PMAIIM - Final Project Report John Constance MSc in Project Management, University of Liverpool

1.0 Introduction The objective of this final project is to present a comparative analysis of two ASI USAID (2012) complementary projects implemented in eastern Afghanistan. These projects are the Sarkani Suspension Footbridge Project and the Karez Extension Project respectively. The report provides an overview of the two project and explains the demands for these projects, the benefits it brings to the stakeholders, and the needs of stakeholders including their interest, involvement and critical success factors criteria in the projects, as well as the regulations, politics, environmental and social issues, safety and security forebodings, models of financing, and the execution and control mechanism used to manage the projects. The report will conclude by looking back at the lessons learned from both projects and recommend means and methods to improve the success rates of managing the implementation for infrastructure projects. 2.0 Projects overview Sarkani Suspension Footbridge Project (SSFP) The SSFP is a community-based infrastructure project implemented in Sarkani District, Kunar Province, in Eastern Afghanistan. The project is a transportation infrastructure as classified by Business Monitor International, Ltd. (2010) or a land transport facility as listed by Goodman & Hastak (2006, p.1.3). The objective was to construct over Kunar river a 130 meters span cable suspension footbridge in accordance to codes, standards and specifications of AAHSTO, ASTM and the International Building Code, at the subcontract cost of $600.000.00 US dollars within 150 working days or six calendar months. Based on Goodman & Hastak (2006, p.1.3) eight general steps of planning and implementing infrastructure projects, the challenges included the following: Establishing project goals and objectives how to combine community work policy of seven hours daily six days a week against the government and project clients work policy of 8 hours daily five days a week. This was resolved by using community work policy and providing workers with daily productivity that once not completed equal no daily wage.

Decision how workers wages was to be paid. The community and government wanted wages be paid to workers based solely on team leaders approvals and the client wanted wages be paid directly to individual workers based on daily attendance and productivity worksheets. The project management contractor site representative and finance team keeping daily attendance and productivity records and making payments in close consultation with team leaders resolved this. Project operations and maintenance the community and government wanted the client to include budget lines for operations and maintenance whereas the client wanted to cover only planning, design and construction. This was resolved by another partner (UNDP) coming in to cover 3 years costs for O&M activities

The project was completed with a budget of $587,000.00 US dollars, but within 204 days due to 12 days of flooding and 36 days of insurgency. Karez Extension Project (KEP) The KEP is a technology-based infrastructure project implemented in Kunar District, Kunar Province, in Eastern Afghanistan. The project is energy and utilities infrastructure as classified by Business Monitor International, Ltd. (2010) or a water supply infrastructure as listed by Goodman & Hastak (2006, p.1.3). The objective was to extend an existing Karez by 10 kilometers along the route that leads through 22 farming villages to the province capital city. The route include several underground utilities including pipelines and electrical cables therefore the project had to employ subsurface utility engineering or SUE to identify all underground utilities before design and construction to avoid conflicts during construction. The SUE was applied using ASCE C-1-38-02 and the Karez applied the International Building Code and ASTM. The project subcontract cost was $1,000.000.00 US dollars to be completed within 250 working days or twelve calendar months. The challenges included the following based on Goodman & Hastak (2006, p.1.3) eight general steps of planning and implementing infrastructure projects: Problem identification and analysis there were no existing data on existing underground utilities to determine the location of underground pipes or electrical lines. This was resolved by applying Quality levels A to determine existing and approximate horizontal location of subsurface utilities Quality level B to expose and subsequently measure subsurface utilities at a specific point using vacuum excavation, surveying and surface geophysics technology The project was completed with a budget of $930,000.00 US dollars but within 320 days due to 20 days of flooding and 50 days of insurgency.

