Quality Assessment Study Capacity Building of Department of Roads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Recommendations for CRL (1) • CRL to be strengthened & fully staffed as a separate unit under an SDE, with 1 Engineer, Lab Technicians and Ass’tLab Technicians • CRL to undertake all required tests, including rebar using UTM, calibration of equipment from other Labs and Non-Destructive Testing for bridge projects. • UTM & Non-Destructive Testing equipment to be purchased & staff trained (cont…)

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

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

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

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

17. Overall Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations

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

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

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

21. Action Plan

22. Laboratory PhotographsBiratnagar – adequate space & some new equipment

23. Laboratory PhotographsButwal – adequate space but equipment not fixed

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

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

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

27. Thank You

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

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

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

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

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