively, at the National Bank of Cambodia orcommercial banks acceptable to ADB (collectively, imprest accounts). The imprestaccounts shall be established, managed, replenished and liquidated in accordancewith ADB's Loan Disbursement Handbook, and detailed arrangements agreed uponbetween the Borrower and ADB. The imprest accounts shall only be used for thepurposes of the Project. The currency of the first generation imprest account shall bethe Dollar, and the currency of the second generation imprest accounts shall be theDollar. The aggregate amount to be deposited into the imprest accounts shall notexceed the lower of (i) the estimated expenditure to be financed from the imprestaccounts for the first 6 months of Project implementation, or (ii) the equivalent of 10%of the Loan amount.(b) The statement of expenditures procedure may be used forreimbursement of eligible expenditures and to liquidate advances provided into theimprest account, in accordance with the Loan Disbursement Handbook and detailedarrangements agreed upon between the Borrower and ADB. Any individual paymentto be reimbursed or liquidated under the statement of expenditures procedure shallnot exceed the equivalent of $100,000.

Schedule 3,Para 6

Complied with.

The Borrower shall ensure that all ADB-financed contracts with consultants containappropriate representations, warranties and, if appropriate, indemnities from theconsultants to ensure that the Consulting Services provided do not violate or infringeany

Schedule 4,Para 13

Complied with.





industrial property or intellectual property right or claim of any third party.The Borrower shall (a) cause MEF, MPWT, MRD and MOWRAM to conduct periodicinspections of contractors’ activities related to fund withdrawals and settlements; (b)ensure that the auditors engaged by the Borrower have the right to conduct randomand spot audits of contract implementation activities under the Project; and (c) causeMEF, MPWT, MRD and MOWRAM to ensure that all bidding documents and contractsfinanced by ADB or financed by Australia and administered by ADB in connection withthe Project include provisions specifying ADB’s right to audit and examine the recordsand accounts of all contractors, suppliers, consultants, and other service providers asthey relate to the Project.

Schedule 5,Para 13

Complied with.

Safeguards

The Borrower shall not award any Works contract involving involuntary resettlementimpacts for a Subproject until MPWT, MRD or MOWRAM, as the case may be, hasprepared and submitted to ADB the final RP for such Subproject based on theSubproject's detailed design, and obtained ADB's clearance of such RP.

Schedule 4,Para 8

Complied with.

The Borrower shall ensure and cause each of MWPT, MRD and MOWRAM to ensurethat the preparation, design, construction, implementation, operation anddecommissioning of each Subproject comply with (a) all applicable laws andregulations of the Borrower relating to environment, health, and safety; (b) theEnvironmental Safeguards; (c) the EARF; and (d) all measures and requirements setforth in the respective IEE and EMP, and any corrective or preventative actions setforth in a Safeguards Monitoring Report.

Schedule 5,Para 3

Complied with.

The Borrower shall ensure and cause each of MWPT, MRD and MOWRAM to ensurethat all land and all rights-of-way required for each Subproject are made available tothe Works contractor in accordance with the schedule agreed under the related Workscontract and all land acquisition and resettlement activities are implemented incompliance with (a) all applicable laws and regulations of the Borrower relating to landacquisition and involuntary resettlement; (b) the Involuntary Resettlement Safeguards;(c) the RF; and (d) all measures and requirements set forth in the respective RP, andany corrective or preventative actions set forth in a Safeguards Monitoring Report.

Schedule 5,Para 4

Complied with.

The Borrower shall ensure and cause MWPT, MRD and MOWRAM to ensure that thepreparation, design, construction, implementation and operation of each Subprojectcomply with all applicable laws and regulations of the Borrower relating to indigenouspeoples and the Indigenous Peoples Safeguards.

Schedule 5,Para 6

Complied with.

(a) set up grievance redress mechanisms with outreach for all Subprojects funded byADB; (b) submit semiannual Safeguards Monitoring Reports to ADB and disclosethem on ADB’s website promptly upon submission; (c) if any unanticipatedenvironmental and/or social risks and impacts arise during construction,implementation or operation of the Project that were not considered in the IEE, theEMP, the RP, or the LGAP, promptly inform ADB of the occurrence of such risks orimpacts, with detailed description of the event and proposed corrective action plan;and (d) report any actual or potential breach of compliance with the measures andrequirements set forth in the EMP, the RP, or the LGAP promptly after becomingaware of the breach.

Schedule 5,Para 10

Complied with.

Others

The methods of procurement are subject to, among other things, the detailedarrangements and threshold values set forth in the Procurement Plan. The Borrowermay only modify the methods of procurement or threshold values with the prioragreement ofADB, and modifications must be set out in updates to the Procurement Plan.

Schedule 4,Para 4

Complied with.

The Borrower and ADB shall ensure that, prior to the commencement of anyprocurement activity under national competitive bidding, the Borrower’s nationalcompetitive bidding procedures are consistent with the Procurement Guidelines. Anymodifications or clarifications to such procedures agreed between the Borrower andADB shall be set out in the Procurement Plan. Any subsequent change to the agreedmodifications and clarifications shall become effective only after approval of such

Schedule 4,Para 6

Complied with.





change by the Borrower and ADB.The Borrower and the Project Executing Agency shall ensure that the Project isimplemented in accordance with the detailed arrangements set forth in the PAM. Anysubsequent change to the PAM shall become effective only after approval of suchchange by the Borrower and ADB. In the event of any discrepancy between the PAMand this Loan Agreement, the provisions of this Loan Agreement shall prevail.

Schedule 5,Para 2

Complied with.

The Borrower, MEF, MPWT, MRD and MOWRAM shall (a) comply with ADB’sAnticorruption Policy (1998, as amended to date) and acknowledge that ADB reservesthe right to investigate directly, or through its agents, any alleged corrupt, fraudulent,collusive or coercive practice relating to the Project; and (b) cooperate with any suchinvestigation and extend all necessary assistance for satisfactory completion of suchinvestigation.

Schedule 5,Para 12

Complied with.

The Borrower shall publicly disclose or cause MEF (through the Project coordinationand monitoring unit), MPWT, MRD and MOWRAM to disclose on their respectivewebsites information on how the Loan and Grant proceeds are being used, presenting(a) procurement contract awards, including for each such contract (i) the list ofparticipating bidders, (ii) the name of the winning bidder, (iii) basic details on biddingprocedures adopted, (iv) list of goods and/or services purchased, and (v) intended andactual utilization of Loan and Grant proceeds under the contract; and (b) internal andexternal resettlement reports.

Schedule 5,Para 14

Complied with.

The Borrower shall comply with and cause MEF, MPWT, MRD and MOWRAM tocomply with the Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan.

Schedule 5,Para 15

Complied with.

The Borrower shall ensure that the facilities to be provided or financed under eachSubproject are operated and maintained appropriately, and that adequate budgetaryand other resources are provided for their operations and maintenance.

Schedule 5,Para 17

Not yet due.

The Borrower shall undertake and cause MEF, MPWT, MRD and MOWRAM toundertake an in-depth review of progress of the Project jointly with ADB within 9months of the Effective Date to determine and agree on potential reallocation of Loanproceeds on the basis of progress and readiness of remaining Subprojects underComponents 1 to 3.

Schedule 5,Para 19

Complied with.

I Loan Utilization

118. The civil works comprise about 84% of the Output 3 costs and the major use of the loanfor that component. The Figure 5 below shows the disbursement progress by quarter startingin the third quarter of 2012 as the first payment claims were processed. Disbursement drops offas the civil works slowed or halted during the wet season and then pick up again (see alsoFigure 2 above). Most civil works payments were by direct payment (DP) as the IPCs were ofhigh value. Equipment and vehicles and Incremental costs were paid out of the imprestaccount. The AustraliaAID grant was disbursed on one specific contract CW2 as the priceapproximated the value of the Output 3 allocation of USD1 million (see Table 14). In fact, thegrant allocation was adjusted to match the contract final price on completion of USD1,185,330.94.

Table 14 AustraliaAID Grant Disbursements

Source: ADB LFIS system

WAContract

No.Description Date Disbursement

C 0001 G08021 CW2_IPC1 03-Jan-13 $533,944.34

C 0002 G08021 CW2_IPC2 05-May-13 $282,357.66

C 0003 G08021 CW2_IPC3&4 28-May-13 $196,462.74

C 0004 G08021 CW2_IPC5 + HR 13-Sep-13 $113,299.66

C 0005 G08021 CW2_final HR 14-Sep-14 $59,266.54

$1,185,330.94

Application

No.





119. Contingency amounts were mostly used on minor variations or adjustments to design(see Initial operations further below).

Figure 5 Output 3 Disbursements by quarter

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

Q32012

Q42012

Q12013

Q22013

Q32013

Q42013

Q12014

Q22014

Q32014

Q42014

Q12015

Q22015

US

DA

mo

un

t

Quarter

Disbursement by quarter

120. Delays in claims were related to either slow progress of the works or to late claimsubmittals (see further below). The effect of the slow procurement process was evident in thephysical progress charts Figure 3 & 4 for Stage 2 & 3. Though all 6 Stage 3 contracts wereawarded prior to dry season, construction start-ups were programmed for the beginning of dryseason or later and subsequently there was a predictable progress lag. This lag reversed asthe late start subprojects commenced works and as was expected the ‘actual’ progress caughtup by the 3rd quarter of 2014.

121. Delays in processing IPCs were inevitable given the FDERP project organisation andmanagement structure, which includes several bureaucratic levels. This coupled with thealready lengthy RGC processing, results in significant delays to payments. Partly because ofthis, the financial officers prefer to handle large claims rather than a monthly IPC and thecontractors appear to accept this situation. Processing of individual IPC claims at PIU/TAtechnical level was fast. Claims were verified by PDWRAM staff in the first instance and thenby the TA and finally PIU in less than 2 weeks.

122. The table in Appendix 10 summarises updated expenditure in US dollars from the loanagainst the category allocations.

123. Incremental and Administrative Costs: Expenditure on Incremental and AdministrativeCosts has been considerably less than the envisaged expenditure as indicated by theallocation Category 4C. The disbursements to MOWRAM were made out of the FGIA (seeTable 16 below). Disbursement to date is USD 214,067 as indicated in Appendix 5. The currentcommitted expenditure is USD 273,659.60 (July 2015) that will reduce the balance to USD131,318.





124. Loan re-allocation: By the 20th of June 2013 a first re-allocation of FDERP loan funds wasagreed between MEF and ADB based on discussions that took place during the Joint ReviewMission of February 2013. A second reallocation was approved by the Bank on the 12th March2015 based on 26th February 2015 exchange rates and following agreement of the JointReview Mission of November-December 2014. The re-allocations are shown below in Table14.

Table 15 Re-allocation of Loan (Output 3-Irrigation & Flood Control)

Cat.

No.Item

Original

Allocation

Additional

allocation #1

Additional

allocation #2

SDR SDR SDR SDR USD*

1 Civil Works 4,932,000 794,700 262,238 5,988,938 9,014,004.12

2 Vehicles & Equipment 77,000 12,000 -1,000 88,000 132,449.59

3 Consulting Services 887,000 54,440 -33,000 908,440 1,367,301.16

4Incremental &

Administrative Costs271,000 0 0 271,000 407,884.52

Revised agreed allocation

* USD equivalent as of 6 July 2015 from LFIS

125. Disbursement method; nearly all the contractors IPCs were paid through WAs. The ADBWA disbursements are listed in Appendix 12 and totalled USD 8.47 million. Some minorpayments (mostly the half retention payment at completion) were made through the SGIA aslisted in Table 16. The incremental costs (Category 4C) were paid through the FGIA as werethe equipment purchases and the one contract (CW15-C) that was procured through shopping.

