OR/18/002 Conclusions and recommendations

Liddle, E and Fenner, R. 2017. Review of handpump-borehole implementation in Uganda. British Geological Survey Open Report, OR/18/002.

A number of issues were noted throughout Section 6; several of which are briefly summarised below:

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Consultants are often not procured for the siting or the supervision work. Instead, DCs are conducting the siting work, with DWO, CSO, handpump mechanics, or WUCs being responsible for the supervision work (which is often only part-time). The lack of consultant procurement stems back to the use of turnkey contracts and general belief among IAs that consultants are not needed for this work, or that the cost of procuring a consultant is not worthwhile. IAs are under constant pressure to install as many new HPBs each financial year/project cycle – paying a consultant to site and supervise would limit the number of new HPBs that could be installed.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Insufficient contract prices are being paid when consultants are procured for the siting and/or the supervision work (with lump sum no-water-no-pay payment terms). As a result, consultants are forced to cut corners on-site. These low prices stem back to the need among IAs to keep cost per HPB as low as possible so they can install a greater number of HPBs each financial year/project cycle.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Turnkey contracts were being used by 73% of the IAs interviewed, with a single DC being responsible for both the siting and D/I work. These contracts are paid via lump sum-no- water-no pay payment terms, with the lump sum prices often being insufficient for high- quality work[file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2018/OR18002%20Deb%20working%20on/OR18002.docx#_bookmark52 35 ]at the given site. The lump sum no-water-no-pay payment terms mean that DCs are being pressured to find water at all costs and to save much money as possible when on-site, so losses from unsuccessful boreholes can be recovered. A number of DC short cuts are said to be taking place as a result. The use of turnkey contracts with lump sum-no-water- no pay payment terms stems back to the fact that IAs do not want to pay for unsuccessful boreholes (this is a seen as a waste of money as they strive to install as many new HPBs every financial year/project cycles). Also at play here, however, is the fact that IAs do not trust consultants (due to issues with briefcase consultants in the past) and the fact that IAs find lump sum-no-water-no-pay contracts easier to manage (believing that there is no need to supervise as the IA does not need to know the exact borehole depth, number of casing lengths etc.).

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Lump sum quotes that are insufficient for high-quality work at given sites are being submitted by consultants and DCs. When these quotes are placed in front of evaluation committees, so long as they pass the necessary technically evaluation, these insufficient quotes win contracts. Once on-site, consultants and DCs are then under pressure to keep within their insufficient lump sum price, with short-cuts being needed to do so. The submission of insufficient lump sum quotes stems back to competition with the bidding

!--[if gte vml 1]>  !--[if gte vml 1]>![endif]-->

35 ‘High-quality work’ refers to work, be it siting, D/I, or supervision in the case of this report, that results in HPBs that are able to fulfill their function of providing safe and adequate quantities of water (that users are willing to use) throughout the course of their anticipated lifetime: 25-50 years for the borehole (Danert et al., 2010) and 10 years for the handpump (although fast- wearing parts will need to be replaced throughout this time) (Carter and Ross, 2016).

process, fear among consultants and DCs that if they quote realistic prices, they will not win the contract, and inaccurate, non-site-specific, bidding document technical specifications.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->A number of DWOs (67% of the DWOs that are using lump sum no-water-no-pay payment terms) are breaking the norm when it comes to paying for successful boreholes; instead of paying the full lump sum as they should do in these cases, they are only paying for the actual work done/materials used. As a result, DCs are losing their ability to recover their losses from unsuccessful boreholes, with this putting DCs under financial pressure on-site. DWOs do not want to pay the full lump sum in these cases, as they see it as a cost saving opportunity for them. Several of these DWOs were simply unaware of the fact that this practice was incorrect.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->The siting work is never conducted before the DC is procured, i.e. the siting report is not available when the DC technical specifications are written, hence estimates or stock- standard designs have to be used. These estimates and stock-standard designs are often unsuitable for the given site, and as a result, DC lump sum price quotes at the time of bidding are often inaccurate (as the estimates/stock-standard designs are used to calculate the overall lump sum price), with DC short cuts then needing to be taken on-site if the lump sum price they quoted was too low.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Procurement delays within DWO projects are common, with these resulting in rushed siting and D/I work as the end of the financial year approaches. These delays stem back to the fact that PDUs at the DLG level typically address all DLG procurement needs in one newspaper advert, given the cost of the advert and their limited budgets. If other user departments, for example, health, are late submitting their procurement needs, the DWO procurement needs are left waiting.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Continued use of GI rising mains among 48% of the IAs interviewed, regardless of the MWE directive (issued in November 2016) that stated that all HPB GI use must stop. Corrosion then becomes an issue, with red/brown coloured water being common when GI is used in aggressive groundwater areas. The continued use of GI stems back to the fact that IAs do not want to cover the additional cost of stainless steel rising mains (which are 4 – 5 x more expensive) as this will increase the price per HPB, which makes installing as many HPBs as possible each financial year/project cycle difficult.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->5 inch casing is often warmed over fire and stretched to fit on top of a 6 inch hole, with siltation then becoming a concern. 5 inch casing is being used as IAs are continuing to specify and pay for 5 inch casing, regardless of the fact that most DCs only have 6 inch drilling bits. DCs do not want to buy 6 inch casing (which is more expensive), as at the end of the contract, they will only be paid for 5 inch casing, regardless of what they use on-site.

