DBE BRIEFING TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

1. DBE BRIEFING TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 03 September 2014 Cape Town

2. ASIDI BACKGROUND

3. SCHEDULE 7: SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE BACKLOGS GRANT (Brief outline of the conceptualization) • The purpose of the grant is • for the eradication of entire inappropriate schools; • provision of basic level of water, sanitation and electricity to schools. • The grant is also referred to as the ASIDI (Accelerated Schools Infrastructure Delivery Initiative)

4. ASIDI IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE

5. ASIDI : PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE • The programme is driven by Department of Basic Education (DBE) which has established a Project Support Unit to support the Programme Manager. • The DBE works closely with its provincial counterparts at Provincial Education Departments (PEDs) to prioritise and assess the needs for specific projects. • PEDs interact with the Provincial Public Works Departments as custodians to coordinate the improvement of the facilities. • DBE appoints Implementing Agents to manage batches of projects. • The Implementing Agents appoint professional service providers and contractors to execute the work.

6. ASIDI : PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE

7. ASIDI SCOPE

8. ASIDI SCOPE OF WORKS

9. ASIDI SCOPE OF WORKS (objectives and intentions) • On all four sub-programs the services provided adhere to GUIDELINES RELATING TO PLANNING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE • Inappropriate structures (entire mud schools, plankie schools, corrugated sheeting structures and prefab schools which are no longer fit-for-purpose) • Learning and teaching spaces, water, sanitation, electricity and furniture • Water Supply (schools that never had water) • Municipal connection where reticulation exists. • Ground water exploration and boreholes where the yield and water quality is of acceptable standard. • Rain water harvesting and Elevated water tanks for storage of potable water for immediate or future use. • Sanitation provision (schools that never had sanitation) • Waterborne sewerage systems where sufficient water is available, • Enviro-loos as well as • Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Latrines. • Electrification (school that never had electricity) • As far as is possible Schools are connected to the electrical grid through ESKOM. • In those instances where Grid Electricity is not available Solar Electricity is provided.

10. EASTERN CAPE PROVINCEInappropriate Schools 1. Number of projects being implemented

11. EASTERN CAPE PROVINCEWater and Sanitation – No of Projects Implemented

12. FREE STATE PROVINCEInappropriate Schools

13. FREE STATE PROVINCEWater and Sanitation

14. GAUTENG PROVINCEWater and Sanitation 1. Number of projects:

15. KWAZULU NATAL PROVINCEInappropriate Schools

16. KWAZULU NATAL PROVINCEWater and Sanitation

17. LIMPOPO PROVINCEInappropriate Schools

18. LIMPOPO PROVINCEWater and Sanitation

19. MPUMALANGA PROVINCEInappropriate Schools

20. MPUMALANGA PROVINCEWater and Sanitation – No of Projects Implemented

21. NORTH WEST PROVINCEInappropriate Schools

22. NORTH WEST PROVINCEWater and Sanitation

23. NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCEInappropriate Schools

24. NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCEWater and Sanitation

25. WESTERN CAPE PROVINCEInappropriate Schools

26. ELECTRIFICATION

27. ASIDI PROGRESS • Overview of historic performance • None financial performance • Financial performance

28. ASIDI implementation stages

29. ASIDI IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES • Building of a school is a multi year process and various factors contribute to the determination of the period to complete one. • The optimistic estimated target by the DBE is 18 months from project initiation to practical completion. • Some of the factors which contribute towards increased time are: • Many of the schools require decanting before commencing with construction of the works. • The size of the school • State of access roads to the schools for mobilisation and delivery of material to the sites. • Poor performance by service providers and related terminations • IAs Internal processes • Typical stages followed for the building of schools

30. ASIDI IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES • Appointed Implementing Agents (IAs) to build new schools: • DBSA (121), IDT (58), CDC (24), ECDPW (16), NDPW (36), FSED (9) and WCED (25) • Examples of actual implementation periods by some of the IAs: • In the EC, DBSA was appointed in June 2011 and the first school was completed in October 2012 and the last was completed in March 2014. Construction started in Jan 2012. • Therefore construction period took between 10 months and 26 months • The entire process however took 33 months.

31. ASIDI IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES • In the WC: • WCED appointed on the 17th May 2012 and the first school reached PC on the 06th May 2014. • Construction started in Jan 2013. Where termination of contracts is experienced the period is extended further. • The entire process however took 24 months. • In the Mpumalanga: • DBSA was appointed on the 17th November 2012. • Construction started in Dec 2013 and the first school is scheduled to reach PC at the end of August 2014 (8 months). • The entire process would have taken 21 months.

32. ASIDI IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES • In the EC: • IDT, CDC and ECDPW were appointed in May 2012 • IDT, Construction started in Feb 2013 and the first school was completed on the 07th January 2014. 13 months of construction. Entire process took 19 months. • CDC, Construction started in Jan 2013 and the first school was completed on the 03rd March 2014. 14 month of construction. The process thus took 21 months. • No school from ECDPW • In the FS: • IDT, was appointed in June 2012 but to date no school has been completed.