Table 16 First Generation Imprest Account (FGIA)

Source: ADB LFIS system

Cat. Ref WAContract


02C 0015 MEF-EQ1 (MOWRAM) 08-Jul-13 $88,350.00

02C 8801 EQ3 08-Jul-13 $3,572.00

04C 8801 Incremental costs 17-Jul-13 $89,168.29

02C 8802 EQ1 10-Feb-14 $24,606.00

02C 8802 EQ2 31-Jul-14 $16,381.00

04C 8802 Incremental costs 17-Jul-13 $60,441.72

01C 8803 CW15-C 27-Jan-15 $42,121.97

01C 8803 CW15-C 27-Jan-15 $18,905.23

04C 8803 Incremental costs 27-Jan-15 $49,876.16

04C 00008 8021 Incremental costs 18-May-15 $15,481.65

$408,904.02

J Appraisal of Sub-projects

126. The project adopted an emergency approach in stages, under which the entire scope forproject activities was not firmly identified at the project preparation stage. The Stage 3provisional listed schemes were only identified for possible inclusion and dependant oncompliance with project criteria and available funding. The subproject selection criteria werepartly related to the emergency nature of the project. The sub-project selection process is





covered in detail in Annex I of this report. From the original list of projects with a presumedirrigation area of about 35,000 ha, which included flood control infrastructure the projectconcluded with 10 sub-projects in Stage 2 and 9 subprojects in Stage 3 with just over 24,800ha of total irrigated areas (wet season and dry season). For reference, Appendices 14 & 15provide a compilation of all the FDERP sub-projects profile data that is provided in more detailin the Annex I of this report.

III. INITIAL OPERATIONS

A Initial operations/transitional problems

127. Initial operations of sub-project irrigation schemes occurred once rehabilitation of thescheme was completed, but on the whole repairs were carried out to existing operatingsystems. In some cases the irrigation schemes continued to operate even in dry season andduring construction of the works. On completion of the works and their acceptance by the Clientthe responsibility for the schemes is under PDWRAM. At the end of the ‘defects liability’ periodPDWRAM remains responsible for the main systems and the beneficiary community or FWUCsfor the secondary systems. In practice the beneficiaries managed the systems in agreementwith PDWRAM. There were no problems during this period other than expected defects andmaintenance requirements. Use of facilities as major thoroughfares by heavy vehicles etc. is tobe expected and the FWUCs authority at this point is limited and relies on the PDWRAM andlocal community and/or provincial government to assist in management.

128. Farmers in some projects, notably in Prey Veng province required access to water for dryseason cropping and this meant maintaining water supplies.

129. There was the inevitable demand by beneficiaries for more facilities, for example culverts,laterite road surfacing on minor embankments, ramps, additional gates and stop logs etc..

B Measures taken

130. Contractors were obliged in some cases to permit water diversions during construction inthe dry season. This hampered work and created delays in the overall schedules but it is aninevitable part of construction work in this sector. The delays were accepted by the IA andextensions to construction period were granted accordingly (time extensions, no cost).

131. The requests by beneficiaries for extra facilities were addressed on a case by case basisand sometimes were justified (e.g. stop logs required for operation) and where possible wereincluded in the contract through use of the contingency items.

C Project Benefits / achievements

132. The project completed reconstruction of 20 flood damaged irrigation/flood controlschemes covering 25,408 ha (target 25,000 ha) at a total cost of USD 9.88 million.Communications were improved tremendously as embankments included laterite surfacedaccess roads, and where necessary road links to communities were provided.

133. As described under Project Description, FDERP had to undertake an emergencyapproach to implementation starting with Stage 2 implementation followed by Stage 3 designsand implementation. Stage 2 fast-track approach could certainly have proceeded quicker butmay be considered as an effective stratagem.

134. As pointed out in Section I.F para 20, the benefits accrue from future losses avoided and,through restoring basic infrastructure and improving connectivity to improve the welfare of theaffected people. Access roads with laterite surfacing have been provided on canals and





embankments with connections where necessary to village roads, and communications havebeen greatly enhanced permitting farmers better access in particular for transportation of theiragricultural products.

135. Of immediate concern is the issue of support to the communities for O&M of thesecondary and tertiary systems. These FWUCs and WUGs for the most part are weak and oflimited capacity. Some strengthening was provided under FDERP during repair design andconstruction and the Construction sub-committees (CSCs) were created to ensure beneficiaryinvolvement in the repairs. The new sub-decree on FWUC was passed recently into law (12March 2015) and a draft implementation plan for the sub-decree and Prakas’ for proceduresand formula for calculating irrigation service fee has been prepared. This sub-decree togetherwith other instruments that have been prepared under ADBs CDTA-7610-CAM will pave theway to improved support to FWUCs.

136. Another area of concern is that of funding or emergency repairs and main systemmaintenance. It is essential that the RGC does allocate funds for PDWRAMS and main systemmaintenance as well as for emergency and large scale repairs that are beyond the capacity ofFWUCs. This is presently being addressed by the government’s initiatives for the repair,operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes that include a modality for state budgetsupport to FWUCs as well as to PDWRAMs.

137. In terms of agricultural production benefits are expected to improve. The evaluation of thebaseline data showed how rice yields improved even with farmers practicing traditional farmingmethods and without any agricultural or irrigation extension. Restoring schemes of courseprovides immediate benefit especially to those that were severely damaged by the 2011 floods.

138. The improvement in life for the beneficiaries is evident as local communications haveimproved tremendously. One very important aspect of all the irrigation schemes was theaccess road network provided alongside canals and drains but also through dedicated roadlinks, and all the appurtenant structures such as bridges and culverts. It has been shown onprevious projects that these interventions increase commerce, which though a boon also maybring other problems to the FWUCs, as traffic including heavy vehicles will increase, whichcauses deterioration of the road surfaces that in turn have to be maintained. This may beaddressed by the FWUCs themselves by charging heavy vehicles for use of their facilities orreducing access to the general public external to the beneficiary area. For this the FWUC hasto have a mandate supported by law, and again this will be provided by the new FWUC sub-decree.

139. The separate Volume Annex III of this report, contains the Socio-economic evaluationreport based on the baseline data and post project data field surveys. The conclusion suggeststhat it is in fact too early to conduct a post project survey and that production cycles cannotexpect to improve without complementing agricultural extension activities. The most evidentimprovement directly attributable to the project interventions is the return of land to agriculturalproduction and reduction in flooding.

Socio-economic evaluation

140. The socio-economic evaluation concerned Stage 3 interventions on nine (9) subprojectsand one (1) Stage 2 subproject spread over 7 districts, 24 communes and 87 villages. Datawas collected from around 520 respondents during a base line survey (BLS) in October 2012and during a Post project implementation (PIS) survey in February 2015. Except for one (1)subproject (Phdav Chum) the works were mainly repair and rehabilitation of irrigation-relatedfacilities damaged during the 2011 floods. The main purpose of the study was to try to assesschange and benefits accruing to project beneficiaries.





141. In most cases the subprojects would have indirect impact on the socioeconomic well-being of its intended beneficiaries since other factors outside of the project scope come intoplay. This report basically assumes that though the subprojects may not be the main cause ofthe incremental change, it may well have played a part in the achievement of certain changesthat improves the socioeconomic conditions of the beneficiaries.

142. Except for one Stage 2 subproject (Toul Skear) completed in October 2013, the post-implementation survey took place 6 to 8 months after subproject completion during the thirdquarter of 2014. The main results of the evaluation are summarized below:

Socio-economic indicators (household income, expenditure and savings):

143. Household expenditures, income, and savings have increased over the period betweenthe baseline survey and the post project implementation survey, by 14%, 46% and 192%respectively on average across the subprojects. However, there is variation among the sub-project and it is difficult to directly attribute these incremental change to the rehabilitation workundertaken because of the short period after they took place. Over the same period, a slightreduction in sickness prevalence among households (-19%) indicates that health condition hassomewhat improved.

Production indicators (area, volume and value of paddy production):

144. The period between the two surveys shows a slight decline in cultivated area (-7%) onaverage across subprojects. Overall paddy production among farming households also showsa slight decline from 3,191 kilos to 2,919 kilos on average per household. However, the dollarvalue of production of paddy rice has risen by 22%. Whereas the area and volume ofproduction may be explained by the fact that all paddy land may not have been brought back tocultivation 6 to 7 months after work completion, the observed increase in production valueincrease seems to be a price related factor external to the rehabilitation works.

Use of irrigation and fee payment:

145. No significant change is observed in usage of irrigation (65% of HH) and payment of feesamong the households between the baseline and post implementation surveys.

Livestock Holdings (cattle, water buffaloes, hogs, poultry):

146. The study result does show positive changes in livestock holding over the period ingeneral.

Prevalence of flooding, level of awareness and perception of benefits:

147. The proportion of households saying that they were experiencing flooding wassignificantly reduced between the two surveys from 64% to 43% on average across thesubprojects. This is an expected improvement that could be directly attributed to therehabilitation works undertaken. Despite the undeniable impact of the works undertake to repairstructure and reduce risks of further flood damages, the level of awareness of the FDERP aswhole has remained relatively low at 40%. This may be attributed to a lack of information andcommunication campaign among the project beneficiaries by the local authorities. In turn, thismay partially explain a slight downgrading of perception of the project benefits by beneficiariesbetween the two surveys. Although the overall perception of project benefits remains very highat 96.2% of the interviewed HH, the households finding the project “very beneficial” droppedfrom 67.7% in the baseline survey to 26.2% in the post-implementation survey. One also canreasonably interpret this downward appreciation to reduce interest and motivation once asubproject has been completed.





Crop production surveys

148. On 21st March 2013, the PCMU (MEF) requested the IA to carry out additional yearlycrop production surveys to monitor crop production at four (4) schemes selected by PCMU, onefrom each of four provinces out of the 5 project affected provinces, namely; Prey Veng,Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom and Battambang. The sample included 50 respondents (hh)per scheme amounting to a total of 200. The data was to be collected annually at the beginningof each year requiring resources not originally planned for, or provided. Nevertheless, the TAimplemented the first additional crop production surveys for two sub-projects in KampongCham and Kampong Thom provinces. These were completed on 27th April 2013, and for twosub-projects in Prey Veng and Battambang provinces were completed on 3rd May 2013. Thedata collected encompassed the PCMU requirement for the last two seasons (2012 wet and2013 dry season cropping). A total 200 samples of Households/respondents answered the fourpage questionnaires. These were edited and the reviewed questionnaires were forwarded on16th May 2013 to PCMU (MEF) for processing. These initial results mentioned by PCMU inJuly 2013 indicated that the rice yields had returned to pre-flood levels (see further below). Theadditional annual surveys were carried out by PCMU directly. Final results will no doubt beincluded in PCMU monitoring reporting.

149. The Field surveys were undertaken to assess evolution of rice production and yields infour (4) subprojects of FDERP (Kamping Puoy, Kor Aet, O Ansal, and Tuol Skea). About 200farming households living along those schemes were selected randomly for interviews. In eachscheme, 3 locations such as beginning, middle and tail of the scheme were identified to selectto the interviewed households.

150. The findings of the survey indicate that the number of families owning dry-season fieldincreased from 65% in 2010 to 75% in 2012. Double rice cropping also became more prevalentover the period thanks to the rehabilitation and improvement of irrigation infrastructuresdamaged by the 2011 floods. From an average of 3.1 t/ha, yield of wet season rice went downto 1.8t/ha in 2011 due to floods. It increases again sharply to pre-flood level at 3.2t/ha in 2012.Dry season rice yield also decreased as a result of damaged infrastructure but less sharply (upto 20%) than for wet season rice. In 2012, pre-flood level yield were already achieved thanks torehabilitation works in the sub-projects.

IV. EVALUATION OF THE BANK’S AND EA PERFORMANCE

A Performance Assessment of ADB

151. The ADBs performance in supervising the project’s implementation (Output 3) on thewhole has been satisfactory. The tendency of attempting to micro-manage the project whichoccurs typically when a project is not doing well or not reporting in an adequate manner, did notoccur. In any case the ADB corresponded directly with the EA and not the IA.

B Performance of PCMU

152. The PCMU who provided assistance to the EA (MEF) had a tendency not to comply withnormal lines of communication and at times gave instructions directly to individual members ofTA staff. This was not helpful and the PCMU approach to act as a controller and managerrather than to facilitate the implementation of the project through the IAs was unfortunate. Asthe project progressed the ADB and PCMU tended to lose sight of the project’s emergencynature and design, and in particular failed to appreciate the significant differences betweenMOWRAM work and requirements and that of the roads sector. There was also a failure tocomprehend forward planning and time line requirements.





