Independent Verification of Rap3 Disbursement Linked Indicators (Dli): Local Roads Netwok - 2018 Round 1

DFID Nepal Rural Access Programme 3 (RAP3) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Component INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF RAP3 DISBURSEMENT LINKED INDICATORS (DLI): LOCAL ROADS NETWOK - 2018 ROUND 1

Date: May 2018

Submitted by Itad

Itad [year] Contents

Abbreviations ...... iii Executive Summary ...... iv 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 What RAP does ...... 1 1.2 Disbursement Linked Indicators ...... 2 1.3 Verification by MEL ...... 2 1.4 Objectives of the assignment ...... 3 2. Methodology and Sampling Framework ...... 4 2.1 Verification Team ...... 4 2.2 Methodology of Local Roads Network (LRN) Verification ...... 4 2.2.1 New construction...... 4 2.2.2 Maintenance ...... 6 2.4 Sampling ...... 6 2.5 Limitations ...... 7 3. Verification Findings ...... 8 3.1 LRN progress verification: New construction ...... 8 3.2 LRN progress verification: Maintenance ...... 9 3.3 Qualitative observation from the field verification ...... 11 4. Conclusion ...... 12 5. Annexes ...... 13 Annex 1: LRN progress verification in sampled districts ...... 13 Annex 2: LRN progress verification in sampled districts ...... 16

Abbreviations

DDC District Development Committee DFID UK Department for International Development DLI Disbursement Linked Indicator (used for the Payment by Results mechanism) DPM RAP3 Deputy Programme Manager DRCN District Road Core Network DTL District Team Leader IoE Institute of Engineering (Tribhuvan University, Nepal) Km Kilometre LF Logframe LFI Logframe Indicator LNGO Local Non-Governmental Organisation GoN Government of Nepal LRN Local Roads Network M Metre MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Component of RAP3 PBR Payment by Results PM Programme Manager (of RAP3) PMV System Performance Management and Verification System of RAP3 RAP3 Rural Access Programme 3 RBG Road Building Group RMG Road Maintenance Group SBG Special Building Group SC Supervision Consultant (sub-contracted by RAP3)

iii

Executive Summary

This report presents findings from the first round of verification in 2018 of RAP reported results. The verification exercise was undertaken by RAP’s independent MEL component. It was conducted between March and April of 2018. As the previous round of verification in 2017 focused exclusively on the Disbursement Linked Indicator (DLI) for employment days, this round of verification focused on the one DLI that relates to RAP’s reported results for road works. This DLI for road works has two sub-indicators for new construction and maintenance road works respectively. The verification focused on LRN road length under construction in the district of Mugu, and LRN road length under maintenance in the districts of Achham, Doti and Jumla. Greater emphasis was placed on the maintenance work for this round due to the transition of handing over maintenance work from RAP to the Government of Nepal. Verification of new road construction work in Mugu was checked against the reported progress up to the end of February 2018. The verification found that for new road construction progress, the results reported by RAP are accurate based on the 51 road cross-section samples from 17 RBGs assessed by the verification team. Verification of road length under maintenance was assessed in 3 districts of Accham, Doti and Mugu and was checked against the reported progress for the end of February 2018. A total of 30 Road Maintenance Groups (RMGs) were sampled and the monthly work activities undertaken by these RMGS in February 2018 was physically verified. The verification team also found that for the maintenance progress the work was completed accurately by RMGs and there were no inconsistencies found. All assessments of work in the field (including photographic evidence) and the verification assignment itself can be found at the following link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dl2EnZMZMfh5l9D3xgWQ7zmkwrFW5inz. The MEL team strongly encourages readers to access the online folder to gauge the progress of RAP works for themselves.