3.0 Demands for the projects and Stakeholders benefits 3.1 The demand for SSFP was overwhelming as the absence of the footbridge made access to the district center for more than 37 communities long and difficult. These communities had to travel more than 2 hours to get to the city center. The footbridge reduced travel time by three-quarters and increased villagers outreach to government authorities. As described by Vickerman (2009) the footbridge project was in par to regulatory constraints that enhanced vital economic activities and cost effectiveness to public services as villagers increased goods and services to and from the district center. Overall the project benefitted directly approximately 52 villages (80,000 people) on both sides of the river and indirectly the 413,008 people in the district (CSO Afghanistan, 2006). Based on Yang et al (2010) survey results the CFS for the SSFP were to manage stakeholders with social responsibilities communicate with and engage stakeholders appropriately and repeatedly. 3.2 As farmers close to the district center felt the drought of their farms the demand for year-round water supply became obvious and constant request by more than 75 farmers in 22 villages. As described by Vickerman (2009) the right to access to water was the driving cause of extending the existing Karez to improve public services of water supply to the villagers. This infrastructure directly benefited 75 farmers in 22 villages of population 100,000 and indirectly the 413,008 people in the district (CSO Afghanistan, 2006). Based on Yang et al (2010) survey results the CFS for the SSFP were to manage stakeholders with social responsibilities communicate with and engage stakeholders appropriately and repeatedly. 4.0 Stakeholders needs assessment and interest and involvement 4.1 As described by Orlander (2007) the SSFP stakeholders needs assessment combined stakeholder attribute value and position value with their vested interestimpact index, to come up with a stakeholder impact index (SII) that evaluated stakeholders level and probability of impact respectively that demanded key players be kept satisfied and informed with maximum efforts. The project stakeholders and their interest and involvement are shown in Table 1.0 below:

Stakeholders Client & financier Architect, Engineer & Project Manager/Main Contractor Users Statutory bodies & Pressure groups

Stakeholder Name USAID DAI (Development Alternative Inc.) The 37 communities on both sides of the Kunar River The Afghanistan provincial and district governments

Interest/Issues Want stability and antiinsurgence in and by targeted communities Wants to satisfy the demands of all stakeholders; delivery of contractual obligation and healthy and safe infrastructure Want to obtain bridge for fast and safe access to Central District Area Want legal and regulatory compliance and guaranteed communities satisfaction

Involvement Planning, design and construction Planning, design and construction Planning, design and construction Planning, design and construction

Table 1.0 SSFP Stakeholders, Interest and Involvement 4.2 As described by Orlander (2007) the KEP stakeholders needs assessment combined stakeholder attribute value and position value with their vested interestimpact index, to come up with a stakeholder impact index (SII) that evaluated stakeholders level and probability of impact respectively demanding key players be kept pleased and informed with thoroughgoing efforts. The project stakeholders and their interest and involvement are shown in Table 2.0 below
Stakeholders Client & financier Architect, Engineer & Project Manager Users Statutory bodies & Pressure groups Main Contractors Stakeholder Name USAID DAI (Development Alternative Inc.) The 37 communities on both sides of the Kunar River The Afghanistan provincial and district governments Afghan Safe Engineering Corporation Interest/Issues Want stability and anti-insurgence in and by targeted communities Wants to satisfy the demands of all stakeholders Want to obtain continuous access to water for agriculture purposes Want legal and regulatory compliance and guaranteed communities satisfaction Want to deliver contractual obligation and healthy and safe infrastructure Involvement Planning, design and construction Planning, design and construction Planning, design and construction Planning, design and construction Design and construction

Table 2.0 KEP Stakeholders, Interest and Involvement 5.0 Regulatory and political framework In consideration of the eight-step planning and implementation processes provided by Goodman and Hastak (2010) and the management best practices of

the project management organization, both SSFP and KEP conducted similar questionnaire survey to address the legal, regulatory and permitting requirements of the projects, as both projects were implemented in the same provinces. The questionnaire were posed to the infrastructure owners, client, and regulatory bodies and addressed the followings: Engineering and design - licensure and liability, claims, and appropriate design review, Permitting - requirements, governmental approvals, and legal definition, eligibility and capacity of local construction firms and their liability insurance and bank guarantee availability, Requirements for occupational health and safety on construction sites, Accessibility - requirements universalities, overseers and enforcements and threshold standards, Construction claims - resolution strategies and contract laws and arbitration options, Construction subcontract and construction purchase order and changes processes Documentation including areas to obtain construction and environmental laws, permitting requirements, etc,

Based on the answers collected each project addresses the following issues: 1. SSFP Feasibility the business drivers was the need to access the district center in the shortest possible time and the footbridge was the best alternative apart from taking the existing transportation network that took more than hour to get to the district center. Risk as described by Pradhan, Laefer & Rasdorf (2007) the project lacked a disaster management strategy based on enterprise GIS framework. The project however developed and risk analysis matrix and risk register that was responded to until the project completion Design codes, standards and permitting needs and scope of works for design and construction were identified based on USAID and Afghan government requirements for rural rehabilitation and development. 2. KEP Feasibility the business drivers was the need to increase access to water for farmers close to the district center but far from suburb amenities. The best alternative was to extend the existing karez that already provided more than enough water to its present farmers.

