AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK · african development bank monrovia water supply and sanitation rehabilitation project liberia project completion report owas january 2000

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

MONROVIA WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION REHABILITATION PROJECT

LIBERIA

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

OWAS

January 2000

1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

A. PROJECT DATA AND KEY DATES

I. BASIC INFORMATION

Project Number Project Name Country (ies)

NA (Bilateral Fund) Monrovia Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation Project

Liberia

ID Number of all Lending Instrument(s) Department Environmental Classification

NA (Bilateral Fund) Water and Sanitation II

Original Commitment Amount Amount Cancelled Amount Disbursed Percent Disbursed

GBP Million

UA Million

USD Million

GBP Million

GBP Million UA Million

USD Million

United Kingdom (DFID) Grant:

3,06 4,02 5,86 2,63 86%

Borrower

Government of the Republic of Liberia

Executing Agency(ies) [List the main Ministries, Project Implementation Units, Agencies and civil society organizations responsible for implementing project activities.]

Sector Ministry: Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy (MLME)

Executing Agency: Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation (LWSC)

Co-financers and other External Partners [List all other sources and amounts of financing, technical assistance or other resources used in this project]

UA Million

USD Million

GBP Million

UA Million

USD Million

European Union 5,72 8,40 7,29

World Bank 7,09 8,66

Liberian Government 0,03 0,04

Total 12,84 17,10 7,29 43%

II. KEY DATES

NA NA 12-Feb-08

Restructuring(s)

Original Date MM/DD/YY

Actual Date MM/DD/YY

Difference in months (auto-calculated)

EFFECTIVENESS 13-Feb-08 17-Jul-08 5,2

MID-TERM REVIEW 14-Mar-09 Not Done

CLOSING 31-Dec-10

For on-going projects enter date of 98% disb. rate 15,2 31-Mar-12

2

III. RATINGS SUMMARY

All summary ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of Outputs 2

Achievement of Outcomes 2

Timeliness 3

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME 2

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 3

Supervision 3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE 3

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 2

Implementation 2

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE 2

IV. RESPONSIBLE BANK STAFF

POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION

Regional Director Mr. F. J. Perrault Mr. F. J. Perrault

Sector Director Mr. K. Bedoumra Mr. S. Jallow

Sector Manager Mr. S. Wassel Ms. A. Bamba

Task Manager Mr R. Situmbeko Mr. R. Lubunga

PCR Team Leader R. Lubunga

PCR Team Members E. K. Kuatsinu

3

B. PROJECT CONTEXT

Summarize the rationale for Bank assistance. State: -what development challenge the project addresses, -the Borrower's overall strategy for addressing it, -Bank activities in this country (ies) and sector over the past year and how they performed, and -on-going Bank and other externally financed activities that complement, overlap with or relate to this project. Please cite relevant sources. Comment on the strength and coherence of the rationale. [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about the project's origins and history, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

(i) Monrovia water supply and sewerage system had largely ceased functioning by the end of the war because of vandalization, illegal connections and high water losses. The water treatment plant was operated at 11% capacity with frequent interruption; supply was 1.25% of actual demand and 75% of water produced was unaccounted for. The sewerage system which originally covered 17% of population was down to serving about 7% because of bursts and blockages causing back flows in other areas. The impact of this state of affairs was poor environmental health translating into over 30% of family resources being spent on the treatment of water-borne diseases. The operations of Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation (LWSC) suffered from logistical constraints, inefficient systems and inadequate staff numbers with low skills. (ii) The focus of the intervention was rehabilitation of the water and sanitation system of Monrovia under emergency conditions, in addition to awareness campaigns and capacity building for LWSC. Monrovia is the main political, administrative, economic/commercial and industrial center of Liberia and home to 50% of total population. The project was important for the socio-economic recovery and development of Liberia and was in line with Liberia’s interim Poverty Reduction Strategy (iPRS). (iii) Complementary projects include the UNICEF/UNDP-WSHP, and UNDP's 125 shallow well programme. It was to benefit from various studies, including the Bank's sector reform and four-city WSS, EC-sector reform, WB- LWSC operation and management and MLME’s IWRMP. (iv) The rationale is coherent.

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)

The Project objective is to rehabilitate the Monrovia water and sanitation infrastructure up to 50% and above of pre-war capacity; build the immediate capacity of the LWSC to ensure sustainability of the provided facilities and assist the Government in its effort to undertake the necessary reform of the sector including policy formulation, legislation, and capacity building.

2. Describe the major project components and indicate how each will contribute to achieving the Project Development Objective(s).

The Monrovia Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation Project (MWSSRP) consisted of five components, viz: (1) Rehabilitation of Water Supply System: This was to rehabilitate the White Plains Water Treatment Plant (WTP), 75km of transmission pipelines and about 200km of distribution system in 5 communities. Production capacity of the WTP was to be increased from 7,570 m3/d (2 mgd) to its installed capacity of 68,137 m3/d (18 mgd), and access to water and sanitation services would be restored through the rehabilitated distribution network and sanitation facilities;

4

(2) Sanitation Facilities: This was to repair major parts of the sewage stabilization ponds to facilitate reception/treatment from public/private toilets, construct 11 new public toilets and rehabilitate 20-30 others, supply of maintenance equipment, and environmental sensitization of beneficiaries on the linkage between improved health and water/sanitation;

(3) Capacity Building of LWSC: This was to cover skills upgrading and training, focused studies, and supply of logistics and office equipment and facilities as part of system development activities

(4) Project Management including Technical Assistance, engineering consultancy for design and supervision, monitoring and evaluation, auditing, and operating costs. This was to ensure smooth implementation of the Project

(5) Sector reform studies: offering sector strategic planning with the objective of transforming and restructuring the enabling environment and planning instruments of the Liberian water and sanitation sector

3. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the project objectives along the following 3 dimensions. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

RELEVANT a) Relevant to the country's development priorities

Access to safe drinking water and human waste collection facilities are the strategic objectives of Pillar 4 of the first Poverty Reduction Strategy (iPRS)

4

ACHIEVABLE

b) Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected timeframe

The objectives of the Project could be achieved in the expected time frame but with more funds than that provided.

3

CONSISTENT

c) Consistent with the Bank's country or regional strategy

The Project is consistent with (a) the joint 2007-2008 AfDB/WB Interim Strategy Note (ISN), which is based on the government iPRS. It falls under 3rd pillar "rehabilitating infrastructure and delivering basic services”, (b) Pillar 2 -Jump starting and facilitating pro-poor economic growth- of the JAS (2008-2011); (c) MDGs and the framework of the Africa Water Vision

4

d) Consistent with the Bank's corporate priorities

The objectives of the project are consistent with the Bank Group’s poverty alleviation and lending strategies, which give priority intervention in post-conflict countries with shattered water supply and sanitation infrastructures.

4

4. Summarize the log. frame. If a log. frame does not exist, complete the table below, indicating the overall project development objective, the major components of the project, the major activities of each component and their expected outputs, outcomes, and indicators for measuring the achievement of outcomes. Add additional rows for components, activities, outputs or outcomes if needed.

COMPONENTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS EXPECTED OUTCOMES INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED

1. Rehabilitation of Water Supply System[2.41/13.42]

1.1 Rehabilitate (a) pumping stations, reservoirs, water transmission mains [0.50/2.33]& (b) treatment plant[0/4.76]

1.1 4 pump stations (raw water, treated water, 2 boosters) & Treatment Plant rehabilitated by 2010

1.1 Water production increased from 7,500 m3/d to 34,068 m3/d by 2009 and 68,137 m3/d by 2010

1.1 Water production by 2009 and by 2010

5

1.2 Rehabilitate distribution networks; & provide spares and consumables for O&M [1.91/6.34]

1.2 Over 200 km of distribution lines rehabilitated & operational by 2010

1.2.1 350,000 people with water supply by 2009 and 700,000 people by 2010

1.2.1 People with water supply by 2009 and 2010

1.2.2 Number of water house connections increased from 17,900 in 2007 to 50,000 by 2010

1.2.1 2 No. of water house connections by 2010

2. Sanitation Facilities [0.56/1.24]

2.1 Rehabilitate stabilization pond[0.18/0.18]

2.1 Stabilization pond repaired by 2010

2. 150,000 people with sanitation facilities by 2009 and 300 ,000 people by 2010

2. People with sanitation facilities by 2009 and 2010

2.2 Public latrine construction [0.16/00.16] & rehabilitation [0/0.30]

2.2 11 public toilets constructed and 30 rehabilitated by 2010

2.3 Purchase equipment and spare parts [0.18/0.48]

2.3 1 vacuum truck, 1 jetting equipment, spare parts and consumables materials purchased by 2008

2.4 Carry out sensitization campaigns[0.04/0.12]

2.4 Sensitisation campaigns undertaken

3. Capacity Building of LWSC [1.04/1.13]

3. Train staff; conduct consumer enumeration update study; logistics/office equipment [1.04/1.13]

3. 73 staff trained in different courses; undertake studies & provide logistics/office equipment by 2010

3.1 Billing and collection rate increased from 30% to 70% by 2010

3.1 Billing and collection rate by 2010

3.2 UFW reduced from 75% to 40% by 2010

3.2 UFW by 2010

4. Project Management [1.32/4.11]

4. Provide technical assistance [1.32/4.11]

4. Project Management staff appointed, technical assistants recruited and vehicles and equipment provided

4. Efficient and smooth project implementation

Quantity, quality and timeliness of reports and activities

5. Sector Reform [0/0.97]

5. Conduct multiple sector reform and O&M studies [0/0.97]

5. Operation and management study of LWSC conducted by 2010

5. Enabling environment and planning instruments of the Liberian water and sanitation sector transformed and restructured

Number of policies formulated, legislation enacted, structures established/restructured

Note: Figures in […/…] represent DFID: Total base cost commitment in million United States Dollars

5. For each dimension of the log. frame, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the extent to which the log. frame achieved the following. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1. If no log. frame exists, score this section as a 1 (one).

