Tunisia - Classified Road Network Development Project ... · given the experience of the Bank and Tunisia in the sector, as well as recent works executed in the country. 4 CONSISTENT

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

TUNISIA

CLASSIFIED ROAD NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHASE IV

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

(PCR)

OITC

April 2013

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADB = African Development Bank

BCT = Central Bank of Tunisia

BD = Bidding Documents

CES = Civil Engineering Structure

CETEC = Construction Technical Testing Centre

CSP = Country Strategy Paper

DGPC = General Directorate of Highways

DREHAT = Regional Directorate of Infrastructure and Housing

ESMP = Environmental and Social Management Plan

ET = Exclusive of Tax

EUR = Euro

GP = Trunk Road

HV = Heavy Vehicle

ICB = International Competitive Bidding

IRR = Internal Economic Rate of Return

LV = Light Vehicle

MC = Regional Road

NCB = National Competitive Bidding

NGO = Non-Governmental Organization

NPV = Net Present Value

PCR = Project Completion Report

PHS = Hygiene and Safety Plan

PK = Kilometre Point

PS = Overhead Bridge

RN = National Road

RVE = Local State Road

TND = Tunisian Dinar

UA = Unit of Account

Veh/d = Vehicles per day

VOC = Vehicle Operating Cost

1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT P-TN-DB0-008 A. PROJECT DATA AND KEY DATES

I. BASIC INFORMATION Project Number: P-TN-DBO-008

Project Name: Classified Road Network Development Project – Phase IV

Country : Republic of Tunisia

ID Number of Lending Instrument(s): Loan Agreement No. 2000130000731

Sector: Transport Environmental Classification: II

Original Commitment Amount: Loan : EUR 165 million (UA 136.78 million)

Amount Cancelled: 0 Amount Disbursed: EUR 165 million

Disbursed: 100 % N.B. : The disbursement percentage is given in terms of the original amount

Borrower : Government of the Republic of Tunisia

Executing Agency: Ministry of Equipment, Housing and Regional Development (MEHAT), General Directorate of Highways (DGPC)

Co-financiers and other External Partners: NA

II. KEY DATES

Project Concept Note Cleared by Ops. Com.: NA

Appraisal Report Cleared by Ops. Com.: NA

Board Approval: 24 November 2004

Restructuring(s): N.A

Original Date Actual Date Difference in months Actual date - Original date

DATE OF SIGNATURE 24 May 2005 22 March 2006(1)

10

EFFECTIVENESS 24 November 2005 20 September 2006(2)

10

MID-TERM REVIEW Not scheduled NA N.A.

CLOSING 31 December 2009 Extended to 31/12/ 2012

31 December 2012(3)

36

III. RATINGS SUMMARY

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of Outputs 4

Achievement of Outcomes 3

Timeliness 4

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME 4

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 4

Supervision 3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE 4

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 3

Implementation 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE 3

IV. RESPONSIBLE BANK STAFF

POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION

Regional Director Mr. G. TAYLOR-LEWIS Mr. J. KOLSTER

Sector Director Mr. K. BEDOUMRA Mr.A. OUMAROU

Sector Manager Mr. J. RWAMABUGA Mr. A. OUMAROU

Project Leader Mr. M. SANGARE Mr. P. MORE NDONG

PCR Team Leader Mr. P. MORE NDONG

PCR Team Members Mr. A. RMILI& DGPC

2

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT P-TN-DB0-008

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 - Ongoing 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) In 1996, the Government of Tunisia developed a transport sector strategy for the 1995-2005 period aimed at carrying out key reforms and modernization investments required to put in place an efficient and high quality transport system that would support the country’s economic growth and contribute to achieving export competitiveness objectives. (ii) Accordingly, throughout the 1997-2001 period, substantial rehabilitation and modernization investments amounting to TND 905.8 million were made to safeguard the existing network and improve the level of service of the paved network. The Bank took an active part in the implementation of this programme by financing 3 previous projects amounting to UA 180.2 million (about TND 268 million). (iii) Under the 10th Plan (2002-2006), the Government developed a more ambitious investment programme estimated at TND 1.6 billion. In view of its success with the authorities and beneficiary populations in the implementation of previous projects, the Bank was requested to finance a global operation consisting in the development of 1,750 km of roads, the reinforcement of 650 km of roads, and the construction of 44 civil engineering structures. The programme was intended to be implemented in two phases, starting from 2002: the first phase received a UA 101.5 million loan for the rehabilitation of 475 km of roads, the reinforcement of 806 km of roads and the construction of 44 civil engineering structures; the second phase, which concerns the present project, focused on the rehabilitation of 1,256 km of classified roads to complete the programme. (iv) The implementation of this programme is consistent with the Bank's strategy for Tunisia’s transport sector for the 2002-2004 period, which sought to continue rehabilitating and modernizing infrastructure so as to consolidate previous achievements and help control transport costs that constitute a factor of export competitiveness.

On 5 May 2005, the Bank adopted new financial conditions (abolition of commitment fees) applicable to loans for middle-income regional member countries (MICs). The 10-month delay in the loan signing and effectiveness process was the time taken by both parties to reach an agreement for the Bank to apply the new conditions to the loan for this project (Tunisian Government's request and consideration by the Bank). The closing date was extended twice. The objective of the first extension (24 months) in December 2009 was to offset delays in the implementation of some operations, given the slippage in the project implementation schedule ensuing from the above-mentioned late loan effectiveness and the consequences of soaring road construction input prices (asphalt, concrete iron, fuel, etc.) on the international market between 2006 and 2007. Indeed, this situation led to the termination of a dozen of works contracts due to the financial incapacity of contractors and relaunch of the bidding process. The second extension (for 12 months) was intended to help complete additional Bank-approved operations, whose implementation was delayed due to the socio-political unrest relating to the revolution of 14 January 2011.

3

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT P-TN-DB0-008 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK 1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)

The project's sector goal is to contribute to upgrading road infrastructure so as to sustain economic growth and create favourable conditions for competitiveness of export commodities. Its specific objectives are to: (i) improve the classified road network capacity by reducing the constraints related to width and further strengthening the bearing capacity of road ways; and (ii) enhance resources for routine maintenance of the road network.

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

Component A: Clearing of road way and displacement of concessionary networks The implementation of this component will affect execution of road works, particularly enlargement and rectification of road alignments. Component B: Road Works This component comprises the rehabilitation of a total length of 1,256 km of classified network roads, in three phases: Phase 1 covers 422.1 km; Phase 2 covers 421.1 km; and Phase 3 covers 412.7 km. The road development works will reduce the proportion of narrow roads on the network from 55% to 39%. In addition, it will ensure that the said network comply with the standard dimensions. Component C: Project Supervision, Inspection and Geotechnical Control of Works It comprises geotechnical control of all works and the quality of materials. These services will help to ensure proper project implementation in accordance with industry standards to achieve the set objectives.

