In the case of the six schools where new classrooms were built and/or significant work was undertaken on structural elements, and the construction was not monitored by a qualified structural engineer, UNICEF should arrange for a structural engineer to review the quality records and engineers’ logs and certify in writing that the elements or classrooms in question have adequate strength and are safe, or if not, what corrective actions are required to make it safe. Agree UNICEF have obtained written certification from the Director of School Works (DSW) of the Ministry of Education for Northern Province (who is a structural engineer) confirming that defect rectification has been completed and structural works in the 10 schools meet the relevant standards. Based on this certification, UNICEF’s final report to DFAT confirms that all identified corrective actions have been undertaken and the school buildings are structurally sound and safe. UNICEF
That UNICEF provides a letter to DFAT, along with their final report, confirming in writing that all defects identified by the evaluation and listed at the hand-over inspection, plus other defects discussed by the evaluator with UNICEF field engineers during the evaluation visits, have been rectified and that the schools are safe. Agree For the 13 schools, UNICEF have provided a letter to DFAT confirming that all identified defects have been rectified and the schools are safe. For the 10 schools, based on the certification of the Director of School Works, UNICEF’s final project report to DFAT confirms that all identified corrective actions have been undertaken as required and the school buildings are structurally sound and safe. UNICEF
That UNICEF provides a detailed acquittal of the balance of the funding 27.5 per cent (approximately USD2,772,802) that was not directly allocated for the design construction and supervision of the 23 schools. Agree In its project report to DFAT, UNICEF provided a detailed breakdown of the costs of UNICEF activities: - indirect support costs (UNICEF headquarters) – 6.5 per cent (as specified in project contracts) - travel for supervision – 1.6 per cent - administrative costs for UNICEF Sri Lanka – 8.4 per cent - UNICEF costs for promoting the approach – 11 per cent. UNICEF That all future construction activities supported by DFAT in the education sector comply with DFAT’s Disability Inclusive Design criteria, and the Ministry of Social Services Sri policy “Promotion of Accessibility to the Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities” and include, inter alia, toilets for people with disabilities as well as the associated ramps, handrails and doorways suitable for wheelchair access. Agree DFAT will continue to work with partners to ensure that, possible, all future construction activities are accessible for people with disabilities. DFAT friendly
Project Management (PM) 2,772,802 40.35% 525,864 7.65% 200,000 7.65% Total DSConsultant + PM Costs 3,228,276 1,676,559 24.40% 637,640 24.40% Total Costs Construction + DSConsultants + PM 10,100,000 8,548,283 124.40% 3,251,140 Difference [Grant - CC+DSC+PM] 1,551,717
Major construction – budget range from SLR 70 to 100 Mn Kn/Vivekanantha Primary school , Kilinochchi Kn/Kilinochchi MV (Maha Vidyalayam). Kilinochchi Mu/Katchilaimadhu GTMS (Government Tamil Mixed School), Mullaitivu Medium construction – budget range from SLR 40 to 70 Mn Kn/Tharmapuram GTMS, Kilinochchi Mu/Mullaitivu RCTMS, Mullaitivu – complained school Mu/Silawaththai HBTMS, Mullaitivu – complained school Mu/Kallappadu GTMS, Mullaitivu – complained school Minor level construction – budget range from SLR 10 Mn and below Kn/Muruganandha Primary, Kilinochchi Mu/Murippu TV (Tamil Vidyalayam), Mullaitivu A-2) School selection criteria: Representing three zones (Kilinochchi, Thunukkai and Mullaitivu) and two districts (Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu); 4 from each district Include type I, II and III schools Student population – include all size (small, medium and big) Minimize travel time during school visits. Stakeholder meetings in Colombo (14 – 17 October) 14.10.2013 Monday 10:00 – 12:00 – Meeting with Education team, UNICEF 12:30 – 14:00 – Meeting with Stanley, Supply Officer, UNICEF 14:00 – 16:00 – Meeting with Rasika, Construction Engineer, UNICEF Colombo 15.10.2013 Tuesday 10:30 – 12:00 – Meeting with Design and Supervision Consultant in Colombo 12:00 – 13:00 – Meeting with Construction Company in Colombo 13:30 – 14:30 – Meeting with Development Cooperation in Colombo 15:00 – 16:00 - Meeting with Malini Fernando, Director School Works Branch at Ministry of Education 16.10.2013 Wednesday (Public Holiday – AHC open) 13:00 - 15:00 – Meeting with Senior Program Managers, DFAT 15:00 – 17:00 – Meeting with Second Secretary and Counsellor, DFAT