LOG. FRAME DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

6

LOGICAL

a) Presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives

The project log frame presented a sequential framework of activities, financial inputs, outcomes (short-, medium-, and long-term), indicators, targets and assumptions/risks

4

MEASURABLE b) Expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable

Both objectives and outcomes were defined with targets and time frame 4

THOROUGH c) States the risks and key assumptions

The log frame mentioned risks which were also discussed in the appraisal report including availability of professional staff, adequacy of tariff levels and scope creep

3

D. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES I. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS

In the table below, assess the achievement of actual vs. expected outputs for each major activity. Import the expected outputs from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outputs were achieved. Weight the scores by the activities' approximate share of project costs. Weighted scores are auto-calculated by the computer. The overall output score will be auto-calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES Working Score

Share of Project Costs in percentage

(as stated in Appraisal Report)

Weighted Score (auto-calculated)

Expected Outputs Actual Outputs

1.1 Distribution lines (over 200km) rehabilitated & operated

50km (DFID-9km & EU/WB-41km). The target was limited to 50km because of inadequate budgeting

1

30,35 0,3

1.2 Four (4) pump stations (raw water, treated water, 2 boosters), 75km water main & Treatment Plant

WB: 16.3km access road at 67% completion; pumps at tendering stage. Planned for completion by March 2012. The water main was omitted because of inadequate budgeting

2

33,94 0,7

2.1 Waste stabilisation ponds constructed

DFID: At 90.5% completion. To have been completed by 30-Jun-11 but contractor has failed to remedy major defects and has vacated site. Contract has been terminated for works to be repackaged with other drainage works omitted from present contract

3

0,86 0,0

7

2.2 11 public toilets constructed and 30 ones rehabilitated

30 Toilets and some sewage parts of network rehabilitated. Lift station civil works now under rehabilitation. All under WB/EC funding

2

2,22 0,0

2.3 1 vacuum truck, 1 jetting equipment, spare parts & consumables materials purchased

All equipment cancelled for lack of funds (except for some meters supplied)

2,30 0,0

2.4 Sensitisation campaigns undertaken

Budget allocation (USD100,000) spent but little evidence of impact on beneficiaries.

2

0,57 0,0

3. 73 staff trained in different courses; undertake studies & provide logistics/office equipment

97 staff trained in 35 planned courses (1580 person-days) of training achieved; 3 manuals submitted (TOT manual, training development policy manual, needs assessment report); logistic support provided.

4

5,41 0,2

4. Project Management staff appointed, technical assistants recruited and vehicles and equipment provided

3 TA experts ( 36 MM of WATSAN Engineer, Account/Financial Management, Procurement); Engineering design/supervision consultants; & training and consumer enumeration consultant

4

19,70 0,8

5. Sector Reform studies completed; Operational policies, procedures and manuals; and IWRM policy in place and operational

One study on policy undertaken with WB/EC funds. Others funded from other sources

1 4,65 0,0

OVERALL OUTPUT SCORE [Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores]

2

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the autocalculated score 2

8

II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES

1. Using available monitoring data, assess the achievement of expected outcomes. Import the expected outcomes from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved. The overall outcome score will be auto-calculated as an average of the working scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

OUTCOMES

Working Score

Expected Actual

1.1 Water production increased from 7,500 m3/d to 34,068 m3/d by 2009 and 68,137 m3/d by 2010

Water production increased to 13,400m3/day. (Treatment plant and pump station works under WB/EU to bring 31,000m3/day capacity on stream by March 2012)

1

1.2.1 350,000 people with water supply by 2009 and 700,000 people by 2010

34,200 with water supply. (The new pumps have capacity for 600,000 persons)

2

1.2.2 Number of water house connections increased from 17,900 in 2007 to 50,000 by 2010

No. of water house connections is 3920

1

2. 150,000 people with sanitation facilities by 2009 and 300,000 by 2010

3600

1

3.1 Billing and collection rate increased from 30% to 70% by 2010

Rate of collection per billing was 92%

4

OVERALL OUTCOME SCORE [Score is calculated as an average of the working scores]

2

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the autocalculated score 2

2. Additional outcomes. Comment on the project's additional outcomes not captured in the log. frame, including cross-cutting issues (e.g., gender).

Indirect benefits include • Consumer surplus of USD 0.45 per m3 • Time savings of 12.4 million hours per year from immediate access to water which impact on the lives of women and children, and education valued at USD 9.4 million per year • A positive health impact including health sector savings on medical costs resulting from reduction in diseases, income gained due to avoided time for illness/off work days and increased productivity. Savings in Hospital costs for 6,800 attendants is estimated at USD 0.17 million per year 3. Risks to sustained achievement of outcomes. State the factors that affect, or could affect, the long-run or sustained achievement of project outcomes. Indicate if any new activity or institutional change is recommended to help sustain outcomes. The analysis should draw upon the sensitivity analysis in Annex 3, where appropriate.

The factors which affect or could affect sustainability of project outcomes include (a) capacity to recruit and retain skilled professional staff; (b) adequate levels of tariff partly dependent on GoL giving more autonomy to an independent regulator in

9

setting the appropriate tariff structure and (c) maintenance of an improved billing, collection and monitoring system; (d) operational efficiencies relating to unaccounted for water losses, maintenance of old connections and new connections to the water supply system In order to enhance the long-term viability of the project and the improved operational and financial management performance of LWSC, the successor project to the MWSSRP has provision for (i) higher levels of Technical Assistance for capacity development, and institutional support management and training; (ii) support for a commercialization programme, and public-private-partnerships; (iii) supply of operational equipment; (iv) hygiene education and awareness creation of citizens as well as selection of appropriate technology options for WSS; LWSC professional staff -to-supervisory, skilled/semiskilled/unskilled staff ratio is 0.81:1. Moreover technical staff are not well trained and generally advanced in age. LWSC will have to proactively pursue a policy of investing in its Human Resource through substantially increasing the technical to administrative staff ratio and lowering its personnel average age while undertaking intensive training.

E. PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the extent to which the Bank and the Borrower ensured the project was commensurate with the Borrower’s capacity to implement by designing the project appropriately and by putting in place the necessary implementation arrangements. Consider all major design aspects, such as extent to which project design took into account lessons learned from previous PCRs in the sector or the country (please cite key PCRs); whether the project was informed by robust analytical work (please cite key documents); how well Bank and Borrower assessed the capacity of the implementing agencies and/or Project Implementation Unit; scope of consultations and partnerships; economic rationale of project; and provisions made for technical assistance. [200 words maximum. Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative]

1. The project preparation process included a joint Bank-DFID needs assessment mission and review of the PAR, appraisal mission in which a stakeholder workshop was held; and a Bank environmental and social impact assessment. A donors meeting was also held to streamline activities and execution. 2. Lessons learnt from on-going donor interventions in the water sector such as EC/WB financed MWSSRP, UNICEF/UNDP rural WASH, UNDP shallow wells programme, mainly centred on implementation capacity of the sector in Liberia as a post conflict country. Identified implementation capacity issues included the need to ensure appropriate implementation arrangements, a package of capacity building and technical assistance, adequate training in procurement and disbursement procedures and close supervision and monitoring. Specific design provisions include maintenance equipment and spare parts, staff training, technical assistance; focused studies on consumer enumeration, complemented by others in the programme. 3. The project preparation team consultations with communities and undertook a census of their properties along the right of way of structures to be developed/rehabilitated under the project. This informed the design of the community WASH awareness interventions and the ESMP.

2. For each dimension of project design and readiness for implementation, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences). Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS

ASSESSMENT WORKING

SCORE

10

REALISM

a) Project complexity is matched with country capacity and political commitment.

The design was generally simple, straight forward to implement and backed by policies. GOL commitment to the project was in line with the iPRS (2006-08), which gave high priority to immediate provision of safe drinking water and sanitation facilities as a prompt means of poverty reduction, and Monrovia city as the most populous area and the countries political, commercial, industrial and cultural centre. Weakness in country/EA capacity was supplemented by TA (engineering design and supervision, Finance and Procurement experts), staff training and studies. In practice provisions did not appear adequate since it took 60% more time than planned & there was limited capacity of LWSC in M&E

3

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

b) Project design includes adequate risk analysis.