Component D: Support for Road Network Maintenance This component involves the procurement of 70 vehicles to strengthen road maintenance works and monitoring of the road network. The procurement will replace 30% of the rolling stock of area managers responsible for inspecting maintenance works and monitoring the classified road network.

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.

The project forms part of the investment programme for the road sub-sector of Tunisia’s 10th Economic Development Plan (2002-2006). It aims at meeting increasing road traffic needs so as to support the country's economic development. It is also consistent with the Government’s transport sector policy.

4

ACHIEVABLE

b) Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected time frame.

Project objectives as set out in the appraisal report are achievable within the specified timeframe, given the experience of the Bank and Tunisia in the sector, as well as recent works executed in the country.

4

CONSISTENT

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

The project's objectives are consistent with the Bank's strategy in Tunisia for 2002-2004 aimed at further rehabilitating and modernizing the transport infrastructure so as to fully consolidate previous achievements and reduce transportation costs.

4

d) Consistent with the Bank's corporate priorities.

The project is consistent with the Bank’s intervention priorities, with infrastructure as one of the pillars.

4

4. Summarize the logical framework. If a logical framework 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.

4

PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE

INDICATORS AT APPRAISAL

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS

AT COMPLETION

1- SECTOR GOAL Contribute to upgrading road infrastructure so as to sustain growth and create favourable conditions for competitiveness of exports

1. State of road infrastructure 2. Width of roads linked to RNs Sources : Report on achievements of the 10th Plan on road infrastructure, national statistics (traffic, employment, population, etc.) and report on the state of the environment

1. Proportion of road infrastructure in good state increases from 64% in 2004 to above 76% in 2008 2. All the regions are connected to national roads (RN) that have been reinforced and have a minimum width of 7.6 m

1. In 2009, the paved network in good state was 71.5% 2. Connections to national roads (RN) have a minimum road width of 7.6 m and above

2- PROJECT OBJECTIVE Reduce transport costs and promote the development of trade between the various regions concerned.

1- VOC Sources : Reports on the state of DEER network in 2008, roughness indices of carriageways and VOCs by DGPC; National statistics on intra- and inter-regional mobility and trade.

1- VOC reduced by 45%

1. VOC reduction stands between 9.5% and 47.5%, i.e. an average of 24.37%.

3- OUTCOMES State of classified road network improved in 2008 with 1,256 km of rehabilitated roads.

1- Characteristics of 1,256 km of roads scheduled in the project Sources : Works acceptance report, and report by CETEC and DGPC, project completion report, DEER report on equipment of area managers

1- 1,256 km of roads improved in terms of width of carriageways to 7.6 m 2- 1,256 km of reinforced carriageways 3- IRI of 1,256 km between 2,000 and 2,500mm/km

1. The width of carriageways increased to 7.6 m over 1,318.4 km 2. The carriageways is reinforced over 1318.4 km ; 3. IRI of 1,318.4 km between 2,000 and 2,500 mm/km

1. ACTIVITIES / INPUTS A. Works and Supply 4.1 Preparation of standard BDs for works and supplies 4.2 Invitation for ICB - Phase 1 (422 km) and procurement of vehicles 4.3 Receipt and analysis of bids 4.4 Approval/signing of contracts 4.5 Implementation Phase 1 of works and acceptance 4.6 Delivery of vehicles and use 4.7 Invitation for ICB - Phase 2 (421.1 km) 4.8 Receipt and analysis of bids 4.9 Approval/signing of contracts 4.10 Implementation Phase 2 and acceptance of works 4.11 Invitation for ICB - Phase 3 (421.7 km)

Inputs/Resources Project Cost (in UA Million). Clearing/displac. Networks 5.64 Works 168.90 Control 2.56 E.R. Support. 0.76 Unallocated 22.35 TOTAL 200.21 Financing (UA Million) F.E. L.C TOTAL ADB 136.16 - 136.16

Timely completion of all procurement activities

Project cost at completion (UA Million) Clear/displac. networks 6.57 Works 196.72 Control 0.40 E.R. Support. 0.38 TOTAL 204.06 Financing (UA Million) F.E. L.C. TOTAL ADB 139.16

5

4.12 Receipt and analysis of bids 4.13 Approval/signing of contracts 4.14 Implementation Phase 3 of works and acceptance B- Services 4.15 Signing of agreement with CETEC for geotechnical control 4.16 Start of CETEC services and supervision of works (DGPC/SRPC) 4.17 Annual auditing by CGF

GVT 64.05 64.05 TOTAL 136.16 64.05 200.21

- 139.16 GVT 64.90 64.90 TOTAL 139.16 64.90 204.06

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

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

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

Activities, outputs and outcomes are linked by a causal relationship to the achievement of the project objective

4

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

The logical framework provides measurable and quantifiable objectives and outputs.

4

THOROUGH c) States the risks and key assumptions.

The key risks associated with delays in clearing roadway and displacements of networks were defined. The risks related to increase in oil prices and inputs, on account of its unpredictability, were not identified.

3

6


D. RESULTS: 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 logical framework 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 must be calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES Working Score

Share of Project Costs in Percentage

Weighted Score

Expected Outputs Actual Outputs

Rehabilitation of 1,256 km of roads

Rehabilitation of 1,318.4 km of roads

Construction of a flyover,

Completion of construction of a civil engineering structure

4 99.4 % 3.976

Procurement of 70 utility vehicles

Procurement of 70 utility vehicles 4 0.6 % 0.024

OVERALL OUTPUT SCORE [Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores] 4

X Check here to override the calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score 4

II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES

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

OUTCOMES Working Score

Expected Actual

Proportion of road infrastructure in good state increases from 64 % in 2004 to over 76% in 2008 Reduce the proportion of narrow roads of network from 55% in 2004 to 39% in 2008

The proportion of road infrastructure in good state was 71.2% in 2009, 2 years prior to completion of works; In 2009, the network in good state (paved L<7m) was 40.5%

3 4

VOC reduced by 45% following commissioning of improved roads

VOC reduced from 9.5% to 47.5%, with an average of 24.37%, following commissioning of rehabilitated roads 2

The width of carriageways increased to 7.6 m over 1,256km Carriageways reinforced over 1,256km of roads IRI of rehabilitated roads between 2000 and 2500mm/km

- All rehabilitated sections have a width exceeding 7.6 m, - All rehabilitated sections have been reinforced - Roughness was not measured at completion of works to assess roughness figures at completion, but the target figures given are those for further reinforcement.