C Problems encountered with ADBs procedures

153. Time was lost through poor procurement decisions. The selection for the revised PPincluded NWISP sub-projects in CW15 but reduced the scope to 3 sub-projects; Ta Soam andKork Thnong in Siem Riep Province and Canal #1 in Battambang Province. These weredesignated for procurement through ‘Shopping’ following SOP guidelines for contracts ofestimated value less than $100,000. Being small contracts that could be completed quickly ithad been hoped that the quicker shopping method would enable construction in time to avoidthe worst of the wet season. However, the ADB insisted that two of the subprojects becombined into one contract package to be procured through NCB. This unfortunately delayedfurther the procurement schedule as is evident in Figure 6, which presents the planningschedule for the FDERP-Output 3_Stage 3 selected contracts. The bid opening for thisprocurement was on 31st May and there was only one bidder.

154. Additional Financing (FDERP-AF) project impacted significantly on the actual FDERP. Inaccordance with the preparatory MOU the existing consultants for FDERP were to be recruitedfor FDERP-AF through contract variation. Even though the FDERP-AF is in fact not anextension of the existing project, the strategy was to use the existing agreement with theservice provider for FDERP. FDERP-AF has a separate and distinct loan agreement and tosome extent different scope and more importantly for Output 3 (MOWRAM) a separate PIU,although the overall implementation strategy is similar. Furthermore, the two projects werebeing implemented in parallel at least until March 2015 for the consulting services for FDERPand until September for Loan Closure. A separate PIU was set up in MOWRAM to manageFDERP-AF with separate offices, different management staff and a different Project Director. .

155. FDERP-AF included a Stage 2 phase whereby fast track repairs were to be carried outprior to loan agreement to restore functionality of selected infrastructure damaged during the2013 floods. As part of this fast track process, direct contracting was to be employed forprocurement of civil works contractors and contract variation for the consulting services, duringan ‘advance action’ period. This required in effect retroactive financing since the loaneffectiveness did not occur before end of May 2014 and advance services were to commenceat the end of February 2014. On the EAs insistence the recruitment of staff for AdvanceServices was to be through use of existing resources from FDERP through an addendum to theFDERP contract. This complicated matter considerably and unnecessarily. The effect was toalmost completely deplete the resources for FDERP. Nevertheless, the Consultant prepared anaddendum to the existing agreement as requested and voluntarily commenced advanceactions at the end of February 2014 to assist MOWRAM with the Stage 2 civil worksprocurement through direct contracting. A small team was deployed on FDERP-AF using theexisting office facilities of FDERP in MOWRAM for this initial period. Subsequently and pendingan agreement for the new project only one staff member was mobilised as there was no writtenrequest from MOWRAM for these services.

156. Resource requirements until completion of services to cover the remainingimplementation, in particular the field supervision of construction of civil works for Stage 3 finalselection of subprojects were reviewed and included in the Addendum #2 submitted in August2013. Unfortunately because of lack of due consideration, this addendum was rejected byMEF/PCMU in September 2013. The requirements were identified in the Inception Report andwere later implied in Addendum #1 (see above). The decision to deny the proposed VOimpacted in particular FWUC activities, civil works construction supervision assistance, andaffected the additional Field Data Survey Staff available to collect crop yield and other datafrom 200 respondents in the additional annual surveys that had been requested byPCMU/ADB.

157. The new project FDERP-AF, had reduced the resources for FDERP through theAddendum #2 to the FDERP agreement. The delay in finalising an agreement impacted





FDERP with consequential effect on civil works supervision and monitoring, and a knock-oneffect on quality of the remaining works. The additional field and design work for the 2013 flooddamage repair work to Stage 2 infrastructure also strained the remaining resources andreduced supervision coverage for the 5 contracts and 10 subprojects in Stage 3. The dailyinspection of works ceased in June 2014 with termination of resources and for ContractEngineers in July and August 2014.

158. Additionally, MEF and ADB agreed that for FDERP-AF no more vehicles would bepurchased and MOWRAM would have to make use of the FDERP vehicles. This disregardedthe fact that the two distinct projects were being implemented in parallel, and that the transportsituation was already inadequate taking into consideration the number of subprojects and theirdistant and distinct locations.





Figure 6 Civil Works procurement Schedule

CW3 Lam Laong

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

CW4 Phdav Chum rebid

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

CW5 Kor Aet & Por Tatres

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

CW6

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

CW13 O Thnot, Boeung Kvek, O Ansar, Prek Touch & Prek Thom

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

CW15-A Ta Soam

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

CW15-B Kork Thnong

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

CW15-C Canal #1

Invitation for Bids

Bid Opening

Bid Evaluation

PRC Meeting

Contract Award

Nov

Dec

Year 2013

Q4

Oct

Nov

Dec

2012

Q4

NC

BN

CB

NC

BN

CB

Sep

t

Oct

Q1 Q2 Q3

SH

OP

PIN

GN

CB

Aug

SH

OP

PIN

GN

CB

May Jul

Jun

SH

OP

PIN

G

Apr

Mar

Jan

FebM

ET

HO

D

CONTRACT NO. AND ACTIVITIES

NC

B

10 April

10 April

16 May

8 May

8 June

21 May

31 May

included with CW15A NCB

Shopping cancelled by ADB; NCBincludes CW15B NCB

8 June

8 June

7 March





APPENDICES

Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project _ Output 3; “Irrigation & Flood Control” ADB Loan No. 2852-CAM (SF)Project Completion Report AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM (EF)

Prepared by Egis Eau in association with KCC page 40

Appendix 1 Subprojects location map



Appendix 2 Overall Implementation Schedule for selected Stage 3 sub-projects

Draft Overall Subprojects Implementation Schedule (Update 31-March- 2015)

1 Kor Aet

Identify and preparation

Brief resettlement and environment screening

Subproject Profile

Topographic and Other surveys

GIS mapping and construction drawings

Detailed design

Tendering Process

Construction extension due to wet season

Construction & defect liability

2 Phdav Chum



Subproject Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process



3 Por Tatres



Subproject Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process



4 O Thnot



Subproject Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process



Au

g

Sep

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Year 2015

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

Oct

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

Oct

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

Oct

No

vNo ItemYear 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

We are here

The loan closing date

Consultants Service Completion Date



5 Prek Touch & Prek Thom



Subproject Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process



6 Krapoeu Main Canal



Subproject Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process


7 O Ansar



Subproject Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process



8 Boeung Kvek



Subprojest Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process



Au

g

Sep

Year 2015

Mar

May

Ap

r

Ju

n

Feb

Sep

Oct

Ju

l

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

Jan

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

Oct

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

Oct

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Ju

nNo ItemYear 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014



9 Lam Loang



Subproject Profile



Detailed design

Tendering Process



10 Canal No. 1 (NWISP)

Identify

Preparation drawing and cost estimate

Tendering Process



Au

g

Sep

Year 2015

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

Oct

Mar

Dec

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

Oct

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

OctNo Item

Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

No

v

Ap

r

Jan

Feb





Appendix 3 Sub-project Selection Criteria and Process

PAM Annex 1SELECTION CRITERIA FOR SUBPROJECTS

1. General Criteria

1. The following criteria will be used to select and prioritize subprojects in all sectors:

(i) the subproject will rehabilitate public infrastructure that is in one of the three targetedsectors and is located within the high priority provinces included in the Project;

(ii) Subproject within an area of high incidence of poverty shall be prioritized, and shallbe high priority at provincial, district and commune level;

(iii) the subproject works should be for existing infrastructure within the area of the 2011flood and damaged as a consequence, either directly (eg. by overtopping, scour, etc)or indirectly (eg, weakened foundations and/or protection work);

(iv) subproject implementation will be completed by 30 September 2014;

(v) the subproject must be the most cost effective or least-cost solution alternative;

(vi) subprojects that restore infrastructure under ongoing or completed ADB-assistedprojects will receive high priority for funding;

(vii) the subproject will not be financed by any agency other than under this Project;

(viii) the subproject will meet the sector-specific criteria agreed upon by the RGC and ADBas set out below;

(ix) the subproject will conform with ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS, 2009) withrespect to social and environment considerations. Subproject with significant(category A) environmental and resettlement impact, or with any indigenous peoples’impact, shall be excluded;

(x) The proposed subproject shall be located outside any designated wildlife and forestreserves, and the protected area of the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve including theBuffer Zone (but may be within the Transition Zone of the Tonle Sap);

(xi) subprojects will be selected on the basis of economic/social priority.

(xii) For subprojects that need to be fast tracked to be completed before the 2012 wetseason (Stage 2), the Assessment and Confirmation Sheet should be completed andapproved (Table A1-1)





2. Sector-specific Criteria

2. Irrigation – in addition to the general criteria, the follow will also be applied for thesesubprojects:

(i) The subproject will have an already established Farmer Water User Communities(FWUC) made up of the beneficiaries. The FWUC must at least have agreed andadopted statues and by-laws, registered its members and elected the FWUC Boardof Directors and be well advanced towards being registered with the Department ofFWUC. The FWUC should be active and working effectively and with a confirmedcommitment to participate and contribute to preparation and implementation of thephysical repairs.

(ii) Auxiliary works may be included if they are required to ensure the effectiveness ofother flood repairs and prevent possible degradation of the overall system.

(iii) Works for repair of canals will be limited to main and secondary canals only. For thesmaller canals, the Project will provide structures on the condition that the FWUCagrees to complete the minor earthwork repairs.

(iv) Any Stage 2 works proposed will involve no resettlement.

(v) The proposed subproject shall be located in an area cleared of land-mines;

(vi) Where conditions have changed from when the original facility was constructedthereby requiring a major improvement, the proposed improvement will be regardedas Stage 3 work and will be subject to economic evaluation and prior approval ofADB. In this case, justification for inclusion must include a description of the effectand extent of damage caused by the 2011 flood.

(vii) If the average repair costs of the scheme are $1,000 or less of the gross areairrigated after the repairs are complete, implementation may proceed without theneed to verify economic viability;

(viii) Average repair costs of any one irrigation system should not exceed $2,000/ha of thegross area that will be in operation when the repair work is completed, and if it ismore than $1,000/ha, will have a minimum EIRR of 12% based on detailed studies.





Appendix 4 Project Design & Monitoring Framework (Appendix 9 of PAM)

Design SummaryPerformance Targets andIndicators with Baselines

Data Sources andReporting Mechanisms

Assumptions andRisks

Impact AssumptionsEconomic and socialrecovery from the2011 floods in projectprovinces

Average traffic levels onproject roads restored topre-flood levels or betterby 2015

By end 2015, agriculturalproduction of major cropsin targeted provincesequals or exceeds pre-flood levels 2010/11(metric tons)

MPWT and MRD annualreports

Production data byMinistry of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries

Strong commitment byGovernment inimplementing floodreconstruction projects

RisksA severe follow-up floodin 2012

Poverty levels in projectcommunes fall from 2011levels by 2015

Commune database

Outcome AssumptionsRestoration of criticalpublic and socialinfrastructure assetsnecessary to restorelivelihoods andaccess in projectprovinces that willsecure the socialinfrastructureservices againstfuture flooding.Assets are rebuiltback to their originalstandards or better.

90% of damagedinfrastructure insubprojects in projectprovinces arereconstructed andrehabilitated by 2015

Project progress reportsand ADB Projectcompletion report

All IAs are committed toefficient projectimplementation.

Government proceedswith its own budgetallocation for floodrehabilitation.

Reconstructionactivities are matchedwith disaster riskmanagementimprovements and linksto climate changeadaptation activities.

RisksThe project provincessuffer unexpectedlysevere additionalnatural disasters.