1. Introduction

1.1 What RAP does

The objective of the Rural Access Programme 3 (RAP) is to reduce poverty in western Nepal. The programme aims to deliver economic benefits to the poor through improved rural road access and connectivity utilising a pro-poor targeted labour based approach to road works. The primary output of RAP is the construction and maintenance of rural roads within the District Road Core Network (DRCN) which makes up a strategic part of Nepal’s Local Roads Network (LRN) in eight core districts of the Mid and Far West region. Poor and vulnerable individuals are targeted to become part of Road Building Groups (RBGs) and Road Maintenance Groups (RMGs) who are paid to construct and maintain rural roads.

At the end of 2017, Nepal became a Federal Republic with autonomous provincial and local governments, replacing the district level government administrative structures that existed previously. Whilst the country transitions to fully and practically implementing the Federal administrative structures, the DRCN remains an important strategic network of rural roads. RAP is constructing 97.5km of new roads in four core build (or new construction) districts: Bajura, Humla, Kalikot and Mugu. Bajura is part of Province No.7 whilst Humla, Kalikot and Mugu are part of Province No.6 (also referred to as Karnali Pradesh) in Federal Nepal. RAP is maintaining existing rural roads in the DRCN of four core maintenance districts: Achham, Dailekh, Doti and Jumla.1 Dailekh and Jumla are part of Province No.6 (or Karnali Pradesh) whilst Achham and Doti are part of Province No.7 in Federal Nepal. This report acknowledges the significant political changes that are underway, but for the purposes of verification of results in the areas that RAP operates in, it refers to this areas using the district names.

The construction of RAP roads is based on three broad stages: 1) track opening to 2.5m, 2) track widening to 3.5m, and 3) track widening to 4.5m with structures (this includes supporting structures such as gabion walls, cross drainage, etc.). Construction is completed in sections along the entirety of a planned road corridor.

There are a number of different maintenance categories that RAP carries out depending on the condition of the roads (e.g. specific, emergency, recurrent, routine, etc.). The majority of activities is centred around routine and recurrent maintenance performed by RMGs along the length of roads assigned to these groups. This work generally consists of light tasks that can be easily performed by RMG members, who are recruited from the local community. Such tasks can include filling potholes, clearing rocks off the road path created by small landslides and cutting overgrown vegetation that can block side drains by the road. The amount of work required for routine and recurrent maintenance is assessed monthly, and the work assigned accordingly.

1 RAP has maintained approximately 2,100km of rural roads in the DRCN across 10 districts in Nepal, of which 4 are within the core maintenance districts in the Mid and Far West. RAP plans to maintain up to 2,250km by 2019. The verification is concerned only with the 4 core districts and not the remaining 6 pilot districts.

1.2 Disbursement Linked Indicators

The UK Department for International Development (DFID) funds RAP. Funding to the implementing organisation, IMC Worldwide, is mostly based on payment by results (PbR)2. Payments are based on Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs), which relate to RAP results3. The two major DLIs of RAP are:

 Road length under construction and road length maintained  Employment days generated

Road length has two sub-indicators that refer to new construction and maintenance respectively. New construction also has two specific sub-indicators that report RAPs against: a) km of track under widening to 3.5m and b) km of track under widening to 4.5m with structures. For the roads under maintenance this DLI is a proxy for maintenance work conducted by RMGs.

It has been acknowledged by both RAP management and DFID Nepal that some of the DLIs are dynamic and do not fully capture the extent of works undertaken by RAP. For example, the section of road ‘worked on’ is a function (and a simplification) of the amount of work and activities under this heading that captures the DLI. Hence, for the kilometres (km) of roads under construction, the DLI can be seen as a proxy indicator to capture the ongoing progress, with physical verification serving as an assessment of this.

A unit price is attached to the achievement of each result. For instance, one employment day is worth £5 RAP counts its results monthly and submits an invoice to DFID based on the results achieved. There are other DLIs such as training days and portering of equipment that also make up results that are reported to DFID. These account for a very small proportion of RAP’s overall invoicing to DFID Nepal.