4 4 1

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

3

Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score 3

7

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

Project implementation led to: (i) Improvement of traffic and safety conditions in Tunis by facilitating communication between the Air Freight Terminal and Les Berges du Lac through construction of the freight flyover; (ii) Development of Djerba coast and particularly its tourist resort area through the double RVE 941 surfacing over 19.6 km; (iii) Improvement of town crossing facilities in the project area and establishment of new commercial activities on the edge of the rehabilitated road by doubly surfacing urban crossings and asphalting the crossings; (iv) Consideration of developments related to safety of roads in urban areas and along the rehabilitated sections.

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.

Project sustainability is ensured by the technical and financial capacity of DGPC, the executing agency, which will conduct regular and timely routine and periodic maintenance of rehabilitated roads and structures. Indeed, the budget allocated for road maintenance increased steadily growth between 2002 and 2011, from TND 33 million in 2002 to TND 62.3 million in 2011:

Fiscal Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Road Maintenance Budget (TND million)

33 36.4 38.8 40.2 41 44.8 48.3 52.9 58.6 62.3

Variation (%) 10.3% 6.6% 3.6% 2% 9.3% 7.8% 9.5% 10.8% 6.3%

The progress should be maintained and sustained.

8

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT P-TN-DB0-008 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]

Technical, economic, environmental and social studies were conducted on the project; the studies were funded by the Government and approved by the Bank. Furthermore, a Bank mission appraised the project in July 2004 and conducted an assessment of the suitability of project components and the expected positive impacts. The documents required for project implementation were available prior to appraisal. Moreover, the procurement system, consistent with Bank rules and procedures, was in use in Tunisia. The implementation capacity was properly assessed in the wake of three previous similar projects financed by the Bank.

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

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

The implementation of the project poses no technical and management problems, given its similarity to previous projects and types of works (rehabilitation). However, the construction of the freight flyover required training in metal-work construction, which was quickly acquired.

4

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

b) Project design includes adequate risk analysis.

Project design took account of the key risks. However, appraisal did not foresee the risks of soaring prices of road construction inputs.

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's procedures were used for procurements.

4

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.

The appraisal report clearly defined responsibilities for project implementation.

4 4

PROCUREMENT READINESS

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

Based on the experience of previous projects, project implementation officers had, at appraisal, all the documents required for project implementation.

4 4

MONITORING READINESS

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

Project monitoring indicators were well known by project implementation officers, but were not monitored by the executing agency.

4 1

BASELINE DATA

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

The general data required for project appraisal were available. 4 4

9

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT P-TN-DBO-008

F. IMPLEMENTATION

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.]

The works effectively started in September 2006, or 22 months after project approval in November 2004, and was implemented under generally good conditions. The slippage in works execution with respect to the appraisal timeframe was due to: (i) delays in the signing of the loan agreement (16 months after its approval); (ii) termination of 11 contracts following upsurge in oil prices led to significant increase in road construction input prices; and (ii) delays in the clearing of roadways for certain operations (RVE543 in Arian and MC132 in Zaghouan);

Despite this slippage, the entire project will be completed prior to its closing date;

The project was expanded to include an additional programme comprising: (i) rehabilitation of 58.5km of roads; (ii) double surfacing of 19.6 km of roads; (iii) completion of construction works on a civil engineering structure; (iv) construction of a flyover; and (v) the conduct of a study on 1,000km feeder roads. Furthermore, the rehabilitation of 5.7 km of RVE533 in Ariana, under another Programme, has been removed from the project;

Despite the increase in its scope, the project did not incur any additional costs;

DGPC, the executing agency, conducted the entire procurement process and project implementation monitoring in compliance with relevant quality requirements. However, DGPC produced only two project progress reports for the first year of works execution;

The Bank received five project accounts audit reports for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The report for 2011 was received recently;

The Tunisian Government fulfilled all its counterpart contribution commitments in local currency;

Bank supervision was conducted through ten missions, with an average of 1 to 2 missions per year; The resumption of operations for the terminated contracts was 14 months behind schedule;

Contracts relaunched after termination were awarded at higher prices compared to the original contracts,

due to the oil crisis;

National competitive bidding was launched for the additional programme operations; and

The project implementation period was marked by two crises: (i) the oil crisis of 2008, which impacted on the cost of road materials; and (ii) the political crisis in early 2011, which slowed down project completion.

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.

N.A

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

10

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 scored between 12.1 to 24, "3" is scored between 24.1 to 36, "2" is scored beyond 36.1, "1" is scored

Difference in months between original closing date and actual closing date or date of 98% disbursement rate

100% of the loan was disbursed on 24/12/2010

2

26 months

BANK PERFORMANCE

b) Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

Category II project. The mitigation measures in the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) were effectively monitored by the executing agency.

4

Fiduciary Requirements The Bank's commitments were met. 4

Project Covenants The loan agreement was signed 16 months after project approval. 1

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

Bank supervision was satisfactory. It helped to resolve the technical and financial issues raised.

4

d) Bank provided quality management oversight.

Supervision rate is 1.5 per year since the actual launch of the project.

3


e) Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards The Borrower diligently enforced compliance with environmental safeguards during the works execution.

4

Fiduciary Requirements

The Government's counterpart contribution was paid regularly. Furthermore, the Government mobilized, in a timely manner, the resources needed to finance contracts whose performance fell under its jurisdiction.

4

Project Covenants The signing of the loan agreement and project effectiveness occurred within six months. 1

f) Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations

Borrower was responsive to most of the comments made by the Bank during supervision missions, but did not respond to all the comments made in audit reports. In addition, it did not produce project progress reports (only two reports were produced).

2

g) Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision making

Borrower collected and used information from the project implementation monitoring process. However, the roughness was not measured at works completion on the rehabilitated sections. Similarly, Executing Agency did not compile data on objective indicators (traffic at completion, pavement evenness, report on the equipment of area managers, etc.)

2

11


G. COMPLETION 1. Is the PCR delivered on a timely basis, in compliance with Bank policy?

Date project reached 98% disbursement Rate (or closing date if applicable))

Date PCR was sent to [email protected]

Difference in months

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.

24/12/2010 28/12/2012 24 1

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]

This completion report is based on a mission to DGPC. The mission visited Tunisia from 20 July to 18 August 2011, and 8 to 16 November 2012. The mission conducted a site visit and meetings with DGPC officials, and services involved in the project implementation. The Bank mission comprised the project officer and a transport expert. DGPC recruited a transport economist to calculate the economic benefits of the project at completion. Some difficulties were encountered in gathering road network data that will help to quantify project performance indicators.