Average travel times onproject roads decrease by10% from 2011 to 2015

Agricultural productivity inproject area improved by10% from 2011 to 2015

MPWT and MRD fieldtraffic surveys

MOWRAM monthlyreports

Local household income inproject areas returns to orexceeds pre-flood levels

Household/baselinesurveys

Outputs Assumptions1. National andprovincial roadsdamaged by floods(including bridgesand culverts)rehabilitated andreconstructed

70 km of flood damagednational and provincialroads reconstructed by2015

5 bridges along NationalRoad No.11 and 1 bridgealong Provincial Road PRNo. 270 reconstructed andupgraded by 2015

At least 30% of unskilledlabor hired are women

MPWT’s monthlyprogress reports

MPWT Annual Report

ADB Project CompletionReport

MPWT is committed toimplement the Stage 2and 3 subprojects in atimely manner.

Construction costs donot increaseunexpectedly.

RisksNegotiated contracts forStage 2 civil works faildue to lack of qualified





Design SummaryPerformance Targets andIndicators with Baselines

Data Sources andReporting Mechanisms

Assumptions andRisks

contractors, who couldoffer rates acceptableto the EA/IA.

The extent of naturaldisasters exceedsexpectations.Assumptions

2. Rural roadsdamaged by floods(including bridgesand culverts)rehabilitated andreconstructed

450 km of flood damagedrural roads reconstructedby 2015

Average roughness ofproject roads in 2011decreases from 14 to 7 in2015


MRD’s monthly progressreportsMRD Annual Report


MRD is committed toimplement the Stage 2and 3 subprojects in atimely manner.


RisksSame as output 1

3. Irrigation facilitiesrehabilitated andreconstructed

35 flood damagedirrigation schemescovering about 25,000 hareconstructed by 2015


MoWRAM’s monthlyprogress reports (basedon contractor reports)

MoWRAM AnnualReport


AssumptionsMOWRAM is committedto implement the Stage2 and 3 subprojects in atimely manner.


RisksSame as output 1

4. Project managedand monitoredefficiently

Project implemented ontime/within budget: by2015

Project reviews andproject progress reports

AssumptionsProject coordinationproceeds effectively

PIUs in each IA will collectsex-disaggregated data

All PIU staff will participatein training on gendermainstreaming ininfrastructure projects

Activities with Milestones Inputs1. National and Provincial Road

Reconstruction (including bridges andculverts)

1.1 MPWT selects and engages detailed designand implementation supervision consultants: byMarch 2012

1.2 MPWT awards contracts in Stage 2subprojects: by April 2012

1.3 MPWT awards contracts in Stage 3subprojects: by December 2012

1.4 MPWT completes 2 km of a Prey Veng ring road

ADB: $55 million loan

Government of Australia: $5.25 million grant

Item Amount ($ million)

1. National and provincialroad restoration

2. Rural roads restoration

3. Irrigation and floodcontrol

4. Project and flood

25.91

15.90

10.60

1.10





Activities with Milestones Inputswill be strengthened, 5 bridges along NationalRoad 11 will be replaced and improved, and 72km of provincial roads will be repaired andupgraded, and one additional bridge replaced.:by January 2015

2. Rural Roads Reconstruction

2.1 MRD selects detailed design andimplementation supervision consultants: byMarch 2012

2.2 MRD awards contracts in Stage 2 subprojects:by April 2012

2.3 MRD awards contracts in Stage 3 subprojects:by December 2012

2.4 MRD completes 450 km of rural roadreconstruction: by January 2015

3. Irrigation and Flood Control

3.1 MoWRAM selects and engages detailed designand implementation supervision consultants: byMarch 2012

3.2 MoWRAM awards contracts in Stage 2subprojects: by April 2012

3.3 MoWRAM awards contracts in Stage 3subprojects: by December 2012

3.4 MoWRAM completes 46 irrigation schemesreconstruction: by January 2015

4. Project Management and Support

4.1 PCMU manages the overall Project andimplements and monitors the labor and genderaction plan: by 2015

4.2 PCMU prepares an in-depth review of progressof loan effectiveness to determine and agree onpotential reallocation of funds on the basis ofprogress to date and the readiness ofremaining subprojects under each of theoutputs: by December 2012

management

5. Contingencies5.87

6. ADB loan interest duringconstruction

0.87

Government: $6.93 million


1. Contribution in kind(including taxes andduties)

6.93

Small scale Technical Assistance

ADB: $225,000


- MoWRAM=Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology; MPWT=Ministry of Public Works and Transport;MRD=Ministry of Rural Development; NCDM=National Committee for Disaster Management; PCMU=ProjectCoordination and Monitoring Unit

- Source: Asian Development Bank



Appendix 5 Summary of Fund Disbursement

SUMMARY OF ACTUAL FUND DISBURSMENT

updated 6 July 2015

ADB AusAID RGC Total ADB AusAID RGC Total ADB RGC Total

01C Civil Work100 9,014,004 1,185,331 963,820 11,163,155 8,267,165 1,185,331 9,452,496 1,932,170 963,820 2,895,990

02C Vehicles and Equipment100 132,926 42,000 174,926 132,909 14,620 147,529 17 27,380 27,397

03C Consulting Services100 1,359,472 0 1,359,472 1,239,266 0 1,239,266 120,207 0 120,207

04C Incremental Costs100 395,879 0 395,879 214,968 0 214,968 180,911 0 180,911

GRAND TOTAL 10,902,282 1,185,331 13,093,432 9,854,307 14,620 11,054,258 2,233,305 991,200 3,224,505

Notes:

Table 2: SUMMARY OF GRANT DISBURSEMENT AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM(EF) - CIVIL WORKS _ Category 01 C

Totals 1,000,000 1,185,331 1,185,331 0

Emergency reconstruction of irrigation infrastructure -

Ork Ambok & Boeung Kamplienh _ CW2)1,000,000 1,185,331 1,185,331 0

Allocations and expenditure from ADB LFIS

Grant budget posts

Grant budgetary

post's amount

(USD)

Contracts awarded (USD) Contracts Disbursed (USD) Contract Balance (USD)

FDERP-Output 3_"Irrigation and Flood Control" ADB Loan No. 2852-CAM (SF)

Cate

go

ry

Category No. and DescriptionFinancing

Arrangement %

Current Allocation as of date Expenditure up to date (USD) Estimated Allocation Balance (USD)



Appendix 6 Consulting Services Schedule – addendum 3CONSULTING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Addendum No. 4

2015

Contract

Add. #4Used up to 30

June 2015

Balance as of

30 June 2015

INTERNATIONAL

1. Mark SCHIELE Egis Eau Team Leader / Irrigation Engineer 20.23 19.13 1.10

2. June MENDOZA Egis Eau Procurement Specialist 2.00 2.00 -

3. Francisco REGONAS Egis Eau Design Engineer 5.93 5.93 -

4. Badre LANEDRI Egis Eau Community Devt./FWUC Specialist 1.54 1.54 -

5. Miquel GUIOGUIO Egis Eau Socio-Economist 2.00 2.00 -

TOTAL (1): TOTAL (1): 31.70 30.60 1.10

DOMESTIC

1. Mr. Khoun Sambo KCC Deputy T/L / Irrigation Design Engineer36.21 36.21 -

2. Mr. El Reasei / Chroeung PhannaKCC Contract Engineer # 1 27.00 24.00 3.00

3. Mr. Mam Chandaro / Kheang SovannKCC Contract Engineer # 2 18.00 18.00 0.00

4. Mr. Prek Savy KCC Contract Engineer # 3 21.00 21.00 -

5. Mr. Mel Sophanna KCC Resettlement Specialist 6.97 6.97 (0.00)

6. Mr. Ouk Chantha KCC Agric.Socio - Economist 5.00 5.00 -

8. Mr. Toch Bonvongsa KCC Hydrologist 8.00 8.00 (0.00)

9. Mr. Sophal Tit KCC Surveyor 5.00 4.54 0.46

10. Mr. Sin Kosal KCC Procurement (bid documents) 9.34 9.34 -

11. Mr. Im Mavuth KCC FWUC Specialist 14.70 14.70 (0.00)

7. Mr. Ngnoun Pich KCC Structural Engineer 5.00 5.00 -

12. Mr. Tak Virekvath KCC O&M Engineer 8.00 8.00 -

13. Mr. Hem Motha KCC GIS/autocad and mapping specialist 3.00 2.00 1.00

14. Ms. Kol Pra Pey KCC Labour and gender specialist 4.51 4.51 0.00

15. Mr. Sour Chheang You KCC Environmental Specialist 6.00 6.00 -

16. KCC Field Data Survey Staff 22.00 22.00 - .

17. KCC Assist surveyor/construc.supervisor 70.00 67.97 2.03

TOTAL (2): 269.73 263.24 6.49

TOTAL (1+2): TOTAL (1+2): 301.43 293.84 7.59

National Less items 16 & 17 177.73 173.27 4.46

Intermittant input

STAFF RESOURCES REPLACED IN ADDENDUM 3 (AF-1)

VARIATION ADDENDUM 4

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Aug

Sept

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Q4 Q 1 Q 2 Q3Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q3

Sep

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1

JUNE

No NAME FIRM POSITION

Person-months

Services agreement

Urgent servicesperiod

Original /services Projectcompletion date

Loan Closure dateExtended services



Appendix 7 Summary of Civil Works ProcurementProject ID. FLOOD DAMAGE EMERGENCY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT OUTPUT 3 - Irrigation and Flood Control Credit/TF No: ADB Loan 2852-CAM (SF)

IA MOWRAM AusAID Grant 0285-CAM (EF)

Updated JUNE 2015

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW1Emergency Repair of Lamlaong and Toul Skea Canal

in Prey Veng Province$1.23 m DC 28-Dec-12

Engineer's Estimate $1,135,289.80 28-Oct-13

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW2Emergency Repair of Ork Ambok canal and Boeung

Kampleing in Prey Veng Province$1.35 m DC 28-Dec-12

Engineer's Estimate 1.35 m 25-Apr-13

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW9Emergency Repair of Beoung Kak canal and Srok

Dam in Kampong Cham province$0.23 m DC 28-Oct-12

Engineer's Estimate $ 327,968.91 19-Apr-13

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW10/11Emergency Repair of Kamping Pouy Irrigation

Structure in Battambang Province$0.50 m DC 28-Jan-13

Engineer's Estimate $ 874,335.29 18-Sep-13

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW12Emergency Repair of Hun Sen's Baray in Kampong

Thom Province$0.68 m DC 28-Dec-12

Engineer's Estimate $ 848,925.86 12-Jul-13

4,540,843.24

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW3Emergency Repair of Lamlaong (additional spillway)

in Prey Veng Province$0.55 m NCB Post Plan 12-Nov-12 03-Dec-12 8-Dec-12 7-Jan-13 28-Jan-13 18-Feb-13 11-Mar-13 31-May-14 521,873.83

Completion Certificate issued 18

July 2014

Engineer's Estimate $0.57 m Actual 12-Nov-12 NA 11-Mar-13 10-Apr-13 10-May-13 NA 30-Jul-13 18-Jul-14

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW4Emergency Repair of Phdav Chum in Kampong

Cham$2.13 m Plan 26-Oct-12 16-Nov-12 21-Nov-12 21-Dec-12 11-Jan-13 1-Feb-13 22-Feb-13 15-Jul-14

Engineer's Estimate $2.59 m Actual 18-Oct-12 18-Dec-12 20-Dec-12 22-Jan-13 12-Mar-13

Re-bid 23-Apr-13 23-Apr-13 23-Apr-13 16-May-13 22-Jul-13 29-Aug-13 2-Oct-13 19-Sep-14

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW5Emergency Repair of Kor Aet and Por Tatres in

Kampong Cham$1.00 m Plan 21-Sep-12 12-Oct-12 17-Oct-12 16-Nov-12 7-Dec-12 28-Dec-12 18-Jan-13 29-May-14 754,784.58


September 2014

Engineer's Estimate $749,203 Actual 12-Oct-12 16-Nov-12 23-Nov-12 17-Jan-13 12-Mar-13 6-May-13 21-May-13 30-Sep-14

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW6Emergency Repair of Krapeu main canal in Siem

Reap Province$2.00 m NCB Post Plan 12-Nov-12 11-Apr-13 16-Apr-13 16-May-13 6-Jun-13 27-Jun-13 18-Jul-13 20-Jun-14 455,109.17