As explained briefly above, each of these concerns are believed to be adversely affecting the quality of the HPBs that are being installed in Uganda. Practical interventions need to be found if these problems are to be alleviated going forward. As researchers (i.e. non-policy-makers) we do not attempt to have all of the answers, as much of this will need to be addressed by those within Uganda, specifically those in MWE (DWD and DWRM). We do however, believe that it is necessary at this stage to highlight the fact that many of the key concerns stem from a series of underlying issues, as summarised above. Turnkey contracts for example, are being used because:

!--[if !supportLists]-->a)  !--[endif]-->IAs do not want to pay for unsuccessful HPBs,

!--[if !supportLists]-->b)  !--[endif]-->IAs do not trust consultants, and

!--[if !supportLists]-->c)  !--[endif]-->IAs find turnkey contracts easier to manage.

Stating that IAs cannot use turnkey contracts going forward without addressing these underlying issues will be ineffective. The same can be said with GI rising mains; stating that they cannot be used in the future will be ineffective if IAs are not willing to increase their price per HPB to cover the cost of stainless steel rising mains, with this being the case among a number of the IAs interviewed for this research. These underlying issues need to be at the forefront on any future directive, policy, or intervention. Holistic directives, policies, and interventions will be needed. Change will be step-by-step; it will not come overnight.

Furthermore, it must also be noted that future directives, policies, and interventions need to be targeted at all actors within IAs. Superiors who influence IA protocols or control project manager decisions must be actively involved (for example the CAO and politicians for DLG projects, and higher-level employees within CSOs and donors in the case of CSO projects). If they are not actively involved, project managers will not be able to implement the new directive, policy, or intervention. This was noted as a major issue throughout this research – project managers knew that their decisions were adversely affecting quality of work, and the subsequent HPBs, but their superiors would not allow any alternatives, with the phrase “our hand are tied” repeatedly appearing in the interview transcripts. Take the use of turnkey contracts, for example. While a directive that stated that turnkey contracts are not to be used going forward was issued in January 2017, 73% of the IAs interviewed (post this directive being issued) were still using turnkey contracts. Why? Their superiors, for example, politicians at the DLG level and donors for CSOs, would not allow them to revert to procuring a consultant for siting/supervision and a DC for D/I, as under these circumstances, they would have to pay for unsuccessful boreholes.

In light of the above, we finish this section by exploring several recommendations, all of which aim to not only address the initial concern, but also the underlying issues that would need to be addressed if the given recommendation was to be possible on-the-ground.

!--[if !supportLists]-->1) !--[endif]-->Price of consultant and DC contracts

The price of both consultant and DC contracts need to increase and it must be ensured that these prices are sufficient for high-quality work at the given site. The specific price will vary depending on the hydrogeological complexity and the borehole design needed, however, rough estimates from those interviewed reveal that an average of UGX 3 million[file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2018/OR18002%20Deb%20working%20on/OR18002.docx#_bookmark53 36] is needed for the siting and supervision work and an average of UGX 29 million[file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2018/OR18002%20Deb%20working%20on/OR18002.docx#_bookmark54 37 ]for the D/I work (see Section

!--[if !supportLists]-->5.2.3  !--[endif]-->and Section [file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2018/OR18002%20Deb%20working%20on/OR18002.docx#_bookmark21 5.2.4,] respectively, for current prices).