12

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT P-TN-DB0-008 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]

H.1 Conclusions and Lessons Learned Project implementation has shown that: H.1.1 Conclusions:

(i) The project was completed to the satisfaction of the Borrower and the Bank, despite the two crises that marked

its implementation period (the oil crisis in 2008 that led to increases in road construction input prices, and the political crisis that coincided with the year of its completion);

(ii) All the project objectives were achieved;

(iii) Changes to the original programme increased the project impact;

(iv) The rehabilitated roads were maintained regularly, and appropriations for road maintenance increased steadily between 2002 and 2011; and

(v) The presence of narrow structures on rehabilitated sections reduces the benefits of rehabilitation and constitutes a great inconvenience to traffic (case of MC47).

H.1.2. Lessons Learned:

(i) The Bank's flexibility in accepting the use of the special account is greatly appreciated. It allows corporate

payments to be made within a short timeframe;

(ii) The project outcomes are not consolidated due to the lack of recent data and failure to disseminate results to network managers and road users; and

(iii) Roadway clearance and/or network displacement operations, albeit limited to the rehabilitation of roads, are increasingly difficult and hamper works execution.

H.2 Recommendations: It is recommended that the Bank should:

(i) Encourage the use of a special account for project disbursements whenever the number of contracts to be managed so requires;

It is recommended that the Borrower should:

(i) Establish a system for efficient management of the road network based on data collected annually and the

dissemination of various project outputs to the regional directorates and donors to sustain investments and ensure better operation of the classified road network;

(ii) Provide for a project impact monitoring-evaluation component;

(iii) Continue to mobilize budgetary resources for road maintenance;

(iv) Anticipate roadway clearance and concessionary network displacement operations; and

(v) Integrate the expansion of narrow hydraulic structures into road rehabilitation programmes.

13


I. PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA WORKING SCORE

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of outputs 4

Achievement of outcomes 3

Timeliness 1

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE 2.7

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 within the expected timeframe

4

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 logical framework presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives

4

The logical framework expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable

4

The logical framework states the risks and key assumptions 3

Project complexity was matched with country capacity and political commitment 4

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.

4

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined. 4

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

4

Monitoring indicators and plan were agreed upon during design. 4

Baseline data were available or collected during design. 4

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE 4

Supervision :

Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 4

Fiduciary Requirements 4

Project Covenants 1

Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix and practicality of solutions 4

Bank provided quality management oversight 3

PCR was delivered on a timely basis 4

SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE 3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 4


Design and Readiness

Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined 4

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

4

Monitoring indicators and plan are agreed upon 1

Baseline data are available or are being collected. 4

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE 3

Implementation

Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 4

Fiduciary Requirements 4

Project Covenants 1

Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations 3

Borrower collected and used of monitoring information for decision-making

IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 3

14

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT P-TN-DB0-008 J. PROCESSING STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE

Sector Manager Clearance

Regional Director Clearance

Sector Director Approval

Annex 1

I

ANNEX 1 COST AT APPRAISAL AND AT COMPLETION OF ADB PROJECT 4

Components

List of goods and services at appraisal

% ADB

List of goods and services at completion

% ADB EUR million TND million EUR million TND million

ADB GVT Total ADB GVT Total ADB GVT Total ADB GVT Total

A- Clearing of roadway and displacement of networks

Total A 0.00 6.81 6.81 0.00 10.44 10.44 0% 0.00 7.79 7.79 0.00 14.46 14.46 0%

B- Works

B1- Phase 1 49.31 20.34 69.65 75.59 31.18 106.77

47.70 19.50 67.20 88.54 36.19 124.72

B2- Phase 2 47.25 19.49 66.74 72.44 29.88 102.32

50.35 20.70 71.05 93.45 38.42 131.87

B3- Phase 3 47.69 19.67 67.36 73.10 30.15 103.25

41.90 17.28 59.19 77.78 32.08 109.85

Additional Tranche 0.00 0.00

24.60 11.21 35.81 45.66 20.81 66.47

Total base cost of works 144.25 59.50 203.75 221.13 91.21 312.34 71% 164.56 68.69 233.25 305.43 127.50 432.92 71%

Physical contingencies 8.79 3.63 12.42 13.48 5.56 19.04

Price Escalation 10.30 4.25 14.55 15.78 6.51 22.29

Total Unallocated 19.09 7.88 26.97 29.26 12.07 41.33

Total Works 163.34 67.38 230.72 250.39 103.28 353.67 71% 164.56 68.69 233.25 305.43 127.50 432.92 71%

C- Geotechnical Control and Supervision

Total C 0.00 3.09 3.09 0.00 4.73 4.73 0% 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.88 0.88 0%

Total A+B+C 163.34 77.28 240.62 250.39 118.45 368.84 68% 164.56 76.96 241.51 305.43 142.84 448.26 68%

D- Support for classified network supervision

Procurement of 70 utility vehicles 0.91 0.00 0.91 1.40 0.00 1.40

0.44 0.00 0.44 0.83 0.00 0.83

Total D 0.91 0.00 0.91 1.40 0.00 1.40 100% 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.83 0.00 0.83 100%

Total Project Cost 164.25 77.28 241.53 251.79 118.45 370.24 68% 165.00 76.96 241.96 306.25 142.84 449.09 68%

Annex 1: ADB Disbursements and Payments

II

Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Expected Disbursements 165,000,000.00

Actual Disbursements 20,000,000.00 37,500,000.00 30,000,000.00 65,000,000.00 12,500,000.00 165,000,000.00

Cumulative Disbursements 20,000,000.00 57,500,000.00 87,500,000.00 152,500,000.00 165,000,000.00 165,000,000.00

Actual Payments 5,772,269.06 29,131,014.25 32,467,375.89 60,547,855.66 23,350,980.00 4,315,121.33 155,584,616.19

Cumulative Payments 5,772,269.06 34,903,283.31 67,370,659.20 127,918,514.86 151,269,494.86 155,584,616.19

Cancelled 0.00

Balance 14,227,730.94 22,596,716.69 20,129,340.80 24,581,485.14 13,730,505.14 9,415,383.81 9,415,383.81

% Cumulative disbursement/actual cost 12.12% 34.85% 53.03% 92.42% 100.00% 100.00%

% annual disbursement /expected total 3.50% 17.66% 19.68% 36.70% 14.15% 2.62%

% Cumulative Payment/actual cost 3.50% 21.15% 40.83% 77.53% 91.68% 94.29%

Annex 2 : Consolidated List of Supervision Missions

III

Consolidated List of Supervision Missions

Dates Type of Mission No. of

Persons Composition

5 to 24 July 2004 Appraisal 3 Transport Eng. + 1 Transport Economist + 1 Environment Expert