process Intensive consultation with Zonal, UNICEF, SDS, architect, & contractor. Parents, students, and SDS involved in the discussion. School monitor progress & quality of construction. 3 months delay due to re-flooring of auditorium and repair of minor defects. Plea through media & NGO. SDS initiating discussion with office. director asked UNICEF assistance. Consultation with SDS, parents, students, UNICEF, and office. Communication with contractor during construction in this school was not very good (Language barrier mentioned as the one of the factor). SDS and parents complained that contractor was not receptive to SDS'/parents' criticism or suggestion for improvements. Principal act as communication conduit between contractor and parents/SDS. Students were consulted by teachers on school design. UNICEF approached school after receiving priority list from Zonal office. Students provided preference that the building should face courtyard and the design was changed. Limited discussion with teachers and SDS. Teachers observed construction process and raising concerns to contractor but often not followed up (i.e. ground levelling, on the ground uncovered water piping). Information session to teachers then teachers informed students. Students and teachers suggested shape of building, size of class, and lighting, also wire mesh for windows. Students suggested murals inside and outside classrooms. Teachers monitor construction to ensure students’ safety. Teachers use the opportunity to teach students about construction process & equipment. Principal informed teachers, parents & students on Dec 2011 that new school will be built. Consultation by architect started in November 2011 with final design approved March 2012. Suggestion given: School U-shape. Blackboard size and height. Consideration for protection against dust and rain. Protection against rain for walkway between building (not built). Consultation process with principal, teachers, parents, students, and SDS and final plan agreed and made into a model. Teachers not involved in construction process. SDS and principals were involved.
defects/quality Cracks already forming in buildings. Water pipes damaged in places causing disruption of water distribution. Facilities far from water tank often did not have water, students have to carry water from nearest source point. Toilet fixtures in principal toilet not attached properly. Windows in principal office not functioning and bad ceiling and walls paint job. No ramps Roof structure not clamped to supporting columns. Uneven purlin connections. Low quality timber, splinters. Distance between ground level and corridor to high, need additional steps for children. Parents pointed out that: - the foundation not covered with plasters; - hairline cracks already showing; - Floor tiles shown cracks. - Glass door in auditorium of low quality, fitting not good, door glass falls and shattered. Contractor fixed it but parents felt that it was of the same quality; - contractor did not perform clearing work - teacher quarter do not have fences and gate. - Low quality concrete block detected during construction. No drainage. Flood prone area (6 inches of water often occurs during 3 months rainy season) creating stagnant water that have to be removed by health authorities. office requested that the contractor checks the safety of all sliding doors for all schools built by the contractor. No drainage. has raised ledge from the ground (10 cm). Hairline cracks in all buildings. Principal questioning the appropriateness of the design (he mentioned walls are now dirty because children splashes water on the walls). Water piping not covered, teachers felt it could trip students. No wall divider between school and principal & teacher quarters. It was agreed before but not constructed. Ground levelling not performed. No drainage. No ramp. Corridor in the back of the building started to crack and split from the building. Second floor prepared, Exposed concrete reinforcement steels needs coating to avoid rust. No drainage Low quality timber for doors. Splits, cracks, curls, faulty fixtures. Glass windows slider not properly seated. Difficult to open or closed window. Sagging purlins all over building, especially in auditorium. Roof structure not clamped to column. Nuts without bolts. Water tank not secured to base. Cracks shown in corridors. Electricity meter outside not secured. Narrow stairway. Pipes in boys toilets leaks. Toilet doors could not close. Faulty toilet fixtures. Faulty doors and windows fixtures. No drainage. No drainage No ramps Roof structure not clamped to column. Low quality timber: slivers, cracks. Water pipe attached to corridor’s roof structure.