Risk as described by Pradhan, Laefer & Rasdorf (2007) the project lacked a disaster management strategy based on enterprise GIS framework. The project however developed and risk analysis matrix and risk register that was responded to until the project completion Design codes, standards and permitting needs and scope of works for design and construction these were identified based on USAID and Afghan government requirements for rural rehabilitation and development. 6.0 Environmental and social implications SSFP addressed environmental and social issues such as: Change in waterway width, Geological material of foundation or downstream river flow regime Significant change to the hydrologic regime.

The environmental and social problems impact surrounded surface water, which was mitigated by putting foundation below scouring depths. KEP addressed environmental and social issues such as: Impact to existing underground utility lines Changes on the existing land use Encroachment on any sensitive wetlands or endangered species, designated protected areas, or archeological sites Locally unacceptable impact on any cultural assets such as mosques and cemeteries

The environmental and social problems impact surrounded encroachment on cemeteries and existing underground utility lines, which was mitigated by running Karez away from existing or future cemeteries and locating and avoiding subsurface utility infrastructure. 7.0 Financing models Considering Esty and Sesia (2010) definition of project finance, none of the projects in this report involved legitimately autonomous project company funded with nonrecourse debt. Also, the project did not apply any special consideration such as whole life costing as indicated by Park (2009). However, as Allayannis et al. (2008) indicated, the Stakeholders did consider ownership structure alternatives and the implications on the project financing to select a financing strategy The SSFP was community-driven project delivery method, using a project grantfinancing model under which the community contributed 10% of the project

costs in the form of skilled and unskilled labor, and the client provided 90% of the project budget to cover materials, equipment, technical assistance and expertise and commissioning and testing costs. Payment terms were to pay material suppliers based on supply schedules and pay workers wages bi-weekly based on agreed productivities. The KEP was contractor-driven project delivery method, using a subcontract funded under project grant-financing model under which the client provided 100% of the project budget to cover workers wages, materials, equipment, technical assistance and expertise and commissioning and testing costs. Payment terms made payment to the contractor based on agreed project deliverables and schedules. 8.0 Projects management execution and control Considering Guo & Skitmore (2010) framework for infrastructure project planning and execution, SSFP project management phases included: Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase 1 2 3 4 5 site/structural assessment planning & design construction execution testing & commissioning - closeout project and grant

SSFP project risks as identified by Zou & Fang (2008) was the lack of competition as the project was community-driven and underwent no tendering or contractor selection process. The monitoring and control mechanism applied in the project was based on scope, budget, schedule, quality, environmental mitigation and health security and safety baselines. The project was controlled through the PM quality control process. The project management engineering, finance and compliance teams alongside the infrastructure owner, government regulators and the client monitored the project weekly. The project overall performance was graded a success as the only setback was on schedule due to floods and insurgency. The challenges encountered included schedule management and daily productivity delivery. In consideration of Guo & Skitmore (2010) infrastructure project planning and execution framework, KEP project management phases included: Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase 1 2 3 4 5 feasibility studies preliminary design and cost tendering, evaluation and selection construction execution, monitoring and control - testing & commissioning

Phase 5 - closeout project and grant KEP project risks as identified by Zou & Fang (2008) was complex decisionmaking as the project was technology-driven and underwent subsurface engineering, tendering and contractor selection process. The monitoring and control mechanism applied in the project was based on scope, budget, schedule, quality, environmental mitigation and health security and safety baselines. The project was controlled through the contractor quality control plan. The project management engineering, finance and compliance teams alongside the infrastructure owner, government regulators and the client monitored the project weekly. The project overall performance was graded a success as the only setback was on schedule due to floods and insurgency. The challenges encountered included avoiding subsurface utilities, schedule management and daily productivity delivery. 9.0 Security and safety concerns SSFP was located within a prone insurgent region of Afghanistan, with manmade security threats. The challenges and unforeseen floods and insurgency events were difficult to avoid and transfer and the project management team could only accept this and adjust project schedules accordingly. Workers, community and environmental safety were managed through a safety management plan and environmental management plan respectively. However, as recommended by Pradhan, Laefer & Rasdorf (2007) no plan was created to manage before, during and after disasters. KEP was also located within a prone insurgent region of Afghanistan, with manmade security threats. The challenges and unforeseen floods and insurgency events were difficult to avoid and transfer and the project management team could only accept this and adjust project schedules accordingly. Workers, community and environmental safety were managed through a safety management plan and environmental management plan respectively. However, as recommended by Pradhan, Laefer & Rasdorf (2007) no plan was created to manage before, during and after disasters. 10.0 Post-implementation asset management Both SSFP and KEP did not consider sustainability-based asset management (Marlow et al. 2010) or decommissioning as recommended by Ellis (2006) project or post-implementation and asset management strategies as other partners covered these activities. Both projects underwent similar testing and commissioning as considered by Rodgers (2005) by conducting tests for factory and site acceptance respectfully