1.3 Verification by MEL

The verification process was initiated to provide assurance to DFID on the progress reported against key work milestones. The MEL component conducts verification twice annually on DLIs related to RAP’s results, with the focus of each round of verification (e.g. relative focus on employment days versus new construction versus maintenance) agreed by RAP, DFID and MEL before any field work is conducted.

The scope and coverage of verification has evolved over the rounds:

1. August 2016: Pilot Verification. Focus: All new construction districts and a sampled approach to employment days. 2. March 2017: Round 1 Verification 2017. Focus: Three new construction districts, one maintenance district and a sampled approach to employment days 3. September 2017: Round 2 Verification 2017. Focus: Census of employment days in all new construction districts.

2 PbR is a broad term, encompassing any approach where some payments are made only following the delivery of pre- agreed results (outputs or outcomes) - see DFID (2015) - A Smart Guide to payment-by-results contracting including outcome-based, output-based and hybrid contracts. RAP3 was DFID-Nepal’s first PbR contract and while PbR is still a relatively new contracting model for DFID, DFID is increasing its use with the aim to increase development impact and VFM. 3 Some DLIs are the same as the indicators in the RAP logframe. There are however also differences.

The results from previous verification reviews have been positive (i.e. accurate reporting by RAP to DFID). These reports can be found at this link: http://rapnepal.com/component-results/948

1.4 Objectives of the assignment

The objective of this assignment is to independently verify RAP’s reported results against the road related DLI only - i.e. road length under construction and road length maintained. Specifically, this round of verification is focused on three maintenance districts (Jumla, Doti and Accham) and one new built district (Mugu). Previous rounds of physical verification of road works conducted by RAP were weighted towards new construction as these districts represented proportionately more of the DLIs that RAP reports against for payment. However, it was agreed with DFID and RAP that this round would focus on just one new construction district, with greater weight towards maintenance works in three other districts.

As the RAP programme enters its final year of implementation, the focus for stakeholders is on enabling maintenance work (planning, budgeting, etc.) to be taken on by the new local government bodies – hence the relative importance to verify maintenance work undertaken by RAP before this work is continued by the Government of Nepal.

2. Methodology and Sampling Framework

2.1 Verification Team

The physical and technical verification was conducted by a five-person engineering team with support from MEL. This is the same team that has conducted the previous four rounds of verification. The verification team consisted of one Senior Rural Roads Engineer and four senior graduate engineers from the Institute of Engineering (IoE), Tribhuvan University. An orientation session was organised by MEL to train the graduate engineers on the methodologies and process of the verification. The field level verification was conducted between March and April 2018.

2.2 Methodology of Local Roads Network (LRN) Verification

The purpose of the LRN verification was to verify the validity of the work progress reported by RAP up to February 2018. The RAP LRN Progress Report of February 2018 was the basis for the LRN verification as it contained the most up-to-date data on RAP’s progress. For new road construction work, the verification looked at cumulative road progress up to February 2018 in Mugu. For maintenance work, the verification looked at one month’s worth of work in the months of February or March 2018 (depending on the district).

Maintenance work is a continuous process where the condition of roads is assessed in each month to inform the level of maintenance work required in the next month. Accurately verifying maintenance over a longer period is difficult since any work completed may not be traceable due to heavy traffic or other effects on the road quality. Therefore, the most practical approach is to look at one month’s work plan and to assess the latest maintenance work required and completed.

Annex 2 provides all of the data compiled in the sampled districts by the verification team. The verification team has a record of all measurements for all road sections sampled as well as photographic evidence of RAP work verified. This can be accessed via: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dl2EnZMZMfh5l9D3xgWQ7zmkwrFW5inz

2.2.1 New construction

The verification team completed field-based measurements of the actual road and collected other evidence (i.e. photographs) in Mugu. Based on the sampling (see section 2.4) the verification team measured road sections using cross-sectional assessments. Before the team moved to the field to begin the verification, they obtained chainage wise (i.e. road section) construction updates from the RAP Mugu team in order to sample the road section.