Punloeu Banteay srey

Construction Co,. Ltd

Engineer's Estimate $0.52 m Actual 19-Aug-13 NA 17-Sep-13 16-Oct-13 12-Nov-13 NA 23-Dec-13 19-Sep-14

VO #2 18-Feb-15 19-May-15 300,857.05Completion Certificate issued 29

June 2015

FDERP-MOWRAM CW13

Emergency Repair of Prek Touch&Prek Thom, O

Ansar, O Thnot, and Boeng Kvek in Kampong Thom

Province

$0.32 m NCB Post Plan 26-Oct-12 16-Nov-12 21-Nov-12 21-Dec-12 11-Jan-13 1-Feb-13 22-Feb-13 29-May-14 686,982.25KBH Construction Co.,

Ltd

Engineer's Estimate $794,154 Actual 26-Oct-12 NA 11-Mar-13 10-Apr-13 23-May-13 NA 30-Jul-13 21-Aug-14

FDERP-MOWRAM CW15-

A&B

Emergency Repair of Ta Saom & Kork Thnong in

Siem Riep province ( NWISP sub-projects)$0.12 m NCB Post Plan 15-Mar-13 5-Apr-13 10-Apr-13 10-May-13 31-May-13 21-Jun-13 12-Jul-13 CANCELLED

Engineer's Estimate $122,591 Actual 23-Apr-13 NA 2-May-13 31-May-13 24-Jul-13 NA NA

FDERP-MOWRAM CW15-CEmergency Repair of Canal No.1 in Battambang

province( NWISP sub-project)$0.05 m Shopping Post Plan 15-Mar-13 5-Apr-13 10-Apr-13 24-Apr-13 15-May-13 5-Jun-13 26-Jun-13 31-Mar-14 67,809.60

TSK Construction Co.,

LtdEngineer's Estimate $55,423 Actual 20-Mar-13 NA 25-Apr-13 8-May-13 31-May-13 6-Jul-13 5-Aug-13 26-May-14

Note: Contract Price not necessarily Final Price 5,361,566.61

Invitation for

Bids

Date

28-Jun-12 318,842.81

Bid Opening

Date


May 2014

24-Apr-12


August 2014

1,188,483.46

08-May-12

4-May-12

Tan Kim Eng

Construction Co., Ltd.

4-May-1224-Apr-12

24-Apr-12

Contract

Amount USD

1,140,859.39

Prior /

Post

Review

5-Jun-1224-Apr-12 4-May-124-May-12 28-Jun-12

STAGE 2 CIVIL WORKS

DescriptionContract Package No.

Total

Estimated

Cost PP/Eng.

Est. (USD)

Method of

Procurement

ActualMea Sovuthidy


Defects Liability Completion

Certificate issued 18 July 2014

Ung Sang Sia


Ponleu Banteay Srey


STAGE 3 CIVIL WORKS

Actual

Actual

Actual

1,014,720.09

28-Jun-12

BIDDING PROCESS

Contract

Completion

Date

NCB Prior

NCB Prior

08-May-12 17-May-12

08-May-12

5-Jun-12Actual

4-May-12

4-May-12

5-Jun-12

Comment

CONTRACT PROCESS

Bid Evaluation Report


Certificate issued 18 July 2014

Defects Liability Certificate 4

February 2015

17-May-12

Component

Supplier/ Contractor

NameNOL Date

Bidding Document Contract

Signature

DateSubmitted

DateNOL Date

Plan

versus

Actual

Procurement Method and Implementation Dates; scheduled and actual

Submitted

Date

08-May-12

17-May-12

4-May-12

24-Apr-12 4-May-12

17-May-1208-May-12

4-May-12

4-May-12

17-May-12 5-Jun-12


September 2014

SBPH Engineering &

Construction Co., Ltd

Soeun Soknan/Seak

Cheav Leng Joint

Venture

SBPH Engineering &


5-Jun-12

28-Jun-12

$898,489.89 original contract;

Defects Liability Period extended

to 17 Nov 2015

Stage 3 Total

Mid-term Review Mission (Dec

2013) recommend cancellation

Ta soam and Kork Thnong

Subprojects


September 20142,574,150.13


Certificate issued 20 August 2014877,937.4928-Jun-12

Royal Mekong


Stage 2 Total



Appendix 8 Procurement of Goods and equipment

Project ID. FLOOD DAMAGE EMERGENCY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT OUTPUT 3 - Irrigation and Flood Control Credit/TF No: ADB Loan 2852-CAM (SF)

IA MOWRAM AusAID Grant 0285-CAM (EF)

Updated JUNE 2015

GOODS

EQ1 Proc of Computers & Printers 24,000 Shopping Prior Plan 21-Aug-12 7-Sep-12 12-Sep-12 19-Sep-12 24-Sep-12 $24,606.00Narita Distribution Cambodia Co.

Ltd.Actual

Color Multi Function Printer

Notebook

Desktop Computer for Graphics Design

Desktop Computer

UPS Power Tree

EQ2 Proc. Of Office Equipment 17,000 Shopping Post Plan 21-Aug-12 7-Sep-12 12-Sep-12 19-Sep-12 24-Sep-12 $16,381.00Narita Distribution Cambodia Co.

Ltd.Actual

Multifunction PhotocopierLaser Fax

Data Back Up Drive

Digital Camera

GPS

EQ3 Proc. Of Office Furniture Quotation Post Plan 8-Jul-13 $3,572.00 Leeco

Actual

MEF-EQ1 Vehicle Purchase (11 No. for FDERP) 440,000 NCB

3 vehicles for IA-Output 3 (MOWRAM) $88,350.00 Mitsubishi

$132,909.00

$88,350.00

$221,259.00

Total Goods (office equipment)

Vehicles (3 No. through MEF contract MEF-EQ1

Total Output 3 Goods and equipment procurement

Component

Supplier/ Contractor Name

Procurement Method and Implementation Schedule

Contract

Amount USD

BIDDING PROCESS

NOL Date

Bid Opening

Date

Bidding Document Bid Evaluation Report

CONTRACT PROCESS

Contract

Signature

Date

Plan

versus

ActualNOL Date

Method of

Procurement

Prior /

Post

Review Submitted

Date

Submitted

Date

Invitation for

Bids

Date

DescriptionContract

Package No.

Total

Estimated

Cost

PP/Eng. Est.

(USD)

Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project _ Output 3; “Irrigation & Flood Control” ADB Loan No. 2852-CAM (SF)Project Completion Report AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM

(EF)


Appendix 9 Project Results Profile

ACTIVITY FROM DMF STATUS COMMENTS

OUTPUT 3 – IRRIGATION AND FLOOD CONTROL

Activity: Irrigation facilities rehabilitated and reconstructed

26 flood-damaged irrigation

schemes covering about 25,000 ha

are reconstructed by January 2015.

Agricultural productivity in project

area improved by 10% from 2011

to 2015

Local household income in project

areas returns to or exceeds pre-

flood levels

Civil works for emergency reconstruction

for 10 sub-projects covering 13,911 ha of

WS and DS rice production area were

constructed under Stage 2 as per the

procurement plan (PP)

12 sub-projects identified for Stage 3

implementation. Nine (9) sub-project

profiles submitted and received no-

objection to continue to detailed design and

bidding. All sub-project designs completed

including 3 for NWISP not requiring profiles;

5 Stage 3 construction contracts awarded

covering 11,497 ha inc. additional

construction work to CW6 through VO #2.

Household incomes have increased.

The performance target is given as 35 in the PAM and 26 in RRP and 46 (!) in Appendix 9 of PAM-Project

Design and Monitoring Framework. Actual number in any case entirely dependant on:

a) conformance with project selection criteria for Stage 3 sub-projects and,b) availability of funds in the loan allocation, which were considerably less than the original procurementplan list used in project design.

Total number of irrigation/flood control schemes is 20Number of schemes rehabilitated is: 10 in Stage 2 plus 10 in Stage 3 including 1 from NWISPStage 2 WS & DS production area = 13,911 ha (10 sub-projects)Stage 3 WS & DS production area = 11,497 ha (10 sub-projects )

Total area affected by completed reconstruction now will be increased through VO for CW6 to25,408 ha from 24,804 ha.

Damaged infrastructure reconstructed to date: 100 %; 10 Stage 2 sub-projects completed, one extrarepair from 2013 flood damage; 10 Stage 3 subprojects completed, 1 extension VO extensioncompleted.

At least 30% of unskilled labour

hired are women

Contract specifications include requirement

for Contractor to provide monthly reports

disaggregated on gender for unskilled

labour

Reporting is provided in LGAP monitoring table

PIU staff participated in ADB training on gender mainstreaming in infrastructure projects

Data collected and collated by TA & included in reports





Appendix 10 Summary of expenditure from the ADB Loan

Spent

/Committed

Estimated

Further

Expenditure

Total

Expected

Available

AusAID

Grant

Available

Loan

Alloc*

Amount

over

Alloc

$ $ $ m $ m $ m

Cat 01: Civil Works (Construction of Subprojects) 9.88 1.19 9.01 0.32

CW1 Stage 2 Lam Laong &Toul Skear 1,140,582 1.14

CW2 Stage 2 Ork Ambok & Boeung Kamplienh 1,185,331 1.19

CW3 Stage 3 Lam Laong** 521,502 0.52

-

CW4 Stage 3 Phdav Chum 2,573,660 2.57

CW5 Stage 3 Kor Aet and Por Tatres 754,751 0.75

CW6 Stage 3 Krapeu Main Canal 455,106 0.46

VO 2.5 km extension (Feb 2015) 300,857 0.30

CW9 Stage 2 Srok Dam & Boeung Kak 318,812 0.32

CW10/11Stage 2 Kamping Pouy; Kong Piseth & Boeung Kanseng 898,475 0.90

CW10 VO Kamping Pouy flood damage 116,230 0.12

CW12 Stage 2 Hun Sen Baray 877,932 0.88

CW13 Stage 3 Prek Touch/Thom, O Thnot, Boeung Kvek 667,068 0.67

O Ansar -

CW15 Stage 3 NWISP sub-projects -

CW15A _ NCB - -

CW15B_ included with A - -

CW15C _ National Shopping 67,808 0.07

- -

Cat 02: Vehicles and Equipment 0.13 0.13 0.00

MEF-EQ1 Vehicles 88,350 0.09

EQ1 Office equipment (deduct VAT for ADB) 24,606 0.02

EQ2 Office equipment (deduct VAT for ADB) 16,381 0.02

EQ3 Office furniture (deduct VAT for ADB) 3,572 0.00

Cat 03: Consulting Services 1.36 1.36 -0.00

Egis Eau 1,360,275 1.36

Cat 04: Incremental and Adminstrative Costs 0.36 0.40 0.03

PIU/overhead costs to 214,968 150,000 0.36

Cat 05: Interest Charge During Implementation - 0.00

approximate to - -

Cat 06: Unallocated - 0.00

- -

Total 11.74 1.19 10.90 0.35

* Source: ADB Loan Financial Information Services (LFIS), as of 06-Jul-15 Loan no. 2852-CAM (SF)

** Essential works; completion of emergency reconstruction initiated in Stage 2

Percentage basis for withdrawal from loan. 100% of total expenditure claimed exclusive of taxes and duties

Summary of Estimated Expenditure from the ADB Loan _ Output 3-Irrigation and Flood Control