The main identified project related risks of availability of professional staff, adequacy of tariff levels and scope creep were mitigated by provisions for TA and staff training; revenue improvement studies and systems, and 10% contingency provision. The depth of risk appears to have been underestimated - 25% loss in the value of the grant currency (GBP) to the USD

3

USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS

c) Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems are based on those already in use by government and/or other partners.

The Bank used its rules and did not have to harmonize them with other participating donors based on inter-donor agreements at project preparation and the lack of a formal donor consultative group. GOL's systems and capacity were inadequate given the country's post-conflict status. Despite this only a small provision was made to support the EA's M&E system to monitor project activities.

1

For the following dimensions, provide separate working scores for Bank performance and Borrower performance:

WORKING SCORE

Bank Borrower

CLARITY d) Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined.

Roles of ESMP monitoring and project implementation partners were clearly defined. However donor coordination was not clearly defined as manifested by a multitude of fora - an MLME committee which monitors water sector development, a UNICEF led WATSAN cluster group set up to coordinate project level efforts among Government, Donors and NGOs.

3 3

PROCUREMENT READINESS

e) Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal.

Designs were not done upfront given the post-conflict emergency situation

1 1

11

MONITORING READINESS

f) Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon before project launch.

Monitoring indicators were as indicated in the log-frame and the ESMP. No structured system of M&E-planning & data collection system, was however agreed before or implemented after project launch. It was assumed that LWSC would do this as part of their normal system the functionality of which was apparently not well assessed or supported during the course of project implementation although resources had been budgeted

2 2

BASELINE DATA

h) Baseline data were available or were collected during project design.

Partial baseline data was as indicated in the log-frame and the analysis of the sector. There was however no reliable data on water and sanitation coverage. The situation was to have been partly rectified by the consumer enumeration study, but for lack of its activation. Reliable Information on EA management information is a challenge

3 3

F. IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the major characteristics of project implementation with reference to: adherence to schedules, quality of construction or other work, performance of consultants, effectiveness of Bank supervision, and effectiveness of Borrower oversight. Assess how well the Bank and the Borrower ensured compliance with safeguards. [200 words maximum. [Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative.]

1. Schedule: The project experienced about 4½ months delay in start-up and implementation took 60% more time than planned (45 instead of 28 months). Key pump station activities will only come on stream in March 2012, postponing realization of full project outcomes. 2. Quality of Works has been generally good. However, in the case of the stabilization pond, signs of failure are evident in the earth embankments and soil-cement linings embankments. 3. Consultants: The team of 3 TA experts (Engineer, Account/Finance, Procurement) to the PMT were fielded during the first 14 months of the project. No final report was prepared. The training and consumer enumeration consultant did carry out assigned tasks and submitted both a final and training report summary. Similarly the engineering design and supervision consultant has carried out assigned tasks and submitted the required reports. 4. Bank Supervision: The Bank undertook 6 missions (2.2 per year) less than the planned quarterly missions. There was no MTR. 5. Borrower Oversight: The Project Steering Coordinating Committee (PSCC) and independent monitoring role of MLME and EPA in the ESMP were not functional.

2. Comment on the role of other partners (e.g. donors, NGOs, contractors, etc.). Assess the effectiveness of co-financing arrangements and of donor coordination, if applicable.

Coordination and interfacing of activities appears to have suffered from the adopted parallel financing/implementation arrangements. The project was managed by two PMTs (one based in LWSC for the DFID funded activities and another in MPW for the WB/EC activities). Engineering design and reporting on the project however benefitted from the use of one engineering consultant for all aspects of the project.

12

3. Harmonization. State whether the Bank made explicit efforts to harmonize instruments, systems and/or approaches with other partners.

Project design was for parallel financing, each donor managing its funds in line with their respective operational policies, guidelines, and procedures. There were no joint supervision missions nor formal project coordination/management fora for donors. World bank, as the administrator for the co-financing, did not appear to have a dedicated task manager. Anchoring WB/EC- financed component implementation responsibility in another unit -Special Implementation Unit (SIU), now Infrastructure Implementation Unit (IIU) - other than LWSC also caused problems. The IIU appears to have been overwhelmed due to its multi-sectoral nature; and liaison with LWSC was not effective. Supervising consultants assisted in enabling coordination between LWSC and IIU but as a service provider could only go so far.

4. For each dimension of project implementation, assess the extent to which the project achieved the following. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) and insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING

SCORE

TIMELINESS

a) Extent of project adherence to the original closing date. If the number on the right is: below 12, "4" is automatically scored between 12.1 to 24, "3" is automatically scored between 24.1 to 36, "2" is automatically scored beyond 36.1, "1" is automatically scored

Difference in months between original closing date and actual closing date or date of 98% disb. rate. (auto-generated)

The project has been implemented in 60% more time than planned, and critical headworks activities are the last of activities to be completed by March 2012

3

15,2

BANK PERFORMANCE

b) Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

Two of the six missions included environmental and health experts. However environmental provisions in the PAR such as monitoring of the ESMP, relocation of encroachers on stabilisation lands, safety at the treatment plant, were largely not implemented

2

Fiduciary Requirements

The Bank ensured compliance with Bank rules, since most of the payments were effected directly from the Bank. However, there has been no audit of Bank financed activities and delays in payments have occurred. Although not originally envisaged, as part project activities, a general audit of LWSC has been commissioned with WB/EC financing.

3

Project Covenants

The Bank ensured compliance with all project covenants namely evidence of establishment of the Project team, opening of the Special Foreign Account and an undertaking by the EA to implement the ESMP. However in practice some PMT staff had not been full-time, and there was no procurement officer

3

13

c) Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix and practicality of solutions

The Bank undertook 6 missions (2.2 per year instead of the four envisaged). The missions had a good mix of skills - engineering (47%), finance (24%), environment (12%), and procurement, health and Manager (about 6% each). Most attention was paid to implementation and technical issues rather than software/ESMP issues such as M&E system, audit of project accounts, poor WASH awareness. There was no MTR. Donor coordination was limited to supervision mission consultations. No formal project level coordination or knowledge exchange fora/system was established. As indicated in Section F3, World Bank, as the administrator for the co-financing, did not appear to have a dedicated task manager, and the decision to anchor WB/EC- financed component implementation in another unit (SIU now IIU) other than LWSC also made overall project supervision problematic.

2

d) Bank provided quality management oversight

One of the six missions included the Manager. 3


e) Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

Several safeguards were not complied with: (a) environmental and social assessment, monitoring of ESMP; (b) compensation plan: loss of farm land, barrier along the lagoon, expropriation of buildings (c) WASH sensitisation campaigns. On the positive side traffic management during construction was undertaken. Measures related to sanitation could not be carried out partly because of the cancellation of the construction of these facilities. The streamlined measures (fire safety measures and recycling of dewatered sludge in the treatment plant, use of dock weeds and tilapia fish to treat sewage) is not applicable for there was no sludge being produced at the Sewerage Treatment Plant- the plant had not operated in years and the lagoons were none existent.

2

Fiduciary Requirements No audit report was prepared during the project. However most payments were effected directly by the Bank and according to Bank rules.

3

Project Covenants All grant conditions were complied with except with that the undertaking to execute the ESMP was not followed up at implementation.

3

f) Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations

The borrower was partially responsive to the implementation of various recommendations emanating from the supervision missions. Those not acted on include: Information management, documenting disbursements in the LWSC system, coordination and interfacing with other partners, appointment/recruitment of procurement specialists and two engineers on the project team, ensuring the Steering Committee met. On the positive the EA took steps to find innovative arrangements to enable completion of the rehabilitation of the waste stabilisation ponds.

2

g) Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision making

The tools that were developed following the consumer enumeration survey and block-mapping exercise were not operationalized and no other M&E system was established to consistently monitor project inputs and outputs or outcomes and impact.

1

14

G. COMPLETION

1. IS THE PCR DELIVERED ON A TIMELY BASIS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH BANK POLICY ?

Date project reached 98% disb. Rate (or closing date if applicable) (auto-generated)

Date PCR was sent to [email protected] MM/DD/YY

Difference in months (auto-calculated)

WORKING SCORE if the difference is 6 months or less, a 4 is scored. If the difference is 6.1 or more, a 1 is scored (auto-calculated)

03/31/12 -1366,6 4

2. Briefly describe the PCR Process. Describe the Borrower’s and co-financers' involvement in producing the document. Highlight any major differences of opinion concerning the assessments made in this PCR. Describe the team composition and confirm whether a site visit was undertaken. Mention any major collaboration from other development partners. State the extent of field office involvement in producing the report. Indicate whether comments from Peer Reviewers were received on time (provide names and positions of Peer Reviewers). [100 words maximum]

Bank worked with the EA team which included the Project Manager, Accountant and Head of Commercial Unit and a local consultant Financial Analyst; visited all key project sites and consulted stakeholders; WB/EU activities were sourced from the partner implementing agency. The PCR mission was composed of two Water and Sanitation Engineers (OWAS.1/Mission Leader and Consultant-LRFO). Peer reviewers were Shingo Kikuchi (ORRU), Alice Nabalamba (ESTA) and Alain-Pierre Mbonampeka (LRFO).