Figure 1 A typical cross-section of a rural road in the hills of Nepal

4.50 m

Cut Fill

The following steps were followed to verify the new road construction:

 Information on critical sections, work in progress and completed sections were collected from the Mugu RAP district office to guide the cross-section measurement. This was done to avoid sampling critical (i.e. where work is known to have stalled for valid reasons) and completed sections of road. The DLI specifically looks at the length of road under progress – that is, the length of road that is being widened to 3.5m, and the length of road that is being widened to 4.5m with added structures. Hence, the cross-sectional measurement is the primary basis of verifying road widening progress.

 The verification team conducted the road cross-section measurement at the start, towards the middle and at the end of each sampled road section as depicted diagrammatically below in Figure 2. The team prepared a sketch of each cross-section at the site itself and also gathered photographs as additional evidence. The reason for the measurement of three cross-sections per sample of road stretch was to enable the verifiers to obtain a fuller picture of road widening progress compared to a single observation and measurement which the verifiers felt was insufficient and often not reflective of the actual progress along the road. This was particularly true where progress along the same stretch may vary for valid reasons usually due to difficult terrain. MEL then made an assessment of whether the reported results were accurate and acceptable, as shown in Table 1.

Figure 2: Cross-section assessment of a road stretch worked on by a RBG

Cross-sectional Cross-sectional Cross-sectional assessment of assessment of assessment of end beginning part of middle part of road part of road road section section worked on section worked on worked on by RBG by RBG by RBG

Table 1: MEL verification of sampled sections worked on by RBG

Verifying cross-section of sampled stretch MEL verifies as:

If all 3 cross-sections match RAP reported progress Accurate and accepted based on technical field assessment.

Not all but at least one cross-section matches RAP Accurate but requires an element of technical assessment reported progress and informed judgement as to why there is variation in the field.

None of the three cross-sections matches RAP reported Inaccurate but may be considered accurate based on progress technical assessment of road condition and justification for variation based in the field.

2.2.2 Maintenance

The road maintenance DLI was verified in Accham, Doti and Jumla. The methodology is meant to provide a strong-to-moderate level of assurance to DFID; for the randomly sampled road corridor the maintenance work is verified against the work plan and assumed true for all roads maintained by RAP within the confidence level of 90%.4

The following steps were adopted to verify road under maintenance

1. The monthly maintenance work plan for February 2018 for the RMGs in the sampled road corridor was collected from the respective RAP district technical offices.

2. The MEL technical team prepared a checklist to record whether the actual activity tallied with the physical verification. This was done by obtaining the February 2018 workplan which details the amount and type of maintenance work required in that month that is to be performed by RMGs.

3. The verification team then checked if the required maintenance work was carried out in that month by physically observing along the sampled stretch of the road under RAP maintenance; photos were taken as evidence of records. This was then cross-referenced against what was assessed by the Inspector of Works who records this on an inspection form, based on which a value and bill is prepared to invoice to RAP. Figure 3 depicts the steps in the process. An example of these assessments and forms is shown in Annex 1.

Figure 3: Steps in maintenance verification

Verify that maintenance Collect workplan of work has been Cross-reference planned maintenance performed by RMG against Supervisor activities from RAP through field inspection form district office assessment

2.4 Sampling

The DLIs were verified on a sampling basis to balance the need to provide adequate assurance to DFID with proportionate resourcing of the verification exercise. The agreed sampling option with DFID was to ensure a 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error with RBGs and RMGs as primary sampling units in the 4 districts where the verification was conducted and not the km of roads under construction/maintenance.