doors Adequate lock can be opened from outside through window grill. adequate width adequate adequate width adequate width adequate width adequate but low quality door. Fixtures not working properly. adequate width adequate width activity corners small stage for performance 6 activity corners spacious space for 30 students spacious classroom - able to accommodate activity corners spacious classroom - able to accommodate activity corners Spacious classroom (current size 20 – 25 students/class). Spacious, enough room for activity corners. Murals inside and outside classroom walls. Adequate for activity corners. Standard size, however due to overcapacity of student numbers, classroom size is no longer comfortable. Current size are 30 to 50 students/class. spacious WASH toilet/urinal facilities at correct height toilet/urinal facilities at correct height No hand washing facility close to student buildings. Adequate urinal height, adequate varied washbasin height. Toilets barely meet disability facilities ramps, disable toilet no ramp ramps, disable toilet Ramps, disable toilet Ramps has raised edge (approx. 10 cm) no ramps ramps, disable toilet Ramps, 1 disable toilet no ramps DRR No evidence of DRR measures parents proposed ground levelling to reduce the speed of surface run-off but declined by the contractor (not clear whether UNICEF aware of this request). no evidence of DRR measures prone area, no mitigation measures in place. The area is flood prone area and often water logged during heavy rain but no water entering classrooms. flood prone area, no mitigation measures in place flood prone area, no mitigation measures in place No evidence of DRR measure. Parents cleaned the site before construction and found UXOs. Teachers not sure whether school ground have low risk certificate. No evidence of DRR measure. No evidence of DRR measure. No evidence of DRR measure. furniture Correct height, comfortable, table dimension enough blackboard at correct height & Blackboard at correct height and size, comfortable, easy to read and write. blackboard at correct height and size, comfortable, easy to read and Type 2 (grade 3 – 5). Chair and table comfortable, right size and table wide enough. Teachers felt that blackboard no longer suitable; it should be replaced with white board. Chair and table comfortable, right size and table wide enough. Chairs and table comfortable and the right size. Blackboard the right height and Blackboard of right size and height. Chairs and table comfortable and of the right size. Blackboard the right height and
size, comfortable, easy to read and write. and table comfortable, right size and table wide enough. Chair and table comfortable, right size and table wide enough. Blackboard right size and height. Teachers want storage facility in classroom to keep student’s lunch. Teachers want to have permanent raised stage inside class. Blackboard right size and height. size, easy to write and read. size, easy to write and read. colour choice by principal teachers & parents principal, teachers, parents, and students architect teachers Students (mural) and teachers. Principal and contractor SDS Don’t know Electricity or generator no (school purchase generator) no No No no no No. Electricity available. no no Notes maintenance no maintenance budget parents offer free labour for maintenance no maintenance funding parents contributed to maintenance fund and free labour parents offer free labour School received money from WB's quality improvement project LKR 7,000 (principal said that the fund can be used for maintenance). Using local materials. Parents volunteer labour. Change in teaching learning process Attendance increased by 50% Attention span increased. Teachers able to display and safely keep teaching aid in classroom. Reading and writing capability low but showing indication of increasing level. Attendance increased. Students are encouraging parents to attend/to be active in school activities (peer pressure). Student initiative to plant flowers and plants. Attendance increased. Students have ownerships of the class/school – more active in maintaining school. Student’s improved. Academic competency improved – reading Student ownerships of classroom high. Attendance increased. Class activities improved & more varied. Students attitude better. Hygiene habits better. Too early to tell. School with good achievement. Attendance increased. School activities increased. Attention span increased. Hygiene habit improved. Student attendance increased. Student’s ownerships increased.
comprehension and writing. Others 1 stair for 100 students. Parents of primary students taking turns of ensuring safety of students at stairs. Parents proposed to move primary students to ground but principal did not agree. No emergency exit. No drainage. School fence was in the final drawing but not built. Parents not aware of the reason why it was not constructed. Wire mesh around school was in original drawing but not constructed. Main contractor has not paid Power points too low, dangerous for small children. No drainage. Main contractor has not paid (UNICEF explained this is probably because they are withholding 20% of payment). No drainage. School and parents built 2 ft walling to fend off water. Teacher able to display teaching aid. Home science and agriculture labs are used as classrooms. No water piping. Ground not levelled. Fencing originally designed but changed without information. Plan to build second floor if funding available. Windows with glass without grills, teachers feel insecure and afraid that small children could hurt if the glass is broken. Size of the auditorium and the stage are too small for student size. WASH facilities barely met needs. Principal do not use and store goods in new principal and activity rooms, as all windows are covered with glass without grills. Principal and teachers felt that it is not safe to keep schools property in the new facility. Teachers requested: New furniture; Pin board to display students’ work without damaging paint job.