H. LESSONS LEARNED

Summarize key lessons for the Bank and the Borrower suggested by the project’s outcomes [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about lessons learned, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative] 1. The project was to mean to be a "quick-fix" intervention to address the dire water supply and sanitation situation in the country's capital city, but implementation was delayed due to capacity limitations on part of the implementing agency, even after Bank's consistent interventions to ensure effective project management. The implementation capacity weakness were compounded by the traditional implementation approach in a post-conflict and fragile situation. It is recommended that rapid response procedures which are provided for under the Bank's Fragile States Facility Operations Guidelines should be universally applied for similar operations in fragile states. 2. Currency fluctuations, besides the lack of detailed engineering designs, led to cancellation of substantial elements of the project. This

situation would have been avoided if the project costs had been prepared in the currency of the financing agency (DFID) and detailed designs prepared prior to appraisal. All Bank administered projects financed with Bilateral Partnership Funds should be costed and administered in the Bilateral Fund currency. The possibility of financing an extended project preparation process which would include model investments that would enable the establishment of credible implementation teams and more accurate project activity costs needs to be considered by the Bank.

15

3. Resources for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) were provided for but due to the weak internal systems of the Executing Agency, very little attention was paid to M&E activities. Project design should always provide for establishment of a strong linkage between the executing agencies and the national agency holding the M&E mandate (i.e. the M&E unit of Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs and Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services) at the advent of the project. This would enable due attention to be paid to internal as well as external monitoring and evaluation, and execution of the due functions by the project implementation agencies. Constant follow-up of M&E activities during supervision missions is also critical. 4. The finance team at LWSC must work closer with the project team. Capital expenditures and assets under the project were not reflected in LWSC accounts. This distorts an assessment of the operations of the corporation and denies LWSC of a critical management tool. 5. The management of the EA did not appear to have given full support to the project. As a result even activities targeted at operational efficiency of LWSC were either not undertaken (audit and M&E) nor operationalized (e.g. the tools developed as part of the consumer enumeration survey and block-mapping exercise and the personnel trained by the project were not duly utilised), and follow-up on issues was difficult. At project launch and during supervision missions, due attention needs to be paid to the executing agency's oversight role, as well as ensuring due compliancy with all project covenants. 6. There were no joint supervision missions. World Bank supervision mission was in the country at the time of undertaking the PCR but referred the mission team to the Government's Implementing agency for information about the project. The apparent lack of a dedicated task manager for the World Bank administered component made the situation worse. Modalities to ensure joint supervision of co-financed projects should always be agreed during project preparation/appraisal and included in the PAR.

I. PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY

All working scores and ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA WORKING SCORE

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of outputs 2

Achievement of outcomes 2

Timeliness 3

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE 2

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Project Objectives were relevant to country development priorities. 4 Project Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected time frame.

3

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s country or regional strategy

4

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s corporate priorities 4 The log frame presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives. 4 The log frame expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable. 4 The log frame states the risks and key assumptions. 3 Project complexity was matched with country capacity and political commitment. 3

Project design includes adequate risk analysis. 3 Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems were based on those already in use by government and/or other partners. 1

16

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined. 3

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal. 1

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon during design. 2

Baseline data was available or were collected during design. 3

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE 3

Supervision:

Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 2

Fiduciary Requirements 3

Project Covenants 3

Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix provided and practicality of solutions.

2

Bank provided quality management oversight. 3

PCR was delivered on a timely basis 4

SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE 3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 3


Design and Readiness

Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. 3

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) are ready at appraisal.

1

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are agreed upon 2

Baseline data are available or are being collected 3

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE 2

Implementation

Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 2

Fiduciary Requirements 3

Project Covenants 3

Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations.

2

Borrower collected and used of monitoring information for decision-making.

1

IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE 2

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 2

17

J. PROCESSING

STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE

Sector Manager Clearance

Regional Director Clearance

Sector Director Approval

APPENDICE 1

Scale for Working Scores and Ratings

SCORE EXPLANATION

4 Very Good- Fully achieved with no shortcomings

3 Good- Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings

2 Fair- Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced

1 Poor- Very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

NA Non Applicable

Note: The formulas round up or down for decimal points. Only whole numbers are computed.

I

Annex 1: Project Cost and Financing

Summary of Project Cost Estimates by Component

DFID Grant (In GBP Million)

Project Cost (All Sources) (In USD Million)

PAR Disbursement Actual

Component DFID WB/EC Total DFID WB/EC Total Disburse-ment %

WB/EC Allocation

Water Supply Rehabilitation 2,405 11,015 13,420 1,621 4,830 6,451 48% 6,400 Sanitation Facilities 0,563 0,680 1,243 0,231 0,720 0,951 77% 2,280 Capacity Building of LWSC 1,042 0,088 1,130 0,858 0,553 1,411 125% 0,233 Programme Management 1,322 2,790 4,112 1,395 1,174 2,569 62% 1,700 Sector Reform 0,000 0,970 0,970 0,000 0,012 0,012 1% 0,000 Miscellaneous/Adjustment 0,000 0,000 0,009 0,000 0,009 0,947

Total Project Cost 5,332 15,543 20,875 4,114 7,289 11,403 55% 11,560

Source of Financing (In USD Million)

Source of Finance PAR Disbures-ment Unpaid

Committed Total Disburs-ement %

DFID Grant 5,332 4,114 0,148 4,262 77% WB/EC 15,543 7,289 3,240 10,529 47%

Total 20,875 11,403 3,388 14,791 55%

NB: GoL Contribution was not tracked but was in the form of office space and staff salaries

Component PAR

Disburse-ment

Unpaid Committed Total

Disburse-ment % Remarks

Water Supply Rehabilitation 1,380 1,009 0,055 1,064 73% Sanitation Facilities 0,323 0,145 0,031 0,176 45% Capacity Building of LWSC 0,598 0,582 0,000 0,582 97% Programme Management 0,759 0,888 0,062 0,950 117% Sector Reform 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 Miscellaneous/Adjustment 0,000 0,006 0,000 0,006

Total Project Cost 3,060 2,630 0,148 2,778 86%

II

DFID Disbursement (Period Ending October 2011)

Year BusA Order CO object name Cost Elem. Accounting Document RefDocNo Document Header Text ObCur Val/ObjCur TCurr Value TCur Doc. Date Postg Date

2008 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000441 100000441 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP 104 688,02 EUR 109 660,00 19.12.2008 31.12.2008

2008 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000453 100000453 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP 1 GBP 1 31.12.2008 31.12.2008

2008 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000440 100000440 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP 141 755,02 USD 216 235,00 17.12.2008 17.12.2008

2009 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000036 100000036 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP -18 GBP -18 31.03.2009 31.03.2009





2009 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000034 100000034 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP 18 GBP 18 31.03.2009 31.03.2009



2009 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000101 100000101 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP 164 125,07 USD 270 293,75 14.07.2009 12.08.2009

2009 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000115 100000115 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP -0,01 GBP -0,01 30.09.2009 30.09.2009

2009 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000118 100000118 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP -92,28 GBP -92,28 30.09.2009 30.09.2009

2009 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 100000111 100000111 Atcuals for ORDRES 7xx GBP 92,28 GBP 92,28 30.09.2009 30.09.2009

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000015 3400000015 FAVOR CONSULT LTD GBP 20 246,62 EUR 22 300,00 17.09.2009 15.03.2010

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000031 3400000031 NITOKS CONSULTANTS LTD GBP 94 397,52 EUR 109 660,00 28.04.2010 12.05.2010


2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000034 3400000034 FAVOR CONSULT L GBP 19 200,75 EUR 22 300,00 28.04.2010 19.05.2010





2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000046 3400000046 COLAN CONSULT GBP 74 599,99 USD 108 117,50 27.04.2010 10.06.2010


2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000088 3400000088 FAVOR CONSULT Limited GBP 19 031,71 EUR 22 300,00 04.08.2010 23.09.2010

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000097 3400000097 Adjst CCT Q3010 GBP 10,22 GBP 10,22 30.09.2010 30.09.2010

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000099 3400000099 PHOENICIA 20 PCT HONORIUM GBP 34 849,36 USD 55 692,80 21.08.2010 03.11.2010

III

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 1900000007 1900000007 henan geo comp disb GBP 210 978,65 USD 341 297,02 20.08.2010 05.11.2010

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000100 3400000100 COLAN CONSUL GBP 112 938,20 USD 182 676,95 12.10.2010 10.11.2010

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000129 3400000129 Adjst CCT /Expenses GBP -0,99 GBP -0,99 31.12.2010 31.12.2010

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000129 3400000129 Adjst CCT /Expenses GBP 4 705,48 GBP 4 705,48 31.12.2010 31.12.2010

2010 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000111 3400000111 CHINA HENAN GEO CONS GBP 235 966,68 USD 368 744,03 02.11.2010 06.12.2010

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000006 3400000006 ICP 3 GBP 257 498,67 USD 411 740,94 30.11.2010 21.01.2011