Category and description





Appendix 11 Output 3 Repair Costs/ha by sub-project

Wet season

cropping

area1

Dry season

cropping

area

Total

irrigable

area2

ha ha ha HH USD USD USD USD

1 Toul Skear 1,500 2,000 3,500 1,005 919,112.76 919,112.76 262.60

2 Lam Laong 800 800 160 221,468.93 221,468.93 928.71

3 Ork Ambok 1,150 150 1,300 1,545 999,580.26 999,580.26 768.91

4 Boeung Kamplienh 100 150 250 118 185,750.68 185,750.68 743.00

5 Boeung Kak 1,250 1,250 841 220,636.97 220,636.97 176.51

6 Srok Dam 650 650 4,000 98,174.60 98,174.60 151.04

7 Kamping Puoy 2,239 102 2,341 908 469,554.10 116,230.21 585,784.31 250.23

8 Boeung Kanseng 850 850 1,700 600 295,339.88 295,339.88 173.73

9 Kong Piseth 350 350 700 600 133,591.50 133,591.50 190.85

10 Hun Sen Baray 970 450 1,420 349 877,931.75 877,931.75 618.26

7,159 6,752 13,911 10,126.00 4,421,141.43 116,230.21 4,537,371.64 426.38

1 Lam Laong 498,467.00 23,035.00 521,502.00

2 Phdav Chum 3,174 2,008 5,182 9590 2,573,660.00 2,573,660.00 496.65

3 Kor Aet 340 305 645 365 503,808.21 503,808.21 781.10

4 Por Tatres 680 750 1,430 884 250,943.22 250,943.22 175.48

5 Krapeu main canal 1,627 43 1,670 1157 755,963.17 755,963.17 452.67

6 O Thnot 236 229 465 717 252,381.05 252,381.05 542.75

7 Boeung Kvek 256 19 275 300 95,664.88 95,664.88 347.87

8 Prek Touch & Thom 265 8 273 169 227,983.58 227,983.58 835.10

9 O Ansar 372 203 575 513 91,038.00 91,038.00 158.33

10 Canal No1. 982 982 518 67,808.00 67,808.00 69.05

7,932 3,565 11,497 14,213.00 5,317,717.11 23,035.00 5,340,752.11 428.78

TOTALS 25,408.00 9,738,858.54 139,265.21 9,878,123.75 428

Note:

1 Some schemes have limited or no wet season production due to high water levels

2 Total irrigable area is the annual cultivable area including polder and double cropping

3 Civil works costs are final cost on completion

4 Repair cost to Stage 2 Flood damage (2013 floods) for Lam Laong but were included in the Stage 3 contract

5 Total repair costs include the additional costs for 2013 flood damage repairs; for Lam Laong cost/ha includes both stages

6 Total repair costs for Krapeu Main Canal include the additional costs for VO#2 canal extension

STAGE 2

SUBTOTAL

SubprojectNo

Project

SUBTOTAL

STAGE 3

No of

Beneficiaries

Additional

2013 Flood

Repairs4

Total Repair

cost

Total repair

cost per ha5

Total Civil

Works (original

contract) Cost3





Appendix 12 ADB Withdrawal Application Disbursements

WAContract


C 0002 0006 CW1 Advance 27-Aug-12 $171,128.91

C 0003 0007 CW10 Advance 27-Aug-12 $134,773.48

C 0004 0008 EGIS EAU Advance 31-Aug-12 $340,068.00

C 0005 0014 CW9 IPC#1 11-Oct-12 $224,149.48

C 0006 0016 CW12 IPC#1 23-Oct-12 $348,403.61

C 0007 0023 CW1 IPC#1 28-Nov-12 $431,017.16

C 0008 0036 CW9 IPC#2 23-Jan-13 $50,019.50

C 0009 0037 EGIS EAU Billing Mar-Sept 2012 04-Feb-13 $376,809.50

C 0010 0046 CW10 IPC#1 04-Apr-13 $241,213.79

C 0011 0052 EGIS EAU Billing Oct-Dec 2012 07-May-13 $158,403.48

C 0012 0057 CW12 IPC#2 21-May-13 $328,208.75

C 0013 0066 CW10 IPC#2 17-Jul-13 $239,077.81

C 0014 0075 CW1 IPC#2 09-Sep-13 $299,296.68

C 0015 0078 CW12 IPC#3 30-Sep-13 $113,526.22

C 0016 0087 CW10 IPC#3 12-Dec-13 $136,250.19

C 0017 0092 CW1 IPC#3 13-Jan-14 $125,080.77

C 0018 0114 CW5 Advance 05-May-14 $113,217.69

C 0019 0111 CW4 Advance 15-Apr-14 $386,122.52

C 0020 0112 CW4 IPC#1 15-Apr-14 $275,320.50

C 0021 0128 CW3 IPC#1 25-Jun-14 $236,982.60

C 0022 0122 CW4 IPC#2 18-Jun-14 $577,873.12

C 0023 0131 CW6 IPC#1 11-Jul-14 $261,211.58

C 0024 0139 CW5 IPC#1 01-Aug-14 $313,230.93

C 0025 0141 CW4 IPC#3 06-Aug-14 $765,598.13

C 0026 0143 CW13 IPC#1 09-Sep-14 $265,987.91

C 0027 0151 CW5 IPC#2 27-Oct-14 $173,242.02

C 0028 0153 CW13 IPC#2 12-Nov-14 $334,372.85

C 0029 0155 CW3 IPC#2 14-Nov-14 $232,369.20

C 0030 0159 CW6 IPC#2 16-Dec-14 $148,383.91

C 0031 0163 CW4 IPC#4 18-Dec-14 $311,379.73

C 0032 0164 CW4 HR 07-Jan-15 $128,683.00

C 0033 0165 CW4 HR 16-Jan-15 $128,683.00

C 0034 0165 CW10 IPC#1 05-Feb-15 $104,607.19

C 0035 0174 EGIS EAU Billing Oct14-Feb15 03-Jun-15 $162,868.77

Total $8,637,561.98

Civil Works $7,599,412.23

Application

No.





Appendix 13 Reports submitted by Consultant

Document Date Reference Name Remarks

26th March 2012 Contractor Selection Report–Stage 2

27th March 2012 Field Trip Report Battambang

31st March 2012 Field Trip Report Toul Skear

19th April 2012

Resettlement Categorization Report(Stage 2 inc. Environmentalscreening)

Srok Dam, Boueng Kak,Ork Ambok & BoeungKamplienh, KampingPouy, Boeung Kansengand Kong Piseth, HunSen Baray, Toul Skear,Lam Laong

26/27 April 2012 Field Trip Report K. Cham; Siem Riep

23/24 May 2012 Field Trip Report K. Cham; K. Thom

8th June 2012 Contract Negotiation Report-Stage 2 5 contract packages

26th June 2012 FDERP-DM-1-0612 Inception Planning

29th June 2012 FDERP-DM-5-0612 Topographic Surveys-Stage 3 DRAFT

29th June 2012 FDERP-DM-5-0612 Topographic Surveys-Stage 3 FINAL

30th June 2012 FDERP-DM-4-0612 TOR for Supervision DRAFT

15th July 2012 Report for ADB Inception Mission

16th July 2012 Supervision Reporting Hun Sen Baray

16th July 2012 Supervision Reporting Kamping Pouy

25th July 2012 Supervision Reporting Hun Sen Baray

31st July 2012 Supervision Reporting QC – Ung Sim Sia

1st August 2012 Supervision Reporting Ork Ambok

1st August 2012 Supervision Reporting Boueng Kamplienh

1st August 2012 Supervision Reporting Boueng Kak

1st August 2012 Supervision Reporting Srok Dam

7th August 12Ung Sim Sia Construction Material’s Test Result Ork Ambok & Boeung

Kamplienh

13th August 2012 FDERP-MR1-0712 Monthly Report JULY

17th August 2012 Supervision Reporting QC-Meas Sovathidy

17th August 12Meas Sovuthidy Construction Material’s Test Result Toul Skear and Lam

Loang

22nd August 2012FDERP-SPP-01-0812

Sub-project Profile Report Por Tatres

23rd August 2012FDERP-SPP-02-0812

Sub-project Profile report Phdav Chum

24th August 2012 Supervision Reporting Kamping Puoy

24th August 2012Supervision Reporting Boeung Kanseng and

Kong Piseth

28th August 2012FDERP-SPP-03-0812

Sub-project Profile Report Kor Aet

30th August 2012 FDERP-R1-0812 Inception Report DRAFT

5th September 12 Labor and Gender Action Plan Specialist’s report

6th September 12 FDERP-MR2-0812 Monthly Report AUGUST

6th September 12 Supervision Report Lam Loang

6th September 12 Supervision Report Hunsen Baray






9th Sep 2012Punloeu BanteaySrey

Field density tests Srok Dam

9th Sep 2012Punloeu BanteaySrey

Field density tests Boeung Kak

10th Sep 2012 FDERP-R1-0812 Inception Report Version 1

17th Sep 2012 Soeun Soknan Construction Material’s Test Result Hun Sen Baray

20th Sep 2012 Soeun Soknan Field density tests Hun Sen Baray

21st Sep 2012TL/PIU/048 NCB Document for FDERP-

MOWRAM-CW-5Kor Aet Sub-project

25th Sep 2012Supervision Report Kamping Puoy Sub-

project

26th Sep 2012 Sub-project Profile – Version 2 Kor Aet Sub-project

26th Sept 12 Supervision Report Kamping Puoy

26th Sept 12 FDERP-R1-0812 Inception Report Version 2

2nd Oct 2012 Sub-project Profile- Version 2 Por Tatres Sub-project

3rd Oct 2012Supervision Report Ork Ambok, Toul Skear

and Hunsen Baray sub-projects

9th Oct 2012 FDERP-MR3-0912 Monthly Report SEPTEMBER

12th Oct 2012NCB- FDERP-MOWRAM- CW5 Kor Aet and Por Tatres

Sub-projects

18th Oct 2012Sub-project Profile- Version 2 Phdav Chum Sub-

project

18th Oct 2012NCB-FDERP-MOWRAM-4 Phdav Chum Sub-

project

19th Oct 2012NCB-FDERP-MOWRAM-5- revisedin accordance with the second set ofcomments from PCMU/MEF

Kor Aet and Por TatresSub-projects

30th Oct 2012FDERP-SPP-04-1012

Sub-project Profile O Thnot sub-project

6th Nov 2012

Supervision Engineer Report Kamping Puoy, BoeungKansen, Kong Piseth,Ork Ambok, Toul Skearand Hun Sen Baray sub-projects

6th Nov 2012 FDERP-MR4-1012 Monthly Report OCTOBER

12th Nov 2012FDERP-SPP-05-1112

Sub-project profile Prek Touch and PrekThom sub-project

16th Nov 2012Supervision Engineer Report Kamping Puoy sub-

project

21st Nov 2012NCB Document for contract No.FDERP-MOWRAM-CW5 andInvitation letter for Bid

Kor Aet and Por Tatressub-projects

26th Nov 2012 IEE Report All stage 3 sub-project

30th Nov 2012FDERP-SPP-06-1112

Sub-project profile O Ansar sub-project

4th Dec 2012Supervision Engineer Report Kamping Puoy sub-

project

6th Dec 2012 FDERP-MR5-1112 Monthly Report NOVEMBER

6th Dec 2012FDERP-SPP-07-1112

Sub-project profile Boeung Kvek sub-project

17th Dec 2012 Addendum Extension to Bid Kor Aet and Por Tatres






Submission sub-projects

18th Dec 2012NCB document re-bidding Kor Aet and Por Tatres

sub-projects

19th Dec 2012 NCB document for CW4 Phdav Chum sub-project

31st Dec 2012FDERP-SPP-08-1012

Sub-project profile (Vers.02) Krapeu Main Canal

8th Jan 2013 Safeguard Quarterly Report

9th Jan 2013 FDERP-MR6-1212 Monthly Report DECEMBER

23rd Jan 2013NCB document for CW3 Lam Laong sub-project

(Additional Spillway)

24th Jan 2013

NCB document for CW13 O Thnot, Boeung Kvek,Prek touch & Prek Thomand O Ansar sub-projects