DFAT contracted one independent consultant to undertake and lead the ICR: Andrew Whillas Infrastructure specialist Implementation, Management and Reporting DFAT and UNICEF representatives will jointly manage the evaluation. In UNICEF terminology, this is called as Evaluation Management Team (EMT). The EMT will provide oversight and management of the evaluation in consultation with the evaluation team on the evaluation processes and findings. The EMT This committee will be supported by the Reference Group. Full details of the DFAT and UNICEF Evaluation Management Team and Reference Group including membership and tasks is provided at Annex 1. The Government of Sri Lanka and other stakeholders will be consulted during the evaluation process and, where appropriate, and will be the key source of information for the evaluation. Along with UNICEF and DFAT Sri Lanka office, both parties, in UNICEF terminology, perform the role of a stakeholder reference group. The in country mission will be undertaken during the period 7 -18 October 2013. A Summary of Evaluation Process and Outputs with a timeline is presented Table 1. The proposed Field visit to Northern Province to inspect a sample of the 24 reconstructed schools will take place during the period 7 – 11 October 2013. The proposed Field Visit and Stakeholder Meeting schedule is provided at Table 2. The evaluation report will be drafted in accordance with DFAT’s guidelines on ICR preparation. Guidelines for the Summative Evaluation Report (ICR) are presented in Annex 4. Evaluation Approach The evaluation team will use a consultative process to obtain the views of all stakeholders. This will be complemented with some structured data obtained from UNICEF, DFAT and from the school sites visited. Data Collection In the Field The field activities will include visits to 9 of the 24 schools completed in in Phases 1 and 2. The main tools will be observations of the completed schools using a construction assessment form to compare, to the extent possible, the actual situation with that shown on the as-built drawings and in the operation and maintenance manuals and focus group and key informant discussions (FGD) with stakeholders, particularly the school staff and SDS members, students and parents and Zonal Education Office officials. Where possible, local people who worked on the construction will also be consulted. In addition, contact will be made with District and Provincial level managers of the Education Department responsible for the reconstruction program. Other Data The Program has interacted with many different groups involved in the education sector in the conflict zone and in implementing the construction program. include other donors and the
Assessment of contracted reconstruction activities compared to construction modalities Comparison of design and construction approaches on DFAT project compared with experience with other donors Cost-effectiveness of approach- delivered unit costs, management and administrative costs Lessons learned from project - what has worked, and what did not work and why Other Reconstruction Donors (USAID,etc) Effectiveness of contractor or other reconstruction modalities Management and supervision costs of contractor based reconstruction systems Table 1: Summary of Evaluation Process and Outputs No Task Location Approximate duration No of days (up to) Output Format Due by 1 Document review & development of summative evaluation plan Home based 23 September – 1 October 2013 3 Summative Evaluation Plan Word document Max. 10 pages Tuesday 1 October 2013 (first draft) 2 Travelling to Sri Lanka 5 or 6 October 2013 1 3 In-Country mission Sri Lanka 7 – 17 October 2013 10 Meet with DFAT & UNICEF for in-country briefing and finalisation of summative evaluation plan 7 October 2013 1 Final Summative Evaluation Plan Word document Max. 10 pages 7 October 2013 Field visit 8 – 11 October2013 4 Colombo: - meetings - Aide Memoire write up 14 – 16 October 2013 3 Aide Memoire presentation 17 October 2013 1 Aide Memoire (see Attachment 1) 17 October 2013 4 Leaving Sri Lanka 19 October 2013 5 Aide Memoire finalisation Home based 21 – 25 October 2013 1 Final Aide Memoire incorporating DFAT, UNICEF and stakeholder comments Word document Max 5 pages 25 October 2013