If the prices of consultant and DC contracts are to be sufficient for high-quality work at the given site, it is imperative that evaluation committees select the most technically capable bidder whose quote is sufficient for high-quality work at the given site. For this to happen, the following underlying issues need to be addressed.

name="_bookmark52"Firstly, IAs need to ensure that the price they budget is sufficient for high-quality work at the given site. For this to be possible:

!--[if gte vml 1]>  !--[if gte vml 1]>![endif]-->

36 US$ 829

37 US$ 8010

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->IA budgets (for both the consultant and DC) will need to be based on site-specific information. For the consultant budget, the price will need to be based on a realistic number of days’ work (for both siting and supervision) for the given area’s hydrogeological complexity. For the DC budget, the siting work should be conducted before the DC budget is set, so the site-specific conditions and expected borehole design are known beforehand. This will require the siting consultant to be procured before the DC budget is set (i.e., parallel procurement of both the consultant and the DC needs to be abandoned, as do turnkey contracts, as neither of these methods allow for the siting work to be conducted before the DC is procured).

Within the current DWO implementation timeline, conducting the siting work before the DC budget is set is impossible – there is simply not enough time in one financial year, bearing in mind the delays that are already common within DWO projects. One way around this would be for HPB projects to operate over two financial years:

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Year 1 = select communities, procure consultant, consultant conduct siting work and prepare siting report.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Year 2 = Set DC budget (using siting report from year 1), procure DC (using siting report from year 1), DC drills and installs (with consultant supervising), HPB commissioned.

During year 2 of project a, year 1 of project b could begin for another set of communities, and so on. The number of HPBs installed would not decrease overall, however, implementation would be spread over two years. The same model could be used in CSOs.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->MWE will need to release a range of engineer’s estimates for both consultant and DC work that detail the cost of siting/supervision, and D/I across the country and in a range of different hydrogeological environments. This will help guide IA budget estimations.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Most IAs will need to increase the price they are willing to pay the consultant and the DC. This will require a mind-set shift among all actors within the given IAs, including superiors: the mind-set can no longer be:

‘we must install as many HPBs as we possibly can within our budgets’.

Instead, the mind-set needs to be:

‘we must install as many high-quality HPBs'[file:///W:/PP/GraphicCommunications/Graphic%20Design/Live_Jobs/2014%20Reports/2018/OR18002%20Deb%20working%20on/OR18002.docx#_bookmark55 38] 'as we possibly can within our budgets’.

NB: the recommendation here is not that budgets need to significantly increase (although that would be positive), but rather that these budgets, whatever amount they be, need to

!--[if gte vml 1]>  !--[if gte vml 1]>![endif]-->

38 ‘High-quality HPBs’ refer to HPBs that are able to fulfill their function of providing safe and adequate quantities of water (that users are willing to use) throughout the course of their anticipated lifetime: 25-50 years for the borehole (Danert et al., 2010) and 10 years for the handpump (although fast-wearing parts will need to be replaced throughout this time) (Carter and Ross, 2016).

be used wisely and in a way that allows for high-quality work among consultants and DCs.

Secondly, evaluation committees will need to be aware of the price that is needed for high- quality consultant and DC work at the given site. MWE engineer’s estimates (as discussed above) will greatly help here. IAs will also need to budget realistic prices (as also discussed above) as the IA’s budget is the main guide for evaluation committees.

Thirdly, when bidding for contracts, both consultants and DCs must not underprice their quotes. The prices they quote must be sufficient for high-quality work at the given site. For this to happen, the following underlying issues will need to be addressed:

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->The fear among consultants and DCs that if they quote a price that is sufficient for high- quality work, they will not win the contract, will need to be alleviated. For this to happen, IA budgets will need to be sufficient for high-quality work at the given site (as discussed above). If they are not, consultants and DCs will continue to underprice, as they will continue to assume that if they quote above the IA’s budget, they will not win the contract.

!--[if !supportLists]-->·  !--[endif]-->Both consultants and DCs must be given accurate, site-specific, technical specifications in their bidding documents. For the consultant technical specifications, the number of days’ work specified in consultant bidding documents must be based on the hydrogeological complexity of the area, while for the DC technical specifications to be accurate, the siting work must be conducted before the DC is procured (as discussed above, with the idea of 2 year project cycles).

!--[if !supportLists]-->2) !--[endif]-->Turnkey contracts

As stated by the MWE directive in January 2017, turnkey contracts must not be used going forward. Instead, IAs need to revert to procuring an independent consultant for the siting (and supervision) work and a DC for the D/I work (with the DC then being paid admeasurement for all sites, regardless of the outcome). For project managers to be willing to abandon turnkey contracts and for them to be willing to pay DCs admeasurement for all sites, regardless of the outcome, the following underlying issues need to be addressed.