30th Jan 2013FDERP-RCR-1-0113

Resettlement Categorization Report Krapeu Main Canal

5th Feb 2013 FDERP-MR7-0113 Monthly Report JANUARY-2013

7th Feb 2013

NCB_FDERP-MOWRAM-CW13;revision

O Thnot, Boeung Kvek,Prek touch & Prek Thomand O Ansar sub-projects

18th Feb 2013 NCB_FDERP-MOWRAM-CW3 Lam Loang sub-project

7th Mar 2013 Topographic Survey Report Final Report Hard & Soft

11th Mar 2013 FDERP-MR8-2113 Monthly Report FEBRUARY - 2013

13th Mar 2013 IEE for Stage 2 sub-projects

18th Mar 2013 Supervision Report Kamping Pouy

20th Mar 2013 Shopping Documents CW15-A, B, C

25th Mar 2013Supervision Report Lam Laong & Touls

Skear

3rd April 2013 FDERP-MR9-0313 Monthly Report MARCH 2013

4th April 2013Supervision Report Kamping Puoy, Boeung

Kanseng, Kang Pisethand Hun sen Baray

19th April 2013NCB document, re-bidding Phdav Chum sub-project

23rd April 2013NCB-FDERP-MOWRAM-CW15A Ta Soam and Kork

Thnong subprojects

24th April 2013Shopping Document for FDERP-MOWRAM-CW15C, revision andinvitation for bids

Canal No.1 subproject

26th April 2013NCB-FDERP-MOWRAM-CW15A,revision and Invitation for Bids

Ta Soam and KorkThnong sub-projects

29th April 2013 Supervision Report Lam Loang & Toul Skear

8th May 2013FDERP-MR10-0413

Monthly Report APRIL 2013

10th May 2013 Bid Evaluation Report Lam Laong sub-project

23rd May 2013Bid Evaluation Report O Thnot, O Ansar, Prek

Touch & Prek Thom andBoeung Kvek

31 May 2013 Bid Evaluation Report Canal No.1

12th June 2013 Memorandum CW1 Contractor Ref: Meeting ADB_30th






Performance May 2013

13th June 2013 Bid Evaluation Report Phdav Chum

14th June 2013FDERP-MR11-0513

Monthly Report MAY 2013

9th July 2013FDERP-MR12-0613

Monthly Report JUNE 2013

12th August 2013FDERP-MR13-0713

Monthly Report JULY 2013

19th August 2013NCB-FDERP-MOWRAM-CW6 Krapeu Main Canal

subproject

28th August 2013FWUC Planning _ TORs for theParticipatory Meetings includingbudgets

2013 - 2014

5th September 13FDERP-MR14-0813

Monthly Report AUGUST 2013

17th Sep 2013Contract Document for FDERP-MOWRAM-CW4

Phdav Chum

14th Oct 2013FDERP-MR 15-0913

Monthly Report, including LGAP andEnvironmental Monitoring Report

SEPTEMBER 13

24th Oct 2013 Bid Evaluation Report Krapeu main Canal

4th Nov 2013FDERP-MR 16-1013

Monthly Report OCTOBER 2013

15th Nov 2013Field Trip Report for Flood DamageAssessment

9 stage 2 subprojects

9th Dec 2013FDERP-MR17-1113

Monthly Report NOVEMBER 2013

9th Dec 2013Contract Document for FDERP-MOWRAM-CW6

Krapeu Main Canal

13th Jan 2014FDERP-MR-18-1213

Monthly Report, including LGAP andEnvironmental Monitoring Report

DECEMBER 2013

10th Feb 2014FDERP-MR-19-0114

Monthly Report JANUARY 2014

17th Mar 2014FDERP-MR-20-0214

Monthly Report FEBRUARY 2014

17th Mar 2014Variation Order #2 CW10/11 Kamping Puoy

subproject

19th Mar 2014Variation Order #1 CW3 Lam Laong Subproject

21st Mar 2014 Variation Order # 1 CW4 Phdav Chum subproject

3rd April 2014FDERP-MR-21-0314

Monthly Report MARCH 2014

7th May 2014FDERP-MR-22-0414


26th May 2014 Supervision Report Kor Aet subproject

9th June 2014FDERP-MR-23-0514


13th June 2014Variation Order # CW5 Kor Aet and Por Tatres

subprojects

13th June 2014 Variation Order #1, CW15C Canal No.1 subproject

17th June 2014Variation Order # 1, CW6 Krapeu Main Canal

subproject

7th July 2014 FDERP-MR-24- Monthly Report JUNE 2014






0614

8th Aug 2014FDERP-MR-25-0714

Monthly Report JULY 2014

20th Aug 2014FDERP-RCR-2-0714

Update Resettlement verificationReport

Subprojects Stage 3

1st Sep 2014 Field visit report Phdav Chum sub project

8th Sep 2014FDERP-MR-26-0814

Monthly Report AUGUST 2014

7th Oct 2014FDERP-MR-27-0914

Monthly Report SEPTEMBER 2014

11th Nov 2014FDERP-MR-28-1014

Monthly Report OCTOBER 2014

8th Dec 2014FDERP-MR-29-1114

Monthly Report NOVEMBER 2014

6th Jan 2015FDERP-MR-30-1214

Monthly Report DECEMBER 2014

8th Jan 2015 Variation Order # 2, CW6 Krapeu Main Canal

5th Feb 2015FDERP-MR-31-0115

Monthly Report JANUARY 2015

9th Mar 2015FDERP-MR-32-0215

Monthly Report FEBRUARY 2015

6th April 2015FDERP-MR-33-0315

Monthly Report MARCH 2015

23rd April 2015 FDERP-PCR-0415 Project Completion Report –V1 Main report

19th May 2015FDERP-MR-34-0415


15th June 2015FDERP-MR-35-0515


10th July 2015FDERP-MR-36-0615

Monthly Report JUNE 2015





Appendix 14 Consultants resources_ consumed and balanceUpdated 30 June 2015

item unit Quantity Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount

(USD) (USD) (USD)

A. REMUNERATION

1. Expatriate Experts

Team Leader /Irrigation Engineer Mark Schiele, month 20.23 437,908.06 19.13 414,164.50 1.10 23,743.55

Senior Procurement Specialist June Mendoza, month 2.00 35,800.00 2.00 35,800.00

Design Engineer Francisco Regonas, month 5.93 124,530.00 5.93 124,530.00

Community Development /FWUC Specialist Badre Lanedri, month 1.54 30,800.00 1.54 30,800.00

Socio- Economist Miguel Guioguio, month 2.00 36,000.00 2.00 36,000.00

total 1 31.70 665,038.06 30.60 641,294.50 1.10 23,743.55

2. National Experts 3,823.1950

.

Deputy TL / Irrigation design engineer Sambo Khoun, month 36.21 90,525.00 36.21 90,525.00

Contract Engineer-Assist RE 1 Phanna Chroeung/El Reaseimonth 27.00 58,050.00 24.00 51,600.00 3.00 6,450.00

Contract Engineer- Assist RE 2 Sovann Kheang/Chandaro Mammonth 18.00 38,250.00 18.00 38,250.00

Contract Engineer- Assist RE 3 Savy Prak, month 21.000 44,625.00 21.00 44,625.00

Resettlement Specialist Sophanna Mel, month 6.97 14,637.00 6.97 14,637.00

Socio-Agric Economist Chantha Ouk, month 5.00 10,500.00 5.00 10,500.00

Water Resocurce/Hydrologist Bunvongsa Toch, month 7.9997 16,799.37 8.00 16,800.00 -0.00 -0.63

Surveyor Tit Sophal month 5.00 9,000.00 4.54 8,172.00 0.46 828.00

Procurement Specialist Kosal Sin month 9.34 18,213.00 9.34 18,213.00

FWUC Specialist Mavuth Im, month 14.70 27,930.00 14.70 27,930.00

Structural Engineer Pich Ngnoun month 5.00 10,500.00 5.00 10,500.00

O&M Engineer Virekvath Tak month 8.00 15,600.00 8.00 15,600.00

GIS/AutoCad Specialist THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED US DOLLARS AND 0 CENTSmonth 3.00 4,500.00 2.00 3,000.00 1.00 1,500.00

Labour / Gender Specialist Pra Pey Kol month 4.51 6,765.00 4.51 6,765.00

Environmental Specialist Sour Chheng You, month 6.00 9,000.00 6.00 9,000.00

total 2 177.73 374,894.37 173.27 366,117.00 4.46 8,777.37

TOTAL A - REMUNERATIONS 1,039,932.43 203.87 1,007,411.50 5.56 32,520.92

B. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES

3. Per Diem (fix cost)Per diem allowance international experts day 960.00 76,800.00 926.00 74,080.00 34.00 2,720.00

Per diem allowance national experts day 3,142.00 62,840.00 2,982.00 59,640.00 160.00 3,200.00

total 3 139,640.00 133,720.00 5,920.00

4. International Air Travel (Reimbursed at actual Cost)Mr. Mark Schiele RT 7.00 13,776.00 6.00 11,281.54 1.00 2,494.46

Ms. June Mendoza RT 2.00 1,968.00 2.00 1,365.06 602.94

Mr. Francisco Regonas RT 1.00 984.00 1.00 790.50 193.50

Mr. Badre Lanedri RT 2.00 3,936.00 2.00 3,649.48 286.52

Mr. Miguel Guioguio RT 2.00 1,968.00 2.00 1,269.00 699.00

total 4 14.00 22,632.00 18,355.58 14.00 4,276.42

5. International travel allowance (fix costs) RT 13.00 1,703.00 13.00 1,703.00

total 5 13.00 1,703.00 1,703.00

6. Domestic air travel (Reimbursed at

actual Cost)Local travelling for the domestic consultants RT

total 6

7. Support Staff (fix cost) month 39.07 27,349.00 36.07 25,249.00 3.00 2,100.00

total 7 27,349.00 25,249.00 2,100.00

8. Field Data Survey Staff man/

months22.00 15,840.00 22.00 15,840.00

total 8 15,840.00 15,840.00

9. Assistant Surveyor / Construction supervisor Staff man/

months70.00 86,450.00 67.97 83,942.95 2.03 2,507.05

total 9 86,450.00 83,942.95 2,507.05

10. Reports (lumpsum/quarter) LS/3 14.00 3,500.00 13.00 3,250.00 1.00 250.00

total 10 3,500.00 3,250.00 250.00

Total B- OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES 297,114.00 282,060.53 15,053.47

SUB-TOTAL A and B 1,337,046.43 1,289,472.03 47,574.39

C. NON-COMPETITIVE COMPONENTS

11. Provisional Sums (Subject to prior

approvalSeminar, Workshop, Training LS 8,229.02 1,860.31 6,368.71

Study, Survey (Topographic LS 15,000.00 15,000.00

total 11 23,229.02 16,860.31 6,368.71

12. Contingencies (Subject to prior approval) LS

total 12

SUB-TOTAL C 23,229.02 16,860.31 6,368.71

SUB-TOTAL B+C

TOTAL 1,360,275.45 1,306,332.34 53,943.10

BalanceContract - Addendum #4 Total Invoiced

Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project _ Output 3; “Irrigation & Flood Control” ADB Loan No. 2852-CAM (SF)

Project Completion Report AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM (EF)


Appendix 15 Summary of FDERP Stage 2 sub-project profile data

No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m)

A INTERVENTIONS / FACILIITIES

I Earthworks

1 Reservoir Embankment 1 1,250.00 1 1,240.00 1 1,200.00 1 1,300.00

2 Main Canal 1 920.00 1 5,173.00 1 5,910.00 4 1,501.00 1 1,100.00 1 1,100.00 1 6,248.00

3 Flood Embankment 1 2,170.00 1 4,200.00

4 Secondary Canal

Total 4,340.00 5,173.00 5,910.00 2,741.00 1,200.00 1,300.00 1,100.00 4,200.00 1,100.00 6,248.00