provided during the presentation 6 Summative Evaluation report write up Home 21 – 1 November 2013 5 First draft of Summative Evaluation Report (see Attachment 2) Word document Max 20 pages, excluding annexes 21 November 2013 7 finalisation summative evaluation report Home based 14 – 30 November 2013 4 Final Summative Evaluation Report Word document Max 20 pages, excluding annexes By 30 November 2013 Table 2: Field visit and stakeholder meeting schedule (DRAFT) DFAT / UNICEF Construction Evaluation in the North 7 – 17 October 2013 Field visit agenda (7 – 11 October) Visit to schools and meeting with stakeholders in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu Time Activity /Location Responsible persons / accompanied by Monday, 07 October 2013 09.00 – 8.10 Meeting the team at Palaly Airport Prakash (Head of Zone Office - HoZ), Karthi (Karthikeyini – Education Officer) 09.10 – 9.40 Travelling to visit Secretary’s office, Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Sports, Jaffna 09.40 – 11.10 Meeting with Secretary, Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Sports Karthi, Chryshanthan (Construction Engineer), Thaya (Thayaparan – WASH Officer) 11.10 – 11.40 Travelling to Provincial Education Office, Northern Province, Jaffna 11.40 – 13.10 Discussion with Provincial Education team Karthi, Chryshanthan, Thaya 13.10 – 14.00 Lunch 14.00 – 15.30 Travelling to the UNICEF office Kilinochchi 15.30 – 15.45 Refreshing break at the office 15.45 – 17.30 Discussion / meeting with UNICEF staff (Collective / Individual) HoZ / Education and WASH colleagues 17.30 Check in at the Hotel Tuesday, 08 October 2013 07.30 – 08.30 Travelling to Katchilaimadhu GTMS (government Tamil Mixed School) Zarook Zarook – Education Officer, KZO) 08.30 – 10.30 at Mu/Katchilaimadhu GTMS Zarook, Chryshanthan, Radika (WASH Officer)
10.15 – 12.15 Visit at Kn/Kilinochchi MV (Maha Vidyalayam) Karthi / Thaya / Chryshanthan 12.15 – 13.00 Lunch 13.00 – 14.00 Traveling to Palaly airport A-1) School Categories: Major construction – budget range from SLR 70 to 100 Mn Kn/Vivekanantha Primary school , Kilinochchi Kn/Kilinochchi MV (Maha Vidyalayam). Kilinochchi Mu/Katchilaimadhu GTMS (Government Tamil Mixed School), Mullaitivu Medium level construction – budget range from SLR 40 to 70 Mn Kn/Tharmapuram GTMS, Kilinochchi Mu/Mullaitivu RCTMS, Mullaitivu Mu/Silawaththai Mullaitivu – school that was complained Minor level construction – budget range from SLR 10 Mn and below Kn/Muruganandha Primary, Kilinochchi Mu/Murippu TV (Tamil Vidyalayam), Mullaitivu A-2) School selection criteria: Representing three zones (Kilinochchi, Thunukkai and Mullaitivu) and two districts (Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu); 4 from each district Include type I, II and III schools Student population – include all size (small, medium and big) Minimize travel time during school visits. Stakeholder meetings in Colombo (14 – 17 October) 14.10.2013 Monday 13:30 – 15:00 – Meeting with Stanley, Supply Officer, UNICEF 15:00 – 16:30 – Meeting at Education section, UNICEF Colombo 15.10.2013 Tuesday 9:00 – 10:30 – Meeting with Malini Fernando, Director School Works Branch at Ministry of Education (TBC) 11:00 – 13:00 – Meeting with Rasika, UNICEF (TBC)
Rating scale Satisfactory Less than satisfactory 6 Very high quality 3 Less than adequate quality 5 Good quality 2 Poor quality 4 Adequate quality 1 Very poor quality Body of report (maximum 20 pages excluding annexes) Introduction Initiative Background <Provide information about the objectives, design and implementation history of the initiative. Include relevant information on the country context of the activity and how the initiative fits into the country and/or sector strategy.> Evaluation Purpose and Questions <Description of the evaluation objective(s) and questions, as defined in the Terms of Reference and Evaluation Plan.> Evaluation Scope and Methods <Description of the: methods of the evaluation including sources of evidence and of analysis used to answer the evaluation questions duration of the evaluation assumptions made by the evaluation team limitations of the method and sources of evidence for those DFAT criteria not covered in the evaluation, the evaluation manager should provide an explanation of how and when these criteria have been or will be assessed> Evaluation Findings <The main body of the report should directly answer the evaluation questions, as defined in the Terms of Reference and Evaluation Plan. As the report structure should be determined by the evaluation questions, noting that: Quantitative and qualitative evidence to support findings and recommendations needs to be presented as part of the report – referring to annexes or other documents is not sufficient. Where possible, data should be disaggregated by gender. Regardless of the structure, findings must specifically address those evaluation criteria (listed below) which were covered in the evaluation. The Evaluation Manager should delete any criteria which were not included in the evaluation.
UNICEF for in-country briefing and finalisation of summative evaluation plan Evaluation Plan Max. 10 pages Field visit 8 – 11 October2013 4 Colombo: - meetings - Aide Memoire write up 14 – 16 October 2013 3 Aide Memoire presentation 17 October 2013 1 Aide Memoire (see Attachment 1) 17 October 2013 4 Leaving Sri Lanka 19 October 2013 5 Aide Memoire finalisation Home based 21 – 25 October 2013 1 Final Aide Memoire incorporating DFAT, UNICEF and stakeholder comments provided during the presentation Word document Max 5 pages 25 October 2013 6 Summative Evaluation report write up Home 21 – 1 November 2013 5 First draft of Summative Evaluation Report (see Attachment 2) Word document Max 20 pages, excluding annexes 21 November 2013