Firstly, awareness needs to be raised among all IA actors as to the realities of drilling and the fact that unsuccessful boreholes are normal. Success can never be 100% guaranteed when dealing with groundwater, thus DCs deserve to be paid for the work done, regardless of the outcome. We suggest that MWE takes responsibility for these awareness raising efforts. It is crucial that both DWOs and CSOs are included and that any superiors who control the IA’s policies or project manager actions are involved. If superiors are not involved, a move away from turnkey contracts is unlikely as project managers will continue to fear their superior’s reactions to them paying for unsuccessful boreholes.

Secondly, confidence in the consultants’ abilities needs to be raised among all IA actors (including superiors). The recent step taken by MWE to license consultants is a major step in this direction. (This process began in July 2016, and while uptake was slow to begin with, progress name="_bookmark53" was made in 2017. By July 2017, MWE had issued licenses to 61 individuals and 13 companies.) name="_bookmark54" IAs now need to be continually encouraged that these consultants are indeed qualified and safe to

procure, however, as already alluded to above, a crucial element here is that all IA actors also need to be aware of the realities of drilling – they cannot expect these consultants to site successful boreholes 100% of the time.

Thirdly, all IA actors (including superiors) need to realise, that while procuring both a consultant and a DC (and procuring the consultant before the DC so the siting work can be done in advance) will require more work/slow the project schedule. If fewer DC short-cuts are then taken on-site, it will be worthwhile. One way of saving time and money here is to pre-qualify a set of consultants – they may, for example, then be on a framework contract for 3 years. This would save the IA from having to go through the entire consultant procurement process every project cycle. Instead, as soon as the IA knows the communities they want to drill in, the consultants can get straight to work.

!--[if !supportLists]-->3) !--[endif]-->Supervision

A licensed consultant needs to be procured for all HPB drilling projects and their contracts need to allow them to be on-site full-time. This is especially crucial if turnkey contracts are to be abandoned, with DCs being paid admeasurement for all work done instead. For this to happen, IAs must be willing to: a) budget the procurement process time and cost and b) budget for the cost of the work itself. While allowing for the cost of supervision (procurement process and the work itself) will increase the price per HPB, it will be worthwhile if it means that fewer DC short-cuts are then taken on-site. As stated previously, the mind-set can no longer be:

‘we must install as many HPBs as we possibly can within our budgets’.

Instead, the mind-set needs to be:

‘we must install as many high-quality HPBs as we possibly can within our budgets’.

!--[if !supportLists]-->4) !--[endif]-->Stainless steel rising mains

Stainless steel rising mains need to be used in aggressive groundwater areas. DCs cannot simply be told to do so. However; if stainless steel is to be used, they must be paid the extra cost of doing so. BoQs cannot continue to specify GI, if stainless steel is to be installed. The price per HPB must increase to account for these extra costs. The underlying changes that are needed for the price increase are explained above. Furthermore, to combat the issue of low quality stainless steel, the quality of stainless steel that is being imported needs to be regulated by Uganda National Bureau of Standards.

!--[if !supportLists]-->5) !--[endif]-->DLG procurement delays

Procurement delays in DWO projects need to be limited. To do so, all district user departments (including the DWO) must keep to the set DLG procurement schedule (specified in the DIM, MWE (2013b)) and the evaluation committees must meet in a timely manner, early in the financial year. To aid the timely manner of the evaluation meeting, either a budget needs to be set for evaluation committee allowances or this meeting needs to be specified as a requirement in the evaluation committee members job description.

Concluding remarks

name="_bookmark55"As stated earlier in this section, the above recommendations are not exhaustive list, nor do we attempt to have all the answers. Many of the next steps will need to be determined by those within Uganda, specifically those in MWE. We do however hope that the above

recommendations can act as starting points. In closing this report, we wish to re-highlight the fact that many of the key concerns highlighted in Section 6 stem from a series of underlying issues. These underlying issues must be at the forefront of any future directive, policy, or intervention; if they are not, the directive, policy, or intervention will inevitably fail. Furthermore, it is also crucial that future directives, policies, and interventions target all IA actors; superiors who influence IA protocols and/or control project manager decisions must be actively involved. If they are not, project managers will not be able to implement the new directive, policy, or intervention. If practical changes are to be seen on-the-ground, a collective effort will be required among all HPB implementation actors, including those within DWD, DWRM, DLGs, CSOs, DCs, and consultancy firms.