13 to 22 April 2005 Launching 1 Transport Engineer

12 to 19 December 2005 Supervision 1 Transport Engineer


3 to 17 September 2007 Supervision 1 Transport Engineer

12 to 24 May 2008 Supervision 1 Transport Engineer


30 Nov. to 12 Dec. 2009 Supervision 1 Transport Engineer

13 au 22 December 2010 Supervision 2 1 Transport Engineer + 1 young professional

20 July to 2 Sept 2011 Preparation of Completion Report

2 2 Transport Engineers

20 – 23 Sept 2011 Supervision 1 Transport Engineer

8 – 16 November 2012 Supervision 3 2 Transport Engineer and 1 Transport Economist


IV

Project Economic Analysis at Completion 1- The project helped to significantly increase the capacity of the road sections concerned by reinforcing and widening the carriageway, filling potholes and topping-out on certain sections of this network. In addition, the following impacts were also noted: (i) increase in traffic generated particularly by the growth of economic and social activities; (ii) significant reduction in travel time; (iii) reduction in transport costs; and (iv) improved comfort and safety for users. Hence, the project supports the country's economic development and improves the economic competitiveness of its various spheres of influence. 2- The assessed economic benefits of the project arise mainly from savings made in vehicle operating costs and reduced maintenance costs. These savings were calculated using the HDM model. For the past years of operation, the costs and benefits used are the actual amounts, and for the remaining life cycle, the benefits have been upgraded. The project completion date is 2009, for a 15-year life cycle. A 10% investment residual value was used at the end of the life cycle. 3. The costs under consideration are economic costs (excluding taxes). As regards

maintenance costs, the basic data for calculation are those used by the Road Operations and Maintenance Department (DEER) for the baseline and with-project situation.

4. The assumptions used for traffic forecasts at appraisal were confirmed in light of the significant increase in traffic. 5. Lastly, the operating costs were based on the physical characteristics of each section or portion of a section (geometry of sections or portions thereof, and estimated roughness values), economic data relating to the vehicle fleet and its operation. 6. The economic rates of return (ERR), based on the economic analysis using the HDM model, are generally higher than those assessed at appraisal. The rates of return at completion stand between 12.1% and 83.9% with an average of 27.6%, whereas at appraisal they stood between 11.7% and 53.4% with an average of 26.1%. The rate of return, at completion, declined for some sections where the cost of works execution increased significantly compared to costs estimated at appraisal. Detailed results for each section of the project are presented in the tables below. 7. The reduction in vehicle operating costs range from 9.5% to 47.5%, with an average of 24.37%. 8. The project’s economic performance is therefore satisfactory.


V

Calculation Results of the Project’s Economic Return

Phase 1

Governorate Road Location Length (in km)

Commis. Year

Investment Cost (TND 1 000)

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

Net Present Value (NPV) at 12%

Apprais Compl. Appraisal

Completion

Apprais Compl.

Tunis RVE546 PK9.8 to PK12.0

2.2 2007 586.8 492.4 49.1% 53.9%

1,849.0 1,765.3

Ariana

RVE546 PK12.0 to PK19.2

7.2 2007 1,890.1 1,611.6 49.1% 56.9%

5,950.4 6,227.2

RVE518 PK6.0 to PK15.8

9.8 2008 2,580.1 2,538.1 38.9% 37.7%

5,747.1 5,378.3


8.4 2010 2,209.7 3,102.0 19.1% 12.6%

1,151.7 135.7


7.0 2011 5,745.0 5,170.0 18.9% 19.1%

2,928.2 2,695.9

Manouba

MC32 PK2.0 to PK9.8

7.8 2007 2,072.7 1,745.9 43.7% 47.6%

5,517.5 5,257.0

MC40 PK0.0 to PK24.0

24.0 2007 6,281.3 5,426.0 22.4% 25.8%

4,934.1 5,809.0

MC37 PK12.0 to PK24.0

12.0 2009 3,157.5 4,673.0 53.4% 49.3%

11,167.9

14,795.8


6.0 2007 1,600.0 1,553.9 38.9% 38.4%

3,566.9 3,383.6

Ben Arous

MC34 PK13.4 to PK22.6

9.2 2008 2,453.3 2,479.1 43.3% 41.7%

6,443.7 6,133.6

MC35 PK10.2 to PK29.0

18.8 2008 4,921.5 7,376.0 19.8% 12.8%

2,836.6 378.5


11.8 2010 3,102.8 3,478.7 12.5% 12.0%

92.1 2.7

Nabeul

MC34 PK22.6 to PK36.0

13.4 2008 3,548.3 3,610.9 43.3% 41.3%

9,298.2 8,825.8

RVE597 PK15.0 to PK21.7

6.7 2008 1,786.9 2,509.3 53.0% 37.8%

6,263.4 5,343.3


9.0 2008 2,369.5 3,370.7 28.7% 30.0%

3,134.4 4,840.6

Zaghouan

MC37 PK24.0 to PK40.5

16.5 2008 4,335.8 4,281.0 25.3% 35.2%

4,479.9 8,093.7

MC132 PK9.0 to PK28.4

19.4 2008 5,106.8 4,228.0 16.6% 19.6%

1,673.6 2,366.8

MC40 PK24.0 to PK32.0

8.0 2007 2,114.1 2,105.0 19.7% 22.9%

1,206.9 1,753.6

MC35 PK29.0 to PK47.0

18.0 2007 4,768.6 5,602.2 20.2% 17.0%

2,888.6 2,032.7

Béja MC28 PK0.0 to PK18.3

18.3 2010 4,821.8 6,203.0 50.1% 37.5%

15,623.9

13,018.6

Siliana GP18 PK0.0 to PK15.0

15.0 2007 3,949.9 2,888.0 21.5% 35.5%

2,828.4 5,537.8

Sousse

MC35 PK47.0 to PK55.0

8.0 2007 2,114.1 2,489.8 20.8% 16.6%

1,387.3 811.9

MC132 PK28.4 to PK40.5

12.1 2007 3,181.3 2,323.0 18.0% 23.9%

1,392.4 2,118.5


16.6 2008 4,408.6 2,924.0 19.1% 29.9%

2,285.7 4,164.0

Annex 3: Project Economic Analysis at Completion

VI

Monastir


8.0 2008 2,123.4 1,147.2 42.1% 68.3%

5,332.8 5,620.4


6.9 2007 1,840.1 1,738.0 20.0% 20.0%

1,090.1 1,037.9


7 2008 1,837.6 1,003.8 41.1% 67.9%

4,453.9 4,883.0


1.5 2009 1,419.6 466.4 29.4% 83.9%

1,965.3 2,951.9

MC100E PK0.0 to PK14.0

14.0 2009 3,700.8 4,352.6 24.5% 20.9%

3,572.1 2,884.4

Mahdia MC96

PK40.0 to PK58.0

18.0 2009 4,776.2 5,370.0 19.6% 16.9%

2,683.9 1,882.3

MC82 PK101.5 to PK120.5

19.0 2009 5,020.7 8,214.0 24.9% 19.2%

5,023.9 4,350.1

Sfax MC82 PK120.5 to PK156.0

35.5 2007 9,387.5 11,623.0 36.9% 30.3%

19,204.1

16,962.5

Sidi Bouzid MC125 PK11.0 to PK38.0

27.0 2008 7,165.3 4,472.0 18.0% 27.7%

3,132.8 5,533.9


VII

Calculation Results of the Project’s Economic Return.

