Monitoring the costs of WASH contracts for unit cost analyses and improved transparency

April 2013 WASHCost Mozambique Naafs and Zita 1

Monitoring the Costs of WASH Contracts for Unit Cost Analyses and Improved

Transparency

IRC Symposium 2013

April 09-11th 2013

April 2013 WASHCost Mozambique Naafs and Zita

CONTENT1. Introduction2. The Action Research Model3. Evolution4. What Makes It Work5. What Did Not Work6. Findings7. Conclusions

2


1. IntroductionWASHCost is an initiative (2008-2013) led

by the IRC; to promote better understanding of

what its costs to deliver sustainable was services;

First question from partners “How much does a borehole cost”;

The paper describes the process how this relatively simple principle has lead to a monitoring tool that has already had four years running and has become a good example of an action research model within the government.


2.The Action Research Model

5. Budgeting and

procurement

1. Database

2. Analises3. Publication

4. Sector debate


700 contracts – representing more than 6,000 boreholes


Bi- annual publications

Linked to three national meetings: March, June, November

Distribution via “learning alliance” – GAS

Www.washcost.info

http://www.washcost.info/


3. Evolution

2009, ad hoc collection from field work and literature

2010 slow response due to unfamiliarity:

2011, improved when examples came back:

2012, integrated and now the effort needed is about

four weeks per year of a data analyst to store, verify

and analyse the data in a standardized database.


1. Willingness, interest and good leadership;

2. Shared resources;3. Keeping the data collection simple

and verifiable; 4. Feedback has been provided

regularly and quickly to partners that supplied data through the six-monthly reports;

5. National focal person6. Project support in first cycles.

8

4. What Makes It Work it work


5. What Did Not Work Well

1. Expanding the scope with progress or completion data, or bill of quantities

2. More frequent updates3. Involve more people4. Involve private sector5. Limited NGO participation6. Combine with other

departments7. Web based database


The regular publication of costs led to: Standard unit costs on regular basis; This helps in budgeting for the next year

and with procurement (by comparing proposals against costs in the past year);

Major deviations from average costs being analyzed and discussed (e.g. high rehabilitation costs linked to a new type of pump);

Unit cost information triggering value for money discussions.

6. Findings

10


The desire to disaggregate needs to be balanced with the difficulties of obtaining meaningful information from sufficient contracts and interventions.

It is important to recognise that the publication of contract data was not a transparency initiative as willingness to cooperate might actually reduce if transparency were indicated as one of the objectives;

7. Conclusions

11


A process based on a limited number of parameters from verifiable data of simple contracts yields credible and very tangible findings and good discussions.

WHY NOT TRY IT?

7. Conclusions

12


OBRIGADO

Business

Monitoring the costs of WASH contracts for unit cost analyses and improved transparency