and verification of field component and system construction respectively, and testing of the integrated systems. 11.0 Conclusions, Lessons Learned and Recommendations Conclusions The SSFP and KEP projects were both implemented in eastern Afghanistan in collaboration with the society and environment, undergoing similar security and safety threats, and as Vickerman (2009) indicated both project underwent similar regulatory constraints of quality regulations and cost effective service regulations; and considering Yuan et al. (2010) stakeholders analysis, both projects were within budget, provided the public quality services However, KEP was technology-driven and SSGFP was driven by community efforts and impacted two different groups of people with different interests and involvements, and different challenges and resolutions and implementation methods; and considering Yuan et al. (2010) stakeholders analysis, both projects did not complete on time or earlier and there were no life-cycle cost reduction or financial sustainability or similar management approaches Lessons learned In infrastructure projects is very important to consider security management as a key success indicator to ensure all project baselines are achieved accordingly. During handover meeting for both SSFP and KEP, there were many discrepancies as to how post-implementation and the asset would be managed. It is always best the same project management team carry out these activities in consideration of a whole life-costing model (Park, 2009) so Collin & Lorenzin (2006) strategy on networking supply chain can be effectively implemented. And the application of life cycle management enables all project stakeholders can reconcile their interests in relation to the projects technical, social planning, and environmental constraints. Recommendations All infrastructure projects characteristically encompass amenities and services required for communities to function. Therefore it is necessary to manage risks, and meet baselines and deadlines. To do this requires understanding stakeholders, the life cycles of projects, and performance management, project security threats and challenges and response tactics utilising strategic managerial approach to infrastructure project analysis, using the tools and techniques civil infrastructure project management. _________________________________________________________________

References
Business Monitor International, Ltd. (2010) Infrastructure Service [Online] Available from http://www.businessmonitor.com/bmo/infrastructure (Accessed 11 October 2011) Collin, J. & Lorenzin, D. (2006) Plan for supply chain agility at Nokia: lessons from the mobile infrastructure industry, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36 (6), pp. 418-430 Ellis, R. (2006) Decommissioning: taking part of a system off-line doesnt have to get out of hand, Engineered Systems, 23 (5), May, p. 26. [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx? direct=true&db=buh&AN=21057378&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 11 October 2012) Esty, B. & Sesia. A. (2010) An overview of project finance and infrastructure finance 2009 update, Course Pack Goodman, A. & Hastak, M. (2006) Infrastructure planning handbook: planning, engineering, and economics. New York: ASCE Press Guo, H., Li, H. & Skitmore, M. (2010) Life-cycle management of construction projects based on virtual prototyping technology, Journal of Management in Engineering, 26 (1), pp. 41-47 Marlow, D. Beale, D. & Burn, S. (2010) A pathway to a more sustainable water sector: sustainability-based asset management (Accessed: 11 October 2012) Orlander, S. (2007) Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management, Construction Management and Economics, 25 (3), pp.243-249 Park, S.H., (2009). Whole life performance assessment: Critical success factors, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135 (11), pp. 1146-1161 Rodgers, T. (2005) An owners perspective on commissioning of critical facilities ASHRAE Transactions, 111 (2), pp. 618-626 [Online] Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=CN 057558204&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 11 October 2012) Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Drew, D.S., and Ho, M. (2010) Critical Success Factors for Stakeholder Management: Construction Practitioners Perspectives, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136 (7), pp. 778-786 USAID (2012) Transition Initiatives [Online] Available from: http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/crosscutting_programs.transition_initiatives/country/afghanistan2/index/html

Vickerman, R. (2009) Appraising transport investments in a regulatory regime, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 15 (4), pp. 273-277 Zou, P., Want, S. & Fang, D. (2008) A life-cycle risk management framework for PPP infrastructure projects, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 13 (2), pp. 123-142