Phase 2


Commis Year




Apprais. Compl. Appraisal

Completion Apprais.

Completion

Manouba

MC55 PK18.0 to PK31.0

13.0 2008 3,400.3

3,709.0 27.8% 25.3%

4,239.1 3,819.8

MC55 PK35.0 to PK45.0

10.0 2008 2,618.9

3,615.0 48.3% 31.5%

8,051.0 5,674.9

Nabeul MC43 PK9.0 to PK52.5

43.5 2008 11,434.1

7,437.0 13.2% 20.5%

966.7 4,722.2

Bizerte


14.3 2011 3,772.4

4,192.0 41.2% 47.8%

9,183.3 12,708.2


18.0 2009 4,718.6

6,373.6 14.7% 12.1%

906.3 30.1

Béja MC75 PK18.2 to PK24.7

6.5 2009 1,707.4

2,021.2 26.7% 21.9%

1,957.4 1,513.4

Jendouba MC75 PK24.7 to PK36.0

11.3 2009 2,986.0

3,513.8 26.7% 22.1%

3,446.9 2,690.0

Le Kef GP18 PK75.0 to PK107.5

32.5 2010 8,580.0

13,748.3 38.9% 26.3%

19,098.5

15,390.1

Mahdia MC87 PK46.0 to PK82.6

36.5 2009 9,638.6

13,397.0 36.7% 25.9%

19,548.9

14,517.9

Sfax RVE885 PK0.0 to PK12.0

12.0 2009 3,167.9

4,575.5 12.3% 12.1%

66.1 22.2

Kairouan

RVE803 PK0,0 à PK13,0

13.0 2008 3,429.6

3,292.0 13.4% 14.5%

330.5 579.1

MC87 PK82,6 à PK99,0

16.4 2010 4,343.0 1,438.0 18.6% 41.9%

2,106.5 3,587.3

Kasserine

GP17 PK202.5 to PK228.0

25.5 2009 6,712.2

8,455.0 18.0% 14.6%

2,943.0 1,508.7


6.0 2009 1,574.6

2,152.7 50.1% 37.1%

5,098.9 4,440.7

GP17 PK179.0 to PK202.5

23.5 2009 6,210.8

7,832.0 21.4% 17.0%

4,375.8 2,836.2

Sidi Bouzid GP14 PK86.0 to PK142.7

56.7 2011 14,967.4

15,322.0 14.5% 13.7%

2,657.3 1,774.9

Médenine MC110 PK6.0 to PK19.8

13.8 2008 3,629.7 3,628.9 12.5% 12.2%

112.6 42.6

Tataouine RVE994 PK73.5 to PK92.0

18.5 2008 4,887.6

4,472.3 11.8% 12.1%

-54.6 16.0

Gafsa GP3 PK378.5 to PK399.1

20.6 2008 5,425.0

3,503.0 17.4% 26.0%

2,109.4 3,832.1

Tozeur

GP3 PK399.1 to PK421.0

21.9 2010 5,795.4

4,578.9 12.4% 15.7%

173.5 1,195.8

MC106 PK0.to à PK7.5

7.5 2010 1,973.4

1,568.1 11.9% 19.8%

-17.9 908.4


VIII

Calculation Results of the Project’s Economic Return

Phase 3


Commis. Year




Apprais. Compl. Appraisal Completion Appraisal Completion.

Ariana RVE533 PK3.0 to PK8.7 5.7

Zaghouan MC28 PK69.5 to PK89.5 20.0 2010 5,266.8 6,361.0 24.8% 15.8% 5,210.9 1,726.0

MC47 PK0.0 to PK11.0 11.0 2009 2,899.8 2,242.0 21.3% 26.4% 2,018.1 2,512.8

Siliana MC47 PK11.0 to PK35.6 24.6 2010 6,481.9 5,028.0 24.9% 25.7% 6,460.4 5,353.2

MC47 PK35.6 to PK66.5 30.9 2010 8,144.3 6,479.0 35.2% 45.4% 15,404.8 18,217.6

Monastir MC95 PK0.0 to PK22.4 22.4 2009 5,907.7 6,685.0 24.3% 23.3% 5,594.2 5,759.4

MC181 PK0.0 to PK16.0 16.0 2010 4,228.1 3,782.0 28.3% 34.0% 5,446.0 6,768.5

Mahdia MC95 PK22.4 to PK33.5 11.1 2009 2,938.8 3,333.0 16.7% 16.0% 979.4 935.8

Sfax GP14 PK62.0 to PK86.0 24.0 2010 6,342.2 6,051.0 15.9% 18.6% 1,747.1 2,903.2

Kairouan MC99 PK9.1 to PK46.5 37.4 2009 9,902.4 10,347.0 23.3% 22.7% 8,509.7 8,447.0

MC73 PK103.0 to PK123.5 20.5 2009 5,389.4 4,427.0 22.5% 20.7% 4,297.0 2,872.5

Kasserine MC60 PK113.0 to PK131.6 18.6 2011 4,942.7 4,826.0 13.0% 13.3% 327.6 424.3

Sidi Bouzid GP13 PK74.6 to PK125.0 50.4 2010 13,357.3 13,128.0 26.6% 24.9% 15,204.7 13,072.4

MC73 PK123.5 to PK140.6 17.1 2009 4,504.4 3,515.0 11.7% 17.8% -100.4 1,491.0

Gabès MC208 PK0.0 to PK13.2 13.2 2009 3,493.2 2,942.0 16.8% 25.2% 1,219.1 3,086.6

MC116 PK0.0 to PK10.8 10.8 2009 2,851.5 3,143.0 17.8% 17.2% 1,196.2 1,186.1

Médenine MC116 PK10.8 to PK47.0 36.2 2009 9,603.1 10,564.0 17.7% 17.2% 3,965.6 3,947.3

Gafsa GP15 PK114.7 to PK131.5 16.8 2011 4,393.4 4,533.0 27.0% 22.5% 5,152.4 3,598.8