II

1 Dry Stone Pitching 1.00 1,200.00 1 1,300.00

2 Stone Masonry 1 1,300.00 1 1,240.00

Total 1,300.00 1,240.00 1,200.00 1,300.00

III Structure

1 Head Regulator

2 HR/Outlet Structure Pipe culvert

3 MC Crossing pipe Culvert

4 MC Check Structure

5 Outlet Structure/Pipe Culvert

6 MC Inlet/Outlet Pipe Culverts

7 Crossing Box Culvert

8 Repair MC Pipe Culvert

9 Drain outlet/Box Culvert

10 Drain Pipe Culvert

11 Irrigated PVC Pipe

12 Bridge crossing

Total

B GENERAL INFORMATION

1 Location (E/N)_UTM

2 Commune

3 District

4 Province

5 Command Area (ha)

6 Wet Season

7 Dry Season

8 Number commume benificiary

9 Number village benificiary

10 Number of Househole benificiary

11 Engineer Estimate Cost

12 Contract No.

C

1 Contract No.

2 Procurement Method

3 Direct Selection of Contractors

4 NOL from ADB

5 Invitation for Bids

6 Bid Opening

7 Bid Evaluation Report

8 NOL from ADB

9 Contract Signature

10 Name Contractor

11 Contract amount -Original*

12 Total by Package

13 VO # 1

14 VO # 2

15 Total Contract amount (CW)

16 Final Price

17 Saved

18 Start Date

19 Contractual Completion Date

20 Actual Completion Date (construction)

21 Planned End of Defect liability

22 Actual End of Defect liability

Note: * Contract amount-original (including contingency)

28-June-12

1,014,720.10 877,931.75

230,842.37 910,017.02 1,002,732.76 185,750.69

28-Oct-14 25-Apr-14 19-Apr-14 18-Sep-14 12-Jul-14

Meas Sovuthidy Construction Co., Ltd Ung Sim Sia Construction Co., Ltd Punleu Banteay Srey Construction Co., Ltd Royal Mekong Construction & Development Pte, Ltd Soun Soknan Const Co., Ltd

04-May-12

08-May-12

28-June-12 28-June-12 28-June-12

04-May-12

08-May-12

04-May-12

08-May-12

PROVINCE PREY VENG KAMPONG CHAM BATTAMBONG KAMPONG THOM

Boeung Kanseng Kang Piseth Hun Sen BarayNo Items

Lam Laong Toul Skear Ork Ambok Beung Kamplienh Boeung Kak Srok Dam Kamping Puoy

Protection Works

1 1

1

1

1 1 5 2

1

10 11 1 13

3 3

3

1

2

10 40

1 3

12 14 15 51 - - 1 4 2 16

532,619/1,300,046 538,226/1,270,482 559,488/1,235,311 523,990/1,278,870 504,896/1,311,797 507,988/1,326,508 276,952/1,448,611 294,533/1,475,996 293,242/1,475,938 509,198/1,367,677

Chrey Kmum Kampong Leav, Takoa,

Choeung Teuk

Prasat, Konsoam Ork and

Kork Kchork

Kampong Reussey Kong Tanoeung Phdav Chum and Sotep Ta Kream and Anlong Svay Chrouy Sdaov Chrouy Sdaov Baray

Sitho Kandal Por Rieng Kampong Trobek Pear Rieng Kong Meas Choeung Prey Banon Thmor Kol Thmor Kol Baray

Prey Veng Prey Veng Prey Veng Prey Veng Kampong Cham Kampong Cham Battambong Battambong Battambong Kampong Thom

800 3500 1300 250 1,250.00 650.00 2,341 1,700.00 700.00 1420

1500 1150 100 2,239 850.00 350.00 970

800 2000 150 150 1,250.00 650.00 102 850.00 350.00 450

2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

4 7 1 10 8

160 1,005 1,545 118 841 4000 908 600 600 349

8

1,135,289.80 1,183,686.68 327,968.91 874,335.29 848,925.86

877,937.49

1,140,859.39 1,188,483.46 318,842.81 898,489.89 877,937.49

318,842.811,188,483.46

26-Mar-12

04-May-12

17-May-12

05-June-12

270,992.50492,331.81

17-May-12

05-June-12

08-May-12

04-May-12

1,140,859.39

5-June-12

1,014,720.10

04-May-12

08-May-12

17-May-1217-May-12

135,165.59

05-June-12

17-May-12

05-June-12

220,639.76 98,203.05

FDERP-MOWRAM-12

DC DC DC DC

04-May-12

26-Mar-12

04-May-12

26-Mar-12

04-May-12

25-Apr-13 19-Apr-13 18-Sep-13 12-Jul-13

28-Jun-12 28-Jun-12 28-Jun-12 28-Jun-12 28-Jun-12

28-Dec-12 28-Dec-12 28-Oct-12

1,140,581.70 1,185,330.96 318,811.57

28-June-12

26-Mar-12

04-May-12

26-Mar-12

DC

04-Feb-15 18-Jul-14 18-Jul-14 17-Nov-15**

116,230.21

877,937.49

PROCUREMENT

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW1 FDERP-MOWRAM-CW2 FDERP-MOWRAM-CW9 FDERP-MOWRAM-CW10/11

** The Defects Liability Period for Kamping Puoy sub-project is 12 months after the additional works have been completed

277.69 3,152.50 31.24 - 5.74

20-Aug-14

28-Jan-13 28-Dec-12

28-Oct-13

Flood Damage Emergency Reconstruction Project _ Output 3; “Irrigation & Flood Control” ADB Loan No. 2852-CAM (SF)

Project Completion Report AusAID Grant No. 0285-CAM (EF)


Appendix 16 Summary of FDERP Stage 3 sub-project profile data

No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m) No Length (m)

A INTERVENTIONS / FACILIITIES

I Earthworks

1 Reservoir Embankment 1 3,552.00 1 6,130.00 1 1,700.00 1 700.00 1.00 450.00

2 Flood Embankment 1 17,000.00 1 1,170.00 1 2,070.00 1 360.00

3 Irrigated Canal 3 5,602.00 1 3,000.00 1 200.00

4 Drainage Canal

5 Access Road 1 500.00 1 1,314.00

6 Access Ramp 16 480.00 12 84.00

TOTAL

II Protection Works

1 Dry Stone Pitching 11,000.00

2 Stone Masonry 1 360.00

TOTAL 11,000.00 360.00

III Structures

New Construction

1 Spillway (Diversion weir)

2 Box Culvert

3 Pipe Culvert

4 Check /drop Structure

5 Bridge/ Bridge crossing

Repair Existing Structure

6 Outlet Structure/Box culvert

7 Box Culvert

8 Pipe Culvert

TOTAL 10 1

9 Engineer Cost Estimate

10 Engineer Cost Estimate by Package

B

1 Location (X/Y)

2 Commune

3 District

4 Province

5 Command Area (ha)

6 Wet Season

7 Dry Season

8 Number commume benificiary

9 Number village benificiary

10 Number of Househole benificiary

11 Aver Land Holding per HH (ha)

12 WS Rice Yield (t/ha)

13 DS Rice Yield (t/ha)

14 FWUC member (M/F)

C

Contract No.

1 Sub-project Profile

2 Version 1

3 Version 2

4 Non-Objection from ADB

5 NCB Document

6 Version 1

7 Version 2

8 Non-Objection from ADB

9 Bid Opening


11 PRC Meeting

12 Re-bid

13 Bid Opening


15 PRC Meeting

16 NOL from ADB for Award

17 Contract Awards

18 Actual start date

19 Actual completion date

20 Defects liability

21 Contract Variation Order # 2

22 Start date (VO#2)

23 Completion date (VO#2)

24 Defects liability (VO#2)

25 Name of Contractor

26 Contract Amount byProject*

27 Contract Amount byPackage

28 VO#1

29 VO#2

30 Final Price byProject

31 Final Price byPackage

32 Saved

Noted: * Contract amount (including contingency)

95,664.88 755,963.17 67,808.00 521,502.00503,808.21 250,943.22 2,573,660.00 252,381.05 227,983.58 91,038.00

450.00 3,084.00 1,874.009,654.00 6,130.00 17,480.00 2,870.00 2,070.00 700.00

504,109.00 245,094.00 2,593,011.11 252,332.10 287,858.14 110,917.32

509,183.78 245,600.80 2,574,150.13 261,080.47 234,425.08 92,968.45 98,508.25 67,809.60 521,873.83

N/A 16-Jul-13

10-May-13

NA

7-Jun-13

30-Jul-13

18-Jul-15

116,556.50 510,688.43 55,423.45 568,642.40

7-Jun-13

12-Mar-13

16-Nov-12

17-Jan-13

12- Feb-13

21-Sep-12 18-Oct-12

10-Apr-1320-Sep-13 8-May-13

BATTAMBANG

Canal No.1

55,423.45

26-May-15

7-Jun-13

2-Oct-13

6-May-13 29-Aug-13

23-Apr-13

16-May-13

455,109.17

5-Aug-13

T.S.K Construction Co., Ltd

67,809.60

SBPH Constru Co.,LtdP. Banteay Srey Co., Ltd

521,873.83

23-Dec-13

455,109.17

26-May-14

23-May-13

30-July-13

NA

19-Sep-15

1-Jan-14

1

767,664.06 510,688.43 568,642.40

9-Jan-13

23-Jan-13

21-Feb-13

30-Oct-12 06-Dec-1230-Nov-1228-Aug-12

4-Jan-13

31-Dec-1212-Nov-12

KAMPONG THOM PREY VENG

749,203.00 2,593,011.11

12-Oct-12

23-Aug-12

18-Oct-12

19-Sep-14

19-Sep-15

1-Dec-13

21-Aug-14

686,982.25

21-Aug-15

2,574,150.13

1 7 1 2

1

1

11

11 1 1 1

23

1

Sandan Prasat Sambo

3 1

7 2

22-Aug-12

Kok Thlok Leu/Krom K Romeas/R Chrey Chhrey Kmum

1

9

Lam LoangBoeung Kvek

12-Nov-13

31-May-13

No ItemsKor Aet Por Tatres Phdav Chum O Thnot Prek Touch & Thom O Ansar Krapeu Main Canal

PROVINCE

Batheay Batheay

10-Jul-13

Batheay& Choeung Prey

KAMPONG CHAM

07-Mar-13

16-Nov-12

2-Oct-12

07-Feb-14

13-Jun-13

16-Nov-12

14-Dec-12

15-Nov-13

21-May-13

12-Mar-13

26-Sep-12

30-Sep-14

30-Sep-15

KBH Construction Co.,LtdTan Kim Eng Construction Co., Ltd

14-Dec-12

SBPH Construc Co.,Ltd

21-Jan-13

365 884 9,590 717

1

10-April-13

1

23-Dec-13

19,914.74

19-Sep-14

755,963.17

3-Feb-14

18-Jul-14

754,751.43

33.15

2,573,660.00

490.13

667,067.51 521,502.00

371.833.05

67,808.00

1.60

754,784.58

37 14 16 2 5 2 1

575 982

340 680 3174 236 265 372 982256

305 750 2008 229 8 203 19 43 - 800

1 2 5 2 2 1 2 2 3

3 15 21 11 5 4

160

1.50 1.50 4.36

2

7 8 7

1.58

169 513 1157 518

1.50

4

300

1.751.00 1.50 N/A 1.00 1.80 2.00

1.50

Yes Yes Yes Yes

2.00

2.80 2.50 2.00 2.00

4.36 1.703.00 3.50 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.50

PROCUREMENT

Yes YesYes Yes Yes

491,805/1,329,990 492,060/1,336,780 500,422/1,327,744 523,734/1,444,112

1.70

426,928/1,460,458 287522/1463661

FDERP-MOWRAM CW4

Yes

1.50 2.50

Choeu Teal & Ngon

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW6 FDERP-MOWRAM-CW15C FDERP-MOWRAM-CW3

532,619/1,300,046

Me Pring Tang Krosang and Trop Kouk Roveang Ngon & Chhoeu Teal Chhouk Kampong Svay

512,573/1,421,738 498,932/1,410,645 523,355/1,440,884

Siem Reap

Kampong Svay Sandan Chikreng

800

Sithor Kandal

Kampong Thom

Bavel & Thmor Kol

275 1,670

Kampong Cham Kampong Cham Kampong Cham Kampong Thom Kampong Thom Kampong Thom

1,627

FDERP-MOWRAM-CW5 FDERP-MOWRAM-CW13

Battambang Prey Veng

645 1430 5182 465 273

19-May-15

19-May-16

19-Feb-15

17,197.71 15,267.22 19,395.08 3,388.88

19-Feb-15

300,857.050.00 0.00

119,157.50

0.00

2,299.65

0.00

GENERAL INFORMATION

0.00

23,035.50

0.000.00

1,279.00

0.00

629.88

0.00

20,870.70