4 Please refer to Annex K on page 48 of the PMV Review produced by MEL in 2016. This can be accessed here: http://www.rapnepal.com/content/review-rap-3-performance-management-and-verification-pmv-system

Table 2: Sampling Framework

Total Number Number of sampled Type of physical verification of District of RBGs/RMGs RBGs/RMGs road works

Mugu 38 17 3 x 17 Cross-section measurements (New construction) Assessment of 8 types of activities Doti 17 9 (Maintenance) assigned to 9 RMGs in March 2018 Assessment of 8 types of activities Achham 37 15 assigned to 15 RMGs Feb/March (Maintenance) 2018

Jumla Assessment of 8 types of activities 12 6 (Maintenance) assigned to 6 RMGs in Feb 2018

Total Groups 104 47 /

2.5 Limitations

There are three limitations to the methodology adopted:

 The DLIs do not expressly incorporate the quality of road construction and the qualitative assessment (i.e. longitudinal assessments) of road construction and maintenance. However the Verification team observed the quality of the work in each sample location site.

 There is a limitation in the methodology of undertaking cross-sectional measurements at three points of each sampled section because these three points may not be representative of the entire road cross-section as covered in the methodology section of the report. Hence an assessment of whether or not measurements are consistent with the reported width requires an element of judgement.

In the majority of cases, a physical trail of the work could indeed be verified, such as potholes filled with new earth or stones from nearby and the physical mark of vegetation that have been cleared. The evidence compiled has been collated and allows the reader to ascertain their own level of judgement. This can be found under: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dl2EnZMZMfh5l9D3xgWQ7zmkwrFW5inz However, one of the major challenges that the field team encountered during verification, which was also observed during the piloting of the approach in March 2017, was the lack of physical evidence or absence of progress trail in some of the maintenance spots that have permanent problems. For instance, in the case of permanent water logging problems caused by a standing tap on the side of the road, the work done by the RMGs could be not be verified with absolute certainty because the problem exists even after the work is done by RMGs. In such cases, the verification of the work plan was based on technical but subjective judgment of the field team.

3. Verification Findings

3.1 LRN progress verification: New construction

51 cross sections of new road under construction performed by 17 RBGs in one road in Mugu, out of a total of 38 RBGs in that district, were physically verified during this round of verification. The verification team assessed only those sections where work was on-going for sampling purposes. The physical verification confirms that the progress and the width of the road that was reported by RAP across the samples was accurate – i.e. the sampled cross sections were consistent with the reported width of either ‘3.5m’ or ‘4.5m with structures’ by RAP to DFID in February 2018.

Evidence of one verification sample is provided in Example 1 below. This particular section is the 60m worked on by the RBG named ‘Jagrati’ in Mugu and the verification measured the width at the start, mid-section and end of this part of the road. The team has taken a cross-sectional sketch for each point for every section and photographic evidence of the work completed by RAP in Mugu. The verification team captured this evidence across all sampled roads in Mugu.

Annex 2 provides the full table of detailed findings for each sampled road section in Mugu, which was assessed for new road construction DLI, along with a brief observation from the verification team.

Example 1: Cross sectional measurement in Mugu district – Jagrati RBG

3.2 LRN progress verification: Maintenance

The verification of routine and recurrent maintenance activities was conducted in the road corridors worked on by 30 sampled RMGs across the three sampled districts. Under the categories of routine and current maintenance, there are typically around eight different types of maintenance activities that are carried out by RMGs. These activities are ‘light’ insofar as not requiring machinery or heavy technical inputs. These types of work are light enough for trained community members who are part of RMGs. These activities are:

1. Clearance of landslides 2. Repairing of pavement surfaces 3. Repairing of shoulder surfaces 4. Repairing of drains 5. Construction of new drains 6. Clearing vegetation 7. Repair of retaining walls 8. Clearance of bridge/culvert/causeway surfaces

Certain sections of roads have permanent problems (structural issues) that are separate from any involvement of RAP (usually because of the state of condition of roads in the first instance), and therefore an element of subjective judgment on the part of the field engineer is required to verify actual work against the plan. This caveat aside, the verification team found that the reported progress of maintenance activities in the reported period was accurate.