MC123 PK0.0 to PK12.5 12.5 2010 3,274.3 2,098.0 16.2% 24.5% 985.2 2,029.5

Kébili RVE951 PK24.0 to PK30.5 6.5 2009 1,717.2 1,532.6 12.8% 14.0% 88.5 209.2

MC210 PK2.5 to PK9.5 7.0 2009 1,869.2 2,122.0 19.8% 12.8% 1,077.2 121.1

Additional Phase


Commis. Year




Apprais. Compl. Apprais. Compl. Appraisal Completion

Kef GP12 PK162.6 to PK204 41.4 2011 9,240.0 22.7% 7,507.9

Jendouba MC59 PK44.6 to PK61.7 17.1 2011 3,240.0 44.9% 8,734.3

Médenine RVE 941

PK0 toPK19.6 19.6 2010 19,200.0 20.3% 11,677.2

Annex 4 : Procurement Plan

VIII

PROCUREMENT PLAN i) At appraisal Details of the procurement arrangements for works, goods and services at appraisal and adjusted following the outcomes of negotiations on the loan agreement are provided in the table below. ii) At completion The project's financial resources were used for the procurement of goods and services required for implementation of the project in accordance with the various lists of goods and services as approved by the national authorities and the Bank. The procurement methods used by the project were consistent with those defined in the project appraisal report. Accordingly: (i) the rehabilitation works on the tranches originally scheduled in the project (Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3) were procured through International Competitive Bidding; (ii) the procurement of 70 vehicles was made through International Competitive Bidding; (iii) the procurement of consultancy services for geotechnical control of the works was through negotiated contract; and (iv) the operations of the additional programme were procured through National Competitive Bidding. The costs of expropriation, displacement of concessionary networks and procurement of services for geotechnical control of the works, as well as the operating costs of DGPC were funded by Tunisia’s counterpart contributions as scheduled. The table below summarizes the said arrangements:

Procurement arrangements for goods, works and services provided for at appraisal and at completion

Components

At appraisal (UA million)

At Completion (UA million)

ICB Non ADB Fin

Total ICB NCB Non ADB Fin Total

1. Clearing of roadways and displacement of networks.

- 5.64 5.64 (0) -

6.57 6.57 (0)

2. Works

Phase 1 (422.1 km - 15 lots) 65.47 (46.36)

65.47 (46.36)

56.67 (40.23)

56.67 (40.23)

Phase2 (421.1 km - 16 lots) 62.68 (44.38)

62.68 (44.38)

59.92 (42.47)

59.92 (42.47)

Phase 3 (412.7 km - 15 lots) 63.10 (44.66)

63.10 (44.66)

49.92 (35.34)

49.92 (35.34)

Additional Phase

30.20 (20.75)

30.20 (20.75)

3. Provision of services

Geotechnical control of works - 2.56 2.56 (0) - 0.40 0.40 (0)

4. Supplies

Procurement of 70 utility vehicles

0.76 (0.76) - 0.76 (0.76) 0.38 (0.38) - 0.38 (0.38)

Total 192.01 (136.16)

8.20 200.21(136.16)

166.89 (118.42)

30.20 (20.75)

6.97 204.06 (139.16)

Source: DGPC/ADB ( ) Amount representing ADB’s share


IX

LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED Project Appraisal Report Loan Agreement and Protocol Agreement Aide-Memoires of Supervision Missions Progress Reports of the ADB Project Implementation Monitoring Unit Project Accounts Audit Reports Traffic Reports for 2007 Bank Ledger

Annex 6 : Project Implementation Description

X

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 1- Effectiveness and Works Start up

1.1 The project was approved by the ADB Board of Directors on 28 November 2004. The loan agreement was signed on 22 March 2006, i.e. 16 months later. The effectiveness date was 20 September 2006, i.e. six (6) months after signature and after the Borrower had fulfilled the requirements of Section 5.01 of the General Terms and Conditions. The first disbursement was made on 16 October 2006 upon fulfillment of conditions precedent thereto as follows: The "other loan conditions" were fulfilled: (i) With respect to clearance of the roadways for the execution of rehabilitation works on the project roads, the Government's commitment to clearing the roadways prior to works start-up was forwarded to the Bank on 8 September 2006. Accordingly, the requirements specified in the loan agreement were fulfilled on the whole. However, the Regional Directorate of Ariana encountered difficulties in clearing roadways for the execution of works on RVE543. These difficulties are due in particular to the rights-of-way situation within the Tunis urban area and the current excessive requirements of landowners. These difficulties have caused significant delays in the works execution; (ii) With respect to the signing of an agreement between DGPC and CETEC for the provision of geotechnical works control services, it was done on 22 December 2004 and sent to the Bank on 8 September 2006. As regards fulfilment of the special loan conditions concerning the periodic submission of project audit and progress reports, the General Control of Finance (CGF) produced four project accounting and financial audit reports for the 2006-2009 period. Overall, the audit reports cover the various aspects of project financial implementation, and received no-objection opinion from the Bank. Furthermore, only two progress reports were prepared by the executing agency. 2. Project Amendments: 2.1 The project underwent the following changes:

addition of a supplementary programme comprising: (i) rehabilitation of 58.5 km of roads; (ii) double surfacing of 19.6 km of roads; (iii) completion of the construction of a civil engineering structure; (iv) construction of a flyover; and (v) reinforcement of the GP3 in Kairouan and the GP8 between RN9 and RR21 in Tunis.

removal of the rehabilitation of RVE533, whose works were executed under another programme.

2.2 The project therefore allowed for the rehabilitation of 1318.40 kilometers of road, including the double surfacing of RVE941 in Djerba, the construction of a structure and major flyover on the GP9 in Tunis.

Annex 6: Project Implementation Description

XI

2.2.1 The RVE 941 in Djerba is a core road of the coastline whose double surfacing developed the coast, particularly the Djerba tourist resort area. 2.2.2 The freight flyover is a structure that provides high-level service connection between the Tunis Air Freight Terminal and Les Berges du Lac by crossing the GP9, converted into a two-way 4-lane fast road. The construction of this flyover was subject to design changes, at the canal crossing point, from a pre-stressed concrete structure to a composite bridge. This structural change led to delays in the completion of works and cost overrun. This was the first combined (concrete-metal) structure built in Tunisia. 3. Implementation Schedule 3.1 The implementation schedule provided for the completion of works in three phases:

Phase 1 relating to the rehabilitation of 422.1 km was launched in 25 lots. Works started in September 2006. Contracts for 4 lots were terminated, and relaunched.