33. ASIDI PROGRESS – INAPPROPRIATE SCHOOLS • Appointed IAs are DBSA, IDT, CDC, Adopt A Schools, ECDPW, NDPW, FSED and WCED. • 299 schools have been allocated to IAs. The balance of the projects are in EC. • Since inception 75 schools have been completed as follows: • In Eastern Cape 70 schools have been completed • In WC 4 schools have been completed • In Mpumalanga 1 school has been completed

34. ASIDI PROGRESS - WATER • Implementing Agents are KZNED, WCED, NWED, GED, FS ED, CSIR, Mvula Trust, IDT, CDC and Mhlathuze Water. All projects are in implementation. • Since inception 225 schools have been completed as follows: • In Eastern Cape - 84 • In FS - 30 • In Gauteng – n/a • In KZN - 20 • In Limpopo - 84 • In Mpumalanga - nil • In NW - 3 • In NC - nil • In WC - 4

35. ASIDI PROGRESS - SANITATION • Implementing Agents are KZNED, WCED, NWED, GED, FS ED, CSIR, Mvula Trust, IDT, CDC and Mhlathuze Water. All projects are in implementation. • Since inception 275 schools have been completed as follows: • In Eastern Cape - 103 • In FS - 13 • In Gauteng – 14 • In KZN - 50 • In Limpopo - 68 • In Mpumalanga - nil • In NW - 6 • In NC - nil • In WC - 21

36. ASIDI PROGRESS - ELECTRIFICATION • Implementing Agents are WCED, GED, FS ED, and ESKOM. All projects are in implementation. • Since inception 265 schools have been completed as follows: • In Eastern Cape - 152 • In FS - 23 • In Gauteng – 2 • In KZN – 43 • In Limpopo - 5 • In Mpumalanga - 31 • In NW - 2 • In NC - n/a • In WC - 7

37. ASIDI EXPENDITURE (Financial Performance)

38. ASIDI ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS • In 2011/12 allocations were R700mil and Expenditure was R76mil (10%) • In 2012/13 allocations were R2,065mil and expenditure was R859mil (42%) • In 2013/14 allocations were R1,955mil and expenditure was R1,357mil (69%) • Total spent for the firs 3 years was R2,293mil • Expenditure on the current allocation is R365mil and invoices in process are R244 mil • Therefore adjusted expenditure is R609mil which is 24% of the allocation.

39. COMMITMENTS / EXPENDITURE - 2014/15 Fin Year (1)

40. COMMITMENTS / EXPENDITURE - 2014/15 Fin Year (2)

41. CASH FLOW COMPARISON AGAINST NT ALLOCATION

42. 4 MONTH CASH FLOW COMPARISON - AGAINST IA SUBMISSIONS (1)

43. 4 MONTH CASH FLOW COMPARISON - AGAINST IA SUBMISSIONS (2)

44. Graphs R3.3 Bil - IRM R2.9 Bil - NT R2.2 Bil - EFMS Indicative figure of R609 mil at end of August

45. COMPARISON Commitments In Summary: Total Commitment since Inception: R10 084 165 565 Total Expenditure since Inception: R 3 167 200 431 (31.4%) Outstanding R 6 916 965 134 (68.6%) ********************************************* Expenditure against 2014/15 NT Allocation: ASIDI Allocation 2014/15: R2 938 503 000 Minus WC: (R 396 697 000) R2 541 806 000 Actual Expenditure at 2014/07/31 R 364 918 434 ( 14.4%) Balance at 2014/07/31: R2 176 887 566 ( 85.6%)

46. CLAIMS IN PROCESS

47. ASIDI CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED

48. ASIDI – Challenges and Lessons learned • ASIDI is the first infrastructure programme that is being implemented by DBE. DBE therefore appointed the Programme Manager and the Programme Support Unit in October 2011 as an attempt to increase the technical capacity the programme requires. • However, the unit remains challenged and limited in its ability to speed up implementation as it has limited authority and has to operate through the existing DBE structures which in their nature are not aligned to infrastructure delivery processes such as procurement, financial accounting, project and information management systems, etc. • DBE has not been able to ramp up and implement ASIDI at the required speed due to the structure of the unit and internal processes.

49. ASIDI – Challenges and Lessons learned • ASIDI expenditure was extremely low in the first year (Y0) of the grant 2011/12 and whereas it has improved slightly, it remains undesirably low in its (Y1) 2012/13. • One of the reasons is that the budget was made available during the 2010 Mini-Budget and as a result there was no sufficient time to align the planning and budget cycles “Alignment Model” for the 2011/12 implementation. • This resulted in an attempt to concurrently undertake planning and implementation through the limited technical resource capacity at DBE. Experience has proven that it takes a minimum of 6 months to plan and 12 months to construct a school. E.g DBSA MOA July 2011 and Construction started in Jan 2012.

50. ASIDI – Challenges and Lessons learned • The urgency of the programme and lack of technical capacity at DBE necessitated the use of IAs as a mode of ASIDI delivery, IAs had to use their own procurement policies . 96% of them are government entities and were therefore faster to procure without having to go through competitive bidding. However it is apparent that technical capacity of many of these Implementing Agents is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the programme and this has resulted in poor performance. Currently DBE has 8 IA relationships on Inappropriate Schools and 10 on Water & Sanitation and 4 on Electrification. • DBE has had to, through its limited technical capacity in the PSU work with IAs to improve performance than terminate these relations due to: • Contracts between DBE and IAs are not firm enough to allow for quick termination and replacement • There are limited government entities to use as IAs • Procurement of alternative IAs would delay progress • The PSU has finite technical capacity and cannot take over and manage projects after termination • Therefore termination would have left DBE in a worse off situation (IPMP-ASIDI Unit)