The verification team collected evidence for all maintenance work carried out by the sampled RMGs by collecting a copy of the workplan and RAP inspection form, as well as taking photographic evidence of the maintenance work undertaken. Example 2 shows some of the maintenance work that was verified. This provides the reader the opportunity to assess the quality of the maintenance work carried out by RMGs themselves. The workplan and inspection form for this particular RMG is included in the Annex.

Annex 2 provides the full table of detailed findings for each sampled road section in three maintenance districts, along with a brief observation from the verification team. All copies of workplans, RAP inspection forms and photographic evidence from the verification team can be found on the Googledrive link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dl2EnZMZMfh5l9D3xgWQ7zmkwrFW5inz

Example 2: Maintenance activities in Doti - performed by Tijali RMG

3.3 Qualitative observation from the field verification

This section presents additional information which was observed by the verification team members during their physical verification of the work undertaken by the sampled RBGs/RMGs. These observations were not part of their original terms of reference; however the MEL Component believes these observations should be considered in further detail by both RAP and DFID.

 Work and Safety: In Jumla, the workers in the SMGs were working without safety shoes and working at height without any safety harness. The lack of use of safety shoes was also observed in the RMGs sampled in Achham. RAP have informed their District Technical Assistant who has intervened and instructed that this unnecessary activity be stopped immediately.

 Technical supervision: In Jumla the SMGs were found to be working with their own line and level which was not properly instructed by technical team prior to the commencement of work. RAP sites are all actively supervised by Inspector of Works and will double-check this.

 Support of local people: In Jumla, in one particicular location, local people were not supportive of the works being carried out by SMGs and blamed ongoing maintenance work for the damage to road side irrigation cannel. RAP technical team informed that the local governments have been informed of this issue and their support is being sought to address the damage caused by the SMG work.

 Visibility of maintenance work: In Jumla, Accham and Doti, the RMGs conducted the work according to their work plan but the physical trail of the work completed was difficult to verify because of the frequent and increasing vehicular movement and heavy rain fall which washed away the work conducted by RMGs. In a few spots in Achham, permanent water logging problems were observed which require structures to be put in place. This has been outlined in the limitations to the verification work section. This is simply a case of the light nature of work under routine and recurrent maintenance.

 Assessment of road construction in Mugu: Besides critical landslide zones, steep and loops, majority of construction activities have been completed in Mugu. Construction of confidence block and barriers and bio-engineering works in some sections were observed. The RAP team is confident to complete the construction as per their work plan.

4. Conclusion

For this round of LRN verification, the MEL verification team found no major issues or inaccuracies in the samples. Therefore, the progress reported by RAP to DFID can be interpreted as accurate and reflective of the actual field progress overall. This round of verification focused primarily on maintenance work and the team found that the quality of maintenance work was usually high insofar as the work verified matching the workplan and inspection forms of RAP. There are issues in maintenance work that RMGs are not expected to solve (i.e. permanent water logging problems that go beyond the scope of routine and recurrent maintenance). DoLIDAR and RAP should communicate this problem on time to relevant local bodies for required actions. As maintenance work (planning and implementation) is handed over to the local government bodies, RAP and DFID need to assess how the protocols developed (e.g. workplans, inspection forms, etc.) can be taken up in the maintenance planning process. This is to ensure thatf the strong technical oversight by RAP with regards to the implementation of RMG maintenance work is transferred to local governments as much as possible.