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000038 3400000038 Adjst CCT Q1011/Expenses GBP 0,88 GBP 0,88 31.03.2011 31.03.2011

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000025 3400000025 CHINA HENAN GEO COMPAGNY GBP 111 939,80 USD 182 125,51 04.02.2011 24.03.2011

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000026 3400000026 PHOENICIA GBP 51 378,90 USD 83 146,12 09.01.2011 25.03.2011

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000035 3400000035 COLAN CONSULT GBP 158 731,36 USD 263 143,94 18.03.2011 28.04.2011

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000036 3400000036 CHINA HENAN GEO GBP 121 644,41 USD 201 661,41 04.03.2011 28.04.2011

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000064 3400000064 Adjst CCT & Expenses GBP 823,16 GBP 823,16 30.06.2011 30.06.2011

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000066 3400000066 CHINA HENAN GEO GBP 71 325,60 USD 115 111,85 07.04.2011 21.07.2011

703732 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita

GBP 2 570 395,86

Total Payments GBP 2 570 395,86

Unpaid committed balance USD 267 992,27

Unpaid committed balance GBP 166 053,36

2 736 449,22

2011 9GB2 703731 Monrovia Water and Sanitation Rehabilita 813110 3400000066 3400000066 PHOENICIA 20 PCT HONORIUM GBP 58 988,31 USD 92 448,84 07.04.2011 5.10.2011

IV

DisDisbursement Currencies

Total Disbursement Contract Uncomiitted

Total Disbursement Contract

Unpaid Committed GBP/UA

Exchange Rate

USD/Currency

Service Code GBP USD EUR UA UA UA USD USD

UA GBP USD EUR

Consum - - 109 660,00 107 898,76

139 564,80

0,9702 1,2727

Adjust 1,00 - - 1,03

1,53

0,9702 1,5336

Consult - 216 235,00 - 146 102,59

216 235,00

0,9702

1,0000

Adjust - 18,00 - - - 17,41

- 25,55

1,0337 1,4195

TA - - 22 300,00 19 980,84

28 196,09

1,0337 1,2644

TA - - 22 300,00 19 980,84

28 196,09

1,0337 1,2644

Consum - - 109 600,00 100 317,52

138 578,10

1,0337 1,2644

TA - - 22 300,00 19 980,84

28 196,09

1,0337 1,2644

Adjust 18,00 - - 17,41

25,55

1,0337 1,4195

TA - - 22 300,00 19 963,64

31 438,64

0,9584 1,4098

TA - - 22 300,00 19 963,64

31 438,64

0,9584 1,4098

Consult - 270 293,75 - 175 036,12

270 293,75

0,9377

1,0000

Adjust - 0,01 - - - 0,01

- 0,01

0,9580 1,4195

Adjust - 92,28 - - - 96,33

- 130,99

0,9580 1,4195

Adjust 92,28 - - 96,33

130,99

0,9580 1,4195

TA - - 22 300,00 20 110,67

30 261,06

1,0068 1,3570

Consum - - 109 660,00 95 339,57

145 632,52

0,9901 1,3280

Consum - - 219 320,00 190 679,14

291 265,04

0,9901 1,3280

TA - - 22 300,00 19 392,37

29 615,22

0,9901 1,3280

TA - - 22 300,00 19 392,37

29 615,22

0,9901 1,3280

TA - - 22 300,00 19 392,37

29 615,22

0,9901 1,3280

TA - - 22 300,00 19 392,37

29 615,22

0,9901 1,3280

TA - - 22 300,00 19 392,37

29 615,22

0,9901 1,3280

Consult - 108 117,50 - 73 773,72

108 117,50

1,0112

1,0000

Consum - - 109 660,00 92 350,17

142 865,27

0,9749 1,3028

TA - - 22 300,00 19 428,89

28 276,45

0,9796 1,2680

V

Adjust 10,22 - - 10,43

15,74

0,9796 1,5404

Stab - 55 692,80 - 35 302,04

55 692,80

0,9872

1,0000

Distr - 341 297,02 - 213 719,17

341 297,02

0,9872

1,0000

Consult - 182 676,95 - 114 405,22

182 676,95

0,9872

1,0000

Adjust - 0,99 - - - 1,01

- 1,58

0,9826 1,5922

Adjust 4 705,48 - - 4 788,81

7 492,10

0,9826 1,5922

Distr - 368 744,03 - 240 145,70

368 744,03

0,9826

1,0000

Distr - 411 740,94 - 258 078,06

411 740,94

0,9978

1,0000

Adjust 0,88 - - 0,91

1,43

0,9690 1,6234

Distr - 182 125,51 - 115 522,98

182 125,51

0,9690

1,0000

Stab - 83 146,12 - 53 023,53

83 146,12

0,9690

1,0000

Consult - 263 143,94 - 161 102,79

263 143,94

0,9853

1,0000

Distr - 201 661,41 - 123 461,77

201 661,41

0,9853

1,0000

Adjust 823,16 - - 848,63

1 358,46

0,9700 1,6503

Distr - 115 111,85 - 71 341,30

115 111,85

0,9998

1,0000

2 609 620,12

Stab - 92 448,84 - 59 693,83

92 448,84

0,9882 1,5672 1,0000

juil-11

Disbursement Currency

VI

- 1 620 680,76 - 1 022 268,96 1 076 070,92 53 801,96 1 620 680,76 1 706 485,09 85 804,33 0,9882 1,5672

- 138 838,92 - 88 325,57 177 037,94 88 712,37 138 838,92 280 319,00 141 480,08 0,9882 1,5672

- - 657 900,00 586 585,16 586 585,16

857 905,73

- 1 040 467,14 - 670 420,45 695 945,54 25 525,08 1 040 467,14 1 081 175,00 40 707,86 0,9882 1,5672

- - 267 600,00 236 371,18 236 371,18

354 079,17

5 539,74 - - 5 648,80 5 648,80

8 867,67

5 539,74 2 799 986,82 925 500,00 2 609 620,12 2 777 659,54 168 039,42 4 020 839,39 3 067 979,09 267 992,27

oct-11

Disbursement Currency

- 1 620 680,76 - 1 022 268,96 1 077 672,46 55 403,50 1 620 680,76 1 706 485,09 85 804,33 0,9882 1,5672

- 231 287,76 - 148 019,40 179 678,67 31 659,27 231 287,76 280 319,00 49 031,24 0,9882 1,5672

- - 657 900,00 586 585,16 586 585,16

857 905,73 857 905,73

- 1 040 467,14 - 670 420,45 732 680,94 62 260,49 1 040 467,14 1 136 891,00 96 423,86 0,9882 1,5672

- - 267 600,00 236 371,18 236 371,18

354 079,17 354 079,17

5 539,74 - - 5 648,80 5 648,80

8 867,67 8 867,67

5 539,74 2 892 435,66 925 500,00 2 669 313,95 2 818 637,20 149 323,25 4 113 288,23 4 344 547,66 231 259,43

1.0 UA = 1.46931 USD

1.0 UA = 87.8440 LRD

1.0 EURO = 1.36 USD

VII

juil-11

Total Disbursement Contract

Unpaid Committed

GBP

Distr

1 009 353,81 1 062 519,89 53166,0756

Stab

86 228,26 173 892,14 87663,88164

Consum

581 613,54 581 613,54

Consult

652 149,64 677 373,04 25223,40262

TA

235 510,87 235 510,87

Adjust

5 539,74 5 539,74

Total Payments

2 570 395,86 2 736 449,22 166 053,36

oct-11

Total Disbursement

GBP

1 Distr

1 009 353,81 1 064 102,49 54748,68497

2 Stab

145 216,57 176 501,66 31285,08681

3 Consum

581 613,54 581 613,54 -

4 Consult

652 149,64 713 674,27 61524,6286

4 TA

235 510,87 235 510,87 -

6 Adjust

5 539,74 5 539,74

VIII

Component Item Item Description Allocation Contract Value Disbures-ment Unpaid

Committed 1 1.0 Water supply rehab

1 1.1a

White Plains Water Treatment Plant 4 350 000,00

1 1.1

One new Deutz engine procured and installed]Overhauled old Deutz engine 79 497,00 79 497,00 Completed

1 1.2 Overhauled old Deutz engine 11 389,00 11 389,00 Completed

1 1.3 Overhauled old Iveco engine 10 461,00 10 461,00 Completed

1 1.4 Gaseous chlorinator (scale) 182 000,00 182 000,00 Completed

1 1.5 Laboratory (Chemicals and Reagents) 55 837,00 55 837,00 Completed

1 1.6 Civil works 145 983,00 145 983,00 Completed

4 1.7 Civil works supervision 39 500,00 39 500,00 Completed Design-Supervision

1 1.8 One new deutz engine procured and installed 95 000,00 95 000,00 Completed

1 1.9 Access road along 36" water transmission line 883 325,69 593 748,05 289 577,64 in progress

Subtotal 4 350 000,00 1 502 992,69 1 213 415,05 289 577,64

1 2.0 Transmission Pipelines, Booster/Reservoirs 400 000,00

1 2.1 Rehab of selected booster stations and reservoirs 841 461,11 337 040,90 504 420,21 in progress