Phase 2 relating to the rehabilitation of 421.1 km was launched in 23 lots. Works started in August 2007. Seven contracts were terminated, and relaunched.

Phase 3 relating to the rehabilitation of 412.7 km was launched in 23 lots. Works started in September 2008. The length for this Phase was reduced to 407 km following removal of 5.7 km from RVE533 which was rehabilitated under another programme.

For the additional Phase, works started in January 2009. 3.2 At end November 2012, two operations were not yet completed, namely the reinforcement of the GP3 in Kairouan and the GP8 between RN9 and RR21 in Tunis. 3.3 The procurement analysis shows significant delays in the final acceptance of completed works and the final settlement of the corresponding contracts. The status of final settlement of the contracts is summarized in the table below:

Phase Ongoing Works

Completed operations

Ongoing Final Settlement

Contracts Finally Settled

Phase 1 1 9 15

Phase 2 1 14 8

Phase 3 2 18 3

Additional Phase 4 3 0

Total 8 44 26


XII

4. Procurement of Works and Services 4.1 The project implementation comprised 88 contracts approved by the Bank. Eleven of these contracts were terminated (4 under Phase 1 and 7 under phase 2). The relaunching of terminated contracts took 5 to 14 months. 4.2 Services relating to works supervision and coordination were provided by the technical services of DGPC, quality control services were assigned to CETEC, assistance services for monitoring and supervision of construction works on the freight flyover were provided by BTE consultancy firm. The project accounts were audited by the General Control of Finance. 5. Costs and Sources of Finance Project Costs 5.1 The project costs, exclusive of tax, at completion stand at EUR 237.46 million, or TND 467.80 million, as compared to estimates of EUR 241,530,000 at appraisal, corresponding to TND 370. 24 million. It should be noted that the amount of taxes paid by the Government stands at TND 76.3 million dinars. 5.2 The savings on "Works" and "Support for road maintenance" helped to implement the additional programme for a total cost of EUR 32,640,000 (exclusive of tax). ADB's share of this additional programme stands at EUR 22.85 million. Project Financing The project is jointly financed by ADB and the Government of Tunisia. At appraisal, the Bank was to finance the entire foreign exchange costs accounting for 60% of the total project cost inclusive of tax or 70% of the cost exclusive of tax, i.e. EUR 165 million. The Government had to finance the local currency costs of the project, covering the local costs of works and all costs relating to the clearing of roadways, the displacement of concessionary networks, and the geotechnical quality control of materials. The table below shows the financing plan at appraisal and at completion. Financing Plan (UA million)

Source of Finance

At appraisal (Excluding Taxes) At completion (Excluding Taxes)

FE LC Total (%) FE LC Total (%)

ADB 164.25 - 164.25 68% 165.00 165.00 68%

GVT 77.28 77.28 32% 76.96 76.96 32%

Total 164.25 77.28 241.53 100% 165.00 76.96 241.96 100%

Bank and Government financing by project component is summarized in Annex 1.


XIII

6. Disbursements

6.1 Disbursements were made on the project's special account opened at the Central Bank of Tunisia. Furthermore, as at 22/12/2010, the loan amount of EUR 165 million was disbursed in full. This disbursement was made in 7 tranches from the special account. The table below provides details of disbursements made by the Bank. Disbursement Table:

Request Date Value Date Amount in EUR Total Disbursements

26/09/2006 16/10/2006 20.000.000 20.000.000

07/05/2007 28/06/2007 15.000.000 35.000.000

20/10/2007 17/12/2007 22.500.000 57.500.000

19/08/2008 04/11/2008 30.000.000 87.500.000

05/06/2009 15/07/2009 30.000.000 117.500.000

08/09/2009 10/11/2009 35.000.000 152.500.000

11/08/2010 21/12/2010 12.500.000 165.000.000

6.2 As regards the amount mobilized by BCT, at end November 2012 the expenses stood at EUR 160,996,173.350, representing a utilization rate of 97.6%. The balance of the loan special account amounted to EUR 4,003,826.65. 6.3 The local currency costs are borne entirely by the Government, which included them in the budget of each fiscal year. The counterpart contribution for project activities has always been available and all Government counterpart contribution payments were made. 6.4 ADB payments by year are summarized in Appendix 1.


XIV

Project Implementation Schedule at Appraisal and at Completion

Expected: Actual:

Component 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

works

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Additional Phase

Support for road maintenance

Procurement of vehicles

Component

Expected Actual

Competitive Bidding

Contract Award

Works Start-up

Completion of Works

Competitive Bidding

Contract Award

Works Start-up

Completion of Works

Works

- Phase 1 (422.1 km) Nov.-Dec. 2004

Mar 2005 Apr. 2005 Mar 2007 16/10/2005 Jul.Sept.2006

Sept. 2006

Dec. 2011

- Phase 2 (421.1 km) Mar 2005 May- July 2005

Sept. 2005

Aug 2007 20/07/2006 May- July 2007

July 2007

Oct. 2010

- Phase 3 (412.7 km) Oct. 2005 Nov.- Dec.2005

Mar 2006 Feb. 2008 16/10/2007 July 2008

Sept. 2008

Sept. 2011

- Additional Phase 16/05/2008 Jan. 2009

Jan 2009.

Dec. 2012

E.R. Support

Procurement of vehicles Dec.2004 Mar 2005 Sept. 2005

16/11/2005 May 2006

Annex 7

XV

PREVIOUS SUPERVISION RATINGS (2010)

INDICATORS

Ratings on 2.12.2010

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Compliance with loan conditions precedent to entry into force 1

Compliance with General Conditions 1

Compliance with Other Conditions 1

B. PROCUREMENT PERFORMANCE

Procurement of Consultancy Services 3

Procurement of Goods and Works 3

C. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Availability of Foreign Exchange 3

Availability of Local Currency 3

Disbursement Flows 3

Cost Management 3

Performance of Co-Financiers 3

D. ACTIVITIES AND WORKS

Adherence to implementation schedule 3

Performance of Consultants or Technical Assistance 3

Performance of Contractors 3

Performance of Project Management 3

E. IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT

Likelihood of achieving development Objectives 3

Likelihood that benefits will be realized and sustained beyond 3

Likely contribution of the project towards an increase in 3

Current Rate of Return 3

F. OVERALL PROJECT ASSESMENT

Current Supervision Average 2.67

Current Trend over time 2.43 RATINGS: 3 = Highly Satisfactory, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory, 0 = Highly Unsatisfactory, ‘ ‘ = Not applicable

STATUS

Implementation Progress (IP) = 2.57 Development Objectives (DO) = 3.00 OVERALL STATUS : NON PROBLEMATIC PROJECT / POTENTIALY PROBLEMATIC PROJECT

Justification of ratings