5. Annexes

Annex 1: LRN progress verification in sampled districts

1. Example of RAP maintenance workplan in Doti: Tijali RMG

2. Example of RAP inspection form in Doti: Tijali RMG

3. Example of Verification checklist for assessing road section under maintenance, checked against inspection form and RAP workplan (see 1 and 2) in Doti: Tijali RMG

Annex 2: LRN progress verification in sampled districts

1. Accham

Length Assigned RMG Works assigned Remarks RMG according to Workplan S.N Road Name DRCN Group Code Length Name Start End (km) Maintaining side slope Field Verification Kirtikham- 69DR Indraba 0+00 6+00 1 1 6 Repairing of confirms the RAP's Lungra VDC 003 n RMG 0 0 Pavement Inspection Form surfaces Maintaining side Ghughurkot Devith slope Field Verification 69DR 0+00 9+00 2 (Thantibazar) 4 um 9 Repairing of confirms the RAP's 005 0 0 -Devisthan RMG Pavement Inspection Form surfaces Maintaining side Sanfe- slope Field Verification Siddheshwor 69DR Khapta 0+00 10+2 3 5 10.2 Repairing of confirms the RAP's -Budhakot- 006 d RMG 0 00 Pavement Inspection Form Patalkot surfaces Clearing of rocks on slope Mangalsen- Repairing of Field Verification Chitre-Payal- 69DR Tribeni 0+00 10+0 4 17 10 Pavement confirms the RAP's Chaurpati- 011 RMG 0 00 surfaces Inspection Form Siudi Vegetation Clearing Clearing of rocks on slope Mangalsen- Jaalpad Repairing of Field Verification 69DR 7+25 19+7 5 Kunti-Basti- 19 evi 12.5 Pavement confirms the RAP's 012 0 50 Lodeghat RMG surfaces Inspection Form Vegetation Clearing Repairing of drain Repairing of Mangalsen- Tripura Pavement Field Verification 69DR 0+00 7+25 6 Kunti-Basti- 18 sundari 7.25 surfaces confirms the RAP's 012 0 0 Lodeghat RMG Repairing of Inspection Form retaining wall Vegetation Clearing Removal of hanging rocks Jayagadh- Repairing of Field Verification Kalika- 69DR Dandis 0+00 5+00 7 11 5 Pavement confirms the RAP's Majthana- 015 wami 0 0 surfaces Inspection Form Darna Vegetation Clearing Removal of hanging rocks Repairing of Field Verification Timalsen- 69DR Barhab 35+0 44+0 8 16 9 Pavement confirms the RAP's Ramaroshan 016 anda 00 00 surfaces Inspection Form Vegetation Clearing

Length Assigned RMG Works assigned Remarks RMG according to Workplan S.N Road Name DRCN Group Code Length Name Start End (km) Removal of hanging rocks Repairing of Field Verification Timalsen- 69DR Jalkade 0+00 10+0 9 12 10 Pavement confirms the RAP's Ramaroshan 016 vi 0 00 surfaces Inspection Form Vegetation Clearing Removal of hanging rocks Repairing of Field Verification Timalsen- 69DR 16+0 25+0 10 14 Malika 8.75 Pavement confirms the RAP's Ramaroshan 016 00 00 surfaces Inspection Form Vegetation Clearing Removal of hanging rocks Gairitad- Repairing of Field Verification Kamalbazar- 69DR Chakre 8+00 18+0 Pavement 11 25 10 confirms the RAP's Turmakhand- 025 shwori 0 00 surfaces Inspection Form Jangalghat Vegetation Clearing Gravelling Repairing of Pavement Gairitad- surfaces Field Verification Kamalbazar- 69DR Jalpade 0+00 7+50 Vegetation 12 24 7.5 confirms the RAP's Turmakhand- 025 vi 0 0 Clearing Inspection Form Jangalghat Removal of rocks on slope Gravelling Vegetation Clearing Gairitad- Repairing of Turmak Field Verification Kamalbazar- 69DR 29+0 39+0 Pavement 13 29 hand 10 confirms the RAP's Turmakhand- 025 00 00 surfaces Ekata Inspection Form Jangalghat Removal of rocks on slope Gravelling Repairing of Pavement Field Verification Motorkate- 69DR 10+0 16+0 14 34 Lamchu 6 surfaces confirms the RAP's Benighat 030 00 00 Vegetation Inspection Form Clearing Repairing of Pavement surfaces Field Verification Turmakhand- 69DR Srijans 0+00 3+50 Vegetation 15 32 3.5 confirms the RAP's Nada 034 hil 0 0 Clearing Removal of rocks Inspection Form on slope Gravelling

2. Doti

Length Assigned RMG according to Works assigned Remarks Road DRC RMG S.N Group Workplan Name N Code Name Length( Start End km) Clearance of Budar- Landslides Field Laxmi Verification 70D Repairing of Pavement Nagar-- Pashupa 15+00 confirms the 1 R00 2 0+000 15 surfaces Talkot- ti RMG 0 RAP's 1 Repairing of Drain Mudbha Inspection ra Construction of new Form Drain Clearance of Landslides Field Repairing of Pavement Verification Dipayal 13+50 confirms the 7 0+000 13.5 surfaces RMG 0 RAP's Repairing of Drain Inspection Construction of new Form Drain Clearance of Field Bajhkak Landslides Dipayal- Verification 70D ani Repairing of Pavement Daud- 24+00 confirms the 2 R00 8 Kalikast 13+500 10.5 surfaces Patihaln 0 RAP's 6 han Repairing of Drain e Inspection RMG Construction of new Form Drain Clearance of Landslides Field Bajhkak Repairing of Pavement Verification ani 33+00 confirms the 9 24+000 9 surfaces Khatiwa 0 RAP's Repairing of Drain da RMG Inspection Construction of new Form Drain Clearance of Landslides Field Verification Silgadhi- 70D Repairing of Pavement Kalena confirms the 3 Kalena- R00 19 0+000 6+000 6 surfaces RMG RAP's Mellekh 8 Repairing of Drain Inspection Construction of new Form Drain Clearance of Field Santinag Landslides Verification ar- 70D Repairing of Pavement Ladagad 15+00 confirms the 4 Ladagad R00 11 0+000 15 surfaces a RMG 0 RAP's a-Dang- 9 Repairing of Drain Inspection Tikhatar Construction of new Form Drain Clearance of Landslides Field Verification Pachnali- 70D Repairing of Pavement Tijali confirms the 5 Mudvhar R01 18 0+000 6+000 6 surfaces RMG RAP's a-Tijali 1 Repairing of Drain Inspection Construction of new Form Drain Gopghat 12+00 Clearance of Field 6 20 0+000 12 - 0 Landslides Verification

Length Assigned RMG according to Works assigned Remarks Road DRC RMG S.N Group Workplan Name N Code Name Length( Start End km) Lataman Repairing of Pavement confirms the du 70D Latama surfaces RAP's R01 ndu Repairing of Drain Inspection 2 RMG Construction of new Form Drain Clearance of Landslides Field Banduris Verification 70D Jijodam Repairing of Pavement ain- confirms the 7 R01 21 andu 0+000 7+500 7.5 surfaces Jijodama RAP's 3 RMG Repairing of Drain ndu Inspection Construction of new Form Drain

3. Jumla

Length Assigned RMG RMG Group according to Workplan S.N Road Name DRCN Works assigned Remarks Code Name Lengt Start End h(km) Repairing of Pavement surfaces Field Verification Bagbaza- 63DR Bagbaza- 0+00 Repairing of confirms the 1 1 2+000 2.62 Patharkhola 001 Patharkhola 0 Shoulder RAP's Inspection Surfaces Form Leveling of Road Edges Repairing of Potholes & pavement Field Verification Acharyalihi- Acharyali- 63DR 3+00 surfaces confirms the 2 Dhitalihi- 3 Dhitali- 6+000 6.08 004 0 Repairing of RAP's Inspection Sanigaun Sanigaun Drains/ cross Form Drains Dry stone solling Clearance of Landslides Repairing of Gachchusan Gachhusang Pavement & Field Verification gu- u- 63DR 0+00 Shoulder confirms the 3 Dhimichaur- 4 Dhimichaur- 4+000 