1 2.2

Supply, installation, testing and commissioning of high-lift pumps and generators 1 516 975,00 151 697,00 1 365 278,00 in progress

4 2.3 Supervisions for lines 2.1 & 2.2 192 450,00 59 150,00 133 300,00 in progress

Design-Supervision

1 2.4 Rehab of Monrovia water distribution network Lot 1B 3 142 746,41 2 985 451,95 157 294,46 in progress

1 2.5 Water - secondary cities 1 300 000,00 dropped Subtotal 1 700 000,00 5 693 632,52 3 533 339,85 2 160 292,67

1 3.0 Distribution system 120 000,00 1 3.1 Distribution pipes procured 134 765,00 134 765,00 Completed

1 3.2 Pipe laying 15 013,00 15 013,00 Completed 1 3.3 Compressor 3 480,00 3 480,00 Completed 1 3.4 Additional materials 29 005,00 29 005,00 Completed

1 3.5 Provision of spare parts and consumables 230 000,00

Subtotal 350 000,00 182 263,00 182 263,00 0,00

4 Sanitation 2 4.1 Rehab of pumping stations 1 400 000,00 Drop

2 4.2 Repair of sewerage network 200 000,00 200 000,00 200 000,00 Completed

2 4.3 Rehab of public toilets 300 000,00 200 000,00 200 000,00 Completed 2 4.4 Jetting Equipment 300 000,00 Drop 2 4.5 Sensitisation campaign 80 000,00 100 000,00 100 000,00 Completed

IX

4 4.6 Study and design of sewage lift stations 300 000,00 300 000,00 Completed

2 4.7 Rehab of sewage lift stations (works) 820 000,00 220 000,00 600 000,00 In progress

Subtotal 2 280 000,00 1 620 000,00 1 020 000,00 600 000,00 3 5 Capacity Building 232 891,00 3 5.1 Logistics and software 161 000,00 161 000,00 Completed

3 5.2 Water meters 392 100,00 392 100,00 Completed 4 5.3 Corporate Audit 189 982,16 189 982,16 Awarded 3 Misc 109,00 109,00 109,00

Subtotal 233 000,00 743 191,16 553 209,00 189 982,16 4 6. Project Management 1 700 000,00

4 6.1 Engineering Consultancy (AB&H Donohue) 698 788,00 698 788,00 Completed

4 6.2 Addendum 1 (AB&H Donohue) 38 500,00 38 500,00 Completed

4 6.3 Addendum 2 (AB&H Donohue) 78 700,00 38 409,73 Completed

Subtotal 1 700 000,00 815 988,00 775 697,73 0,00 7 Sector Reform

5

Operations and Management Study of LWSC

5 Policy (Mohammed Llies) 40 000,00 12 100,00 Completed Subtotal 0,00 40 000,00 12 100,00 0,00

Base Cost 10 613 000,00 10 598 067,37 7 290 024,63 3 239 852,47 Misc 10% Contingency 947 000,00 Grand Total 11 560 000,00 10 598 067,37 7 290 024,63 3 239 852,47

Summary By Component Allocation Contract Value Disburesment Unpaid

Committed 1 Water supply rehab 6 400 000,00 7 146 938,21 4 830 367,90 2 316 570,31 2 Sanitation 2 280 000,00 1 320 000,00 720 000,00 600 000,00 3 Capacity Building 233 000,00 553 209,00 553 209,00 0,00 4 Programme Management 1 700 000,00 1 537 920,16 1 174 347,73 323 282,16 5 Sector Reform 0,00 40 000,00 12 100,00 0,00 Misc Contingency 947 000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 11 560 000,00 10 598 067,37 7 290 024,63 3 239 852,47

Source IIU

X

Annex 2: Bank Inputs

Missions Member

Start End Days Name Specialty

05/09/2008 21/11/2008 78 R. K. Situmbeko Financial Analyst

J. J. Hukka Water & Sanitation Engineer

I. Samba Environmental Consultant

15/06/2009 24/06/2009

Paul Dzimiri Snr Financial Analyst

24/06/2009 10/07/2009 17 Sisay Sahle Water & Sanitation Engineer

Mohamoud Ibrahim Financial Analyst Consultant

Idrissa Samba Environmental Expert

Nana Kposidintsi Health Expert

28/09/2009 07/10/2009 10 Awa Bamba Manager Water & Sanitation Division

Tom R. Mugoya Principal Water & Sanitation Engineer

11/10/2010 19/10/2010 9 Tom R. Mugoya Principal Water & Sanitation Engineer

Shiaka I. Momoh Procurement Assistant (SLFO)

Agyei Owusu Mensah Financial Management Specialist (GHFO)

14/03/2011 25/03/2011 12 Tom R. Mugoya Principal Water & Sanitation Engineer

Agyei Owusu Mensah Financial Management Specialist (GHFO)

13/06/2011 20/06/2011 2 Rogers Lubunga Principal Irrigation Engineer


Mission 1 also undertook Preparation of UWSSP Mission 2 also undertook Appraisal of UWSSRP

16/07/2009 19/07/2009 4 Yvan Kedaj Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

30/04/2011 06/05/2011 7 Franz Hollhuber Water supply and Sanitation Specialist

Rogers Lubunga Principal Water & Sanitation Engineer


XI

Financial Rate of Return (Million USD)

Annual Income Projection

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Production Capacity

( Millions M3 )/Day 0,013 0,014 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 0,031 Production Capacity ( Millions M3 )/Year

4,88 5,18

11,35 11,35

11,35 11,35

11,35 11,35

11,35 11,35

11,35 11,35 11,35 11,35

11,35 11,35 11,35 11,35

11,35 11,35

11,35

Less: Wastage & Losses

2,68

2,59

5,33

4,99

4,54

4,20

3,97

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

Net Sales ( Million M3 )

2,19 2,59

6,02

6,36

6,81

7,15

7,38

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

7,95

Tariff Rate/M3

$ 0,60 $ 0,60

$ 0,60

$ 0,60

$ 0,60

$ 0,60

$ 0,63

$ 0,63

$ 0,63

$ 0,63

$ 0,63

$ 0,66

$ 0,66

$ 0,66

$ 0,66

$ 0,66

$ 0,69

$ 0,69

$ 0,69

$ 0,69

$ 0,69

Total Revenue

1,32 1,55

3,61

3,81

4,09

4,29

4,65

5,01

5,01

5,01

5,01

5,26

5,26

5,26

5,26

5,26

5,52

5,52

5,52

5,52

5,52

Operating Cost:

Total O & M

1,10 1,10

1,10

1,10

1,10

1,10

1,10

1,10

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

1,21

Depreciation

0,90 0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

Total Operating Expenses

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

2,11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

-

-

Net Income(Loss)

(0,68)

(0,45)

1,61

1,81

2,09

2,29

2,65

3,01

2,90

2,90

2,90

3,15

3,15

3,15

3,15

3,15

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

XII

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

YEAR

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Net Income

(0,68)

(0,45)

1,61

1,81

2,09

2,29

2,65

3,01

2,90

2,90

2,90

3,15

3,15

3,15

3,15

3,15

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

3,41

Plus:

Depreciation Expense

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

0,90

Investment

22,60 -

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

-

-

Cashflow

(22,38)

0,45

2,51

2,71

2,99

3,19

3,55

3,91

3,80

3,80

3,80

4,05

4,05

4,05

4,05

4,05

4,31

4,31

4,31

4,31

4,31

Cumulative Cashflow

(21,93)

(19,42)

(16,70)

(13,72)

(10,53)

(6,98)

(3,07)

0,72

4,52

8,31

12,36

16,40

20,45

24,50

28,54

(2,67)

1,64

5,95

10,26

5,95

Net Present Value & FIRR Analysis 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

(22,38)

0,45

2,51

2,71

2,99

3,19

3,55

3,91

3,80

3,80

3,80

4,05

4,05

4,05

4,05

3,55

4,31

4,31

4,31

4,31

Financial Rate of Return (IRR) 12,211%

Net Present Value (NPV) $3,71

XIII

Annex 3: Financial and Economic Analysis

1 Introduction This Annex contains details financial and economic analysis which was done as part of Project Completion Report (PCR) for Monrovia Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation Project (MWSSR). The main objective of the project was to rehabilitate 50% of pre-conflict capacity of Monrovia Water and Sanitation system to enable delivery of services to an estimated 700,000 people, including improving awareness and attitudes on sanitation and hygiene practices, in addition to improving the capacity of Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation (LWSC) to manage the water supply and sanitation services. The total project cost of UA 15.64 million is financed with the Bank managed DFID-TCA grant of GPB 3.0 million (UA 4.0 million) and parallel World Bank & EU grants totalling UA 16.83 million as follows.

a. United Kingdom (DFID) UA. 4.00 million (GBP 3.06 million) b. European Commission UA 5.72 million c. World Bank UA 7.09 million d. Government of Liberia UA 0.03 million

The major activities of the project, including the expected outputs and outcomes are described in the main report. In order to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative results, the following documents were used as the primary source of data:

1. Project Appraisal Report; 2. Documentary proof that funding was applied in the manner as declared in the project appraisal report; 3. Mandate of the LWSC as per appropriate legislation; 4. LWSC Annual Reports for 2008, 2009, and 2010; 5. Audited financial statements; 6. Analysis of customers base, from 2008 to end 2010 7. Report on staff capacity built as a direct result of the grant; 8. Report on usage of water kiosks as per the program objective; 9. A list of sector reforms completed during the 28 months of the program;

The sources of secondary data to determine outcomes are challenged by paucity of data. There is minimal data available to determine the socioeconomic impact over the project period, 2008-2010. The last credible scientific surveys on socioeconomic indicators were conducted in 2007, viz: Liberia Demographic Health Survey (LDHS) of 2007, the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) of 2007, and the National Population and Housing Census (NPCH) of 2008. The Labor Force Survey (LFS) was released in the middle of 2011. Other sources of secondary data are:

1. Liberia Institute for Statistics and Geo Information Services 2. Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW) Annual Reports 3. Liberia Malaria Information Survey of the MOWSW of 2010 4. United Nations Human Development Reports, 2008, 2009, 2010 5. World Bank Database 2009 and 2010

The financial and economic justifications and sensitivity analysis in the Project Appraisal Report were reviewed, the financial statements of LWSC re-examined and matching tests conducted to determine viability.

2 Economic and Financial Analysis

2.1 Financial Justification for Project (November 2007 Project Appraisal Report) The financial justification of the project in the appraisal report was based on financial viability vis-à-vis Financial Rate of Return (FRR) utilizing the following assumptions:

1. Cash flow is for 15 years including implementing period of 5 years; 2. Revenues are based on water tariff level at the time of project implementation; 3. Operating costs consist of expenses for staff, electricity, fuel, maintenance and other administrative costs are assumed at 60%

of incremental revenue; 4. Residual value of fixed assets is assumed to be 20% of the initial investment.

The FRR was calculated to be 8% and deemed suitable for funding as a grant.

XIV

2.2 Economic Justification (November 2007 Project Appraisal Report)

Projected Benefits Actual Benefits

1. Increase in water production from 7,750 m3/d (2 mgd) to 34,069 m3/d (9 mgd) by 2008; and 68,137 m3//d by 2010 (18 mgd);

Water production stands at 7,700 m3/day

2. Ensure access to water by an additional 625,000 people by 2010;

Access to water via LWSC is estimated to now reach only 30,000 (6,000 customers multiplied by 5 which is the average size of household in Liberia)

3. Improved sanitation services were estimated to benefit 300,000 people;

Improved sanitation services coverage not quantified due to lack of primary sources and secondary data.

4. Positive education impact There is an impact on education, but no source of secondary data to confirm.

5. Positive health impact by monetary savings on costs of hospitalization and medications;

Positive health impact cannot be quantified due to lack of secondary data. However, overall improvements in health in the country can be partly contributed to increasing access to water and sanitation services of LWSC.

6. Additional income due to time savings from sick leave;

Projected benefits cannot be quantified.

7. Increased worker productivity;

Increased worker productivity cannot be quantified.

The Economic Rate of Return ERR at 15% was higher than the Economic Opportunity Cost of Capital (EOCC) of 10% thus

providing justification for the project.

XV

2.3 Sensitivity Analysis

Adverse variations tested against FRR and ERR included: 1. Reduced revenues/benefits resulting in the application of low tariffs and fewer number of house connections; 2. Delays in program implementation resulting in investments costs; 3. 10% reduction in revenues due to lower tariffs and fewer connections, in addition to program implementation

delay would lower the FRR from 8% to 6.5% and from 8% to 5% respectively. 4. The rehabilitation program was deemed more sensitive to increase in investment costs rather than decrease

in revenues. 5. A 10% reduction or increase in investment costs as a result of delays would lower the project ERR from 15%

to 10%. 6. A combination of both delays in revenues/benefits and 10% increase in investment costs would lead to an

ERR of 7.5%

2.4 Financial Analysis Assumptions for the Calculation of the Financial and Economic Rates of Return General:

All currency are expressed in USD with exchange rate stated at 1USD equivalent to 72 LRD

The current cost of facilities currently in place is considered sunk cost.

Project Life- 20 years with a salvage value of 80% expressed over the life of the project. The project costs were not captured as donated capital in the LWSC financial statements, and they were not depreciated over 2008, 2009 and 2010-2011. The project cost was depreciated over 20 years and the residual was assumed to be 20 percent of investment amount. Only the amount of project cost was depreciated in this financial model.

Financial Analysis Costs: Project is estimated at USD 22.6 million Operating Costs: Operations and Maintenance Costs (O&M Costs) assumed as 6 percent of initial investment project from 2010 to 2017 and increase to 10 percent from 2018 to 2030 due to ageing of capital equipment. B. Unaccounted for Water (losses) - are assumed as of production capacity is as follows: Loss (%)

2010 = 55% 2011 = 50% 2012 = 47% 2013 = 44% 2014 = 40% 2015 = 37% 2016 = 35% 2017 = 30%, and thereafter

XVI

Revenue Projected to be 1939m3/hour multiply by 16 hours equals 31024m3/day and multiply by 365 days equals 11,323,760m3/annum. We then calculate 5 percent down time and the annual production is estimated at 10,757,572m3. Therefore the incremental production is projected to be 5,850,000m3 per annum beginning in 2012 which is 119 percent increase over current production of 4,900,000m3. Revenue is net of unaccounted for water losses and uncollectable billings to customers. Losses are estimated as per above B. Average tariff charged to various categories of consumers are USD 0.60/cubic meter (LRD 43.25) and is projected to increase by 5 percent every five years. The Economic Rate of Return ERR at 15% was higher than the Economic Opportunity Cost of Capital (EOCC) of 10% thus providing justification for the project. Examination of ERR versus EOCC shows that project benefits still vastly superior to EOCC.

2.5 Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity analysis was done on project cost during and after the implementation phase. All of the costs are sunken. Profitability could be impacted by continued water losses, illegal connections, poor management or increases in operational costs due to fuel price increases or other variables. In the previous sensitivity analysis done during the appraisal period, project implementation time frame, tariff rates, and customer base were factors that would negatively impact the project. Those factors will continue to impact profitability and thus the net present values and FRR. Broadly, the following factors will impact net revenues and increase or decrease profitability of the corporation:

1. Increases or decreases in unaccounted for water losses; 2. Condition of water lines would prevent new connections, although production capacity would rise by 119 percent

in 2012. 3. Bad debts expense; 4. Billing cycle errors; 5. Mismanagement, including lack of preventive maintenance that would increase down time.

2.6 Economic Analysis In order to calculate the economic cost, we converted the financial costs. We used a standard conversion factor (STF) of .80 which approximates circumstances within the Liberian economy as the economy is widely viewed as open. We sought to determine the economic benefits by analyzing the following factors:

a. Time Savings (Reduction in time to search for water). We estimated that many people in Monrovia would save one hour a day fetching water upon completion of the project. What was difficult to determine is the total number of people that would be served in the reach of the project. Previous estimates of 625,000 people by 2010 have not been realized. If we use the customer base of the LWSC multiply by the number of people in a household, we arrive at only 30,000 people, and then we include customers being served at kiosks, which is stated to be 4,200. The time savings to 34,200 people would amount to 34,200 man hours per day in theory amounting to 12,483,000 man hours per year. If we multiply this figure by 8 hours of work day, the minimum wage in Liberia is now USD6.00 per 8 hour day. That would mean .75USD per hour. We can now state that .75 X 12,483,000 equals USD9,362,000 would be saved.

b. Reduction in absenteeism. No data is available to determine the number of sicknesses reduced from waterborne diseases. However, we assume, that 20 percent of the cases from waterborne diseases would be prevented. That would indicate 6,800 people. Absentee time savings are assumed to be 5 days for diseases. If we multiply 6,800 by 5, that would indicate the number of man days saved.

c. Cost Savings. The savings from hospitalization at USD15.00 per each occurrence multiplied by the number of people (6,800) indicates that 102,000 would be saved on hospitalization, with an additional 5 dollars per person for medicines, which indicates USD 34,000.

XVII

d. Direct benefits are represented by incremental water sales produced by the project. The incremental water sales

is 119 percent of 2011 production or 5,180,000m3. The additional income which is the incremental water sales multiplied by .60USD. Water from alternative sources were analyzed and shown to be 2.11USD per cubic meter. We estimate that consumers would be willing to pay USD1.05 cents by cubic meter. That represents a surplus of .45USD representing a surplus. The surplus cannot be converted to other economic activities.

2.7 Financial and Economic Results The FRR is 12.2% with an NPV of US$3.71 million. Using the conversion factor of .80, we get total economic costs of US$18.96 million (.80 X(investment cost+ maintenance costs). The economic benefits are as follows: US$97.2 million (total of revenues for 20 years) plus savings in man hours US$12.48 million, plus US$0.14 million in hospital costs. If the economic benefits are shadow priced, we see that the project economic benefits far exceed the financial costs.

3 Socioeconomic Impact Analysis The consultants sought to determine the socioeconomic impact of the project based on the key performance indicators in the project document, as it relates to the government’s poverty reduction strategy in the areas of health, education, jobs creation, increased economic opportunities as a result of sustaining the operations of LWSC and overall improvements in economic efficiency. The consultants reviewed the following:

A. Overview of water and sanitation situation in Liberia B. Overview of water and sanitation situation in Monrovia C. Analysis of water and sanitation services to determine the following:

1. Economic contribution to water and sanitation in Monrovia, pre and post grant analysis 2. Health and hygiene 3. Improvements in control of water borne diseases 4. Improvements in time management and personal energy resources of Monrovia residents; 5. Other socioeconomic analysis:

a) Poverty indices b) Education c) Health: maternal mortality; infant mortality d) Other improvements in quality of life

There have been marked improvements in the quality of life of Monrovia residents due to the increase in pipe borne water and sanitation services. There is no secondary source of data that is specific to Monrovia residents. Overall, poverty indices in Liberia are decreasing due to other factors such as an improved macroeconomic environment. According to the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, maternal mortality has decreased from 994 per 100,000 in 2006, to 890 by end of 2010. The infant mortality rate has decreased from 75 to 73, while the under five mortality has shrunk from 235 to 110.

4 Project Coordination and Management Project coordination and management was led by a project management team consisting of:

1. Engineer 2. Financial Manager 3. Procurement specialist.

They worked with the LWSC management in ensuring timely implementation of the project. But there were several delays which impacted implementation of the project. The team also worked with agencies of the Liberian government including the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy, Ministry of Public Works and other relevant government agencies. However, interviews with key personnel over the writing of this report seem to believe that project coordination was poor and ineffective.

XVIII

5 Monitoring and Evaluation There was no dedicated outside monitoring of the project. However, the LWSC budgeted USD$30,000 for monitoring and evaluation and there is no evidence that the in house m/e took place. LWSC also faces serious challenges due to lack of capacity. There are several foreign experts working on different phases of the company’s rebuilding program. What needs to happen is for expertise to be outsourced in the interim for effective monitoring and evaluation while in house capacity is being built.

6 Lessons Learned, Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Lessons Learned and Conclusions The MWSS project contributed immensely to the water and sanitation needs of residents of Monrovia. However its socioeconomic benefits could not be quantified due to a dearth of information that would match projected benefits against secondary sources of data. Only subsequent published data, such as the next Liberia demographic and health survey or the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire can provide specific answers. Project coordination seems a challenge although it appears that implementation of the project was coordinated with other strategic plans of the government of Liberia such as the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy (iPRS). While the water and sanitation needs of Monrovia residents were urgent and required utmost attention at the time of the project appraisal in 2007, better coordination could have resulted into increased number of households served and greater socioeconomic benefits. LWSC did not record the transaction on its books and therefore could not provide subsequent information on its effectiveness. The new management is working backwards to determine the empirical values associated with the project from mostly guess estimates. For example, the old management did not include the capital portion of the project on its balance sheet or asset register and therefore it is nearly impossible to determine the financial values associated with the project. Most of the figures used in past performance of the corporation came from annual reports, which do not indicate if financial statements provided were audited to determine the authenticity of the numbers.

6.2 Recommendations What is required now is more strategic planning and integration of the project into the development model for Liberia’s overall infrastructure needs. Monitoring and evaluation seems challenging. A dedicated monitoring and evaluation mechanism must be developed within the LWSC. Capacity needs to be built especially around project identification, coordination and implementation. The finance team at LWSC must work closer with the project team. Long term viability of LWSC is at stake. Water losses, including thefts, billing cycle management are still a challenge at the corporation. The new management has indicated it is putting into place appropriate mechanisms to deal with these challenges. Although the project outcomes such as socioeconomic benefits are not quantifiable due to a dearth of secondary data sources, the potential of the LWSC to positively impact the lives of ordinary Liberians is immense. The economic opportunity costs match against socioeconomic benefits are valid reasons for continued support to the corporation. The potential of LWSC to serve as source of support to the economic and social wellbeing of Liberians might have been understated in the original project appraisal. The availability of pipe borne water is the greatest source of socioeconomic development in Liberia. Due to the density and increase in the population of the city of Monrovia, support to water and sanitation should continue to be priorities.

XIX

Last Procurement Plan

2. NCB (ii) Expression of Interest (EOI),

3. Direct Contracting 50 000 (iii) Tender documents or RFPs from Consultants

4. Shopping (International)

(iv) Tender Evaluation reports or Reports on Evaluation of Consultants' Proposals, including recommendations for Award of Contract Draft Contracts, if these have been amended from the drafts included in the tender invitation documents

5. Shopping (Local)

6. Others

Liberia MWSSRP: Procurement Packages with Methods and Time Schedule for Services

Basic Data

Description of Contract

Lot Number

Estimated Amount in USD

Procurement Method

Pre-or Post Qualification

Dom/Reg. Preference

(Y/N) Prior or Post Review

Lumpsum or Bill of

Quantities

Issue # of Invitation

for Bids

Expected Bid closing Date

Delay (in days)

P Vacuum truck 200 000,00 IS N/A N/A Prior Review Lumpsum 0

R

A

P Distribution network 1A 1 720 000 ICB N/A N/A Prior Review Lumpsum 0

R

A

P Stabilisation Ponds 4 180 000 NCB N/A N/A Prior Review Lumpsum 0

R

A

P Engineering design and supervision

889 000,00 SL N/A N/A Prior Review Lumpsum 0

R

A

Total Cost

2 989 000,00

XX

Bid Documents Bidding Period Bid Evaluation Contract Award Contract Implementation

Plan vs. Actual Date

Proposed

Date Bank

Review

Bid Invitation

Date

Bid Closing-Opening

Bid Evaluation

Report

Date Bank Review

Contract Amount USD

Date Contract Award

Date Contract Signature

Start Date End Date

Plan 10-Sep-09 25-Feb-10

Revise

Actual

Plan 29-juin-09 6-Jul-09 10-Jul-09 21-Aug-09 4-Sep-09 11-Sep-09 1 706 485,09 25-Sep-09 2-Oct-09 13-Aug-10 13-Apr-11

Revise 1-May-11

Actual

Plan 29-juin-09 6-Jul-09 10-Jul-09 21-Aug-09 11-Sep-09 18-Sep-09 278 464,00 2-Oct-09 10-Oct-09 1-Sep-10 1-Mar-11

Revise 30-Jun-11

Actual

Plan 1 018 802,00 22-Oct-08 5-Nov-08 6-Sep-10

Revise 1 081 175,00 19-May-11

Actual

XXI

Annex 5 - List of Supporting Documents

1 LWSC Annual reports (3No.) 2008, 09, 10 2 Aide memoir (6No.): Jun-11, Mar-11, Oct-2010, Sep-09, Jun/Jul-09, Sep-Nov-08 3 QPR (3No.) 2008/Q1, 2008/Q3 & 2009/Q1 4 Functional training and customers enumeration update, Workshops conducted by Nitoks Consultants Ltd

5 Performance Indicator template, LWSC 6 PCR-Technical Assistance consultancy, Favor Consult Ltd, Feb 2010 7 Overview of training & consumer enumeration project being undertaken by Nitcounter Consortium, Nitoks

Consultants July 2009 8 Actual and projected customer base 2008-2012 from Commercial Department 9 Unaudited financial statements from 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 10 Progress reports Colan Consult, MWSSRP, Engineering consultancy services for designs, tender evaluation

and construction supervision: (9No): Dec -94, Nos. 2 (Jun-10), 3 (Jul-10), 4 (Aug-10), 5 (Sep-10), 7 (Nov-10), 8 (Jan-11), 9 (Feb-11), 10 (Jun- 11)

11 Assessment report, Colan Consult, Feb 2009 12 Final design report, MWSSRP, Colan Consult, June 2009 13 Lot 3, IPC 3, May 2011 14 Lot 3, Variation orders, June 2011 15 Lot 1A, IPC6, March 2011 16 Lot 1A, Variation orders, March 2011 17 National IWRM policy, MLME, July 2009 18 Water supply and sanitation policy, MLME, November 2009

19 Letters/Memos a Equipment and offices turnover, Nitcounter consortium, December 2009 b Supply of training related equipment and aids, Nitoks consultants Ltd, December 2009 c Inventory log, Nitoks Office, December 2009

20 Contracts a Contract for consultancy services for training and consumer enumeration update, Consortium of Nitcounter

Consultants Ltd, October 2008 b Contract for Consultancy services for technical assistance, Favor Consult Ltd, October 2008 c Contract for consultancy services for engineering designs and supervision, Colan, October 2008 d Ditto Addendum I, September 2010 e Tender documents, Construction of waste stabilization pond (Lot 3), June 2009 f Contract documents Vols. I, construction of water stabilization pond (Lot 3), June 2010 g Draft contract, Vols. I & II, rehabilitation of Monrovia Distribution network (Lot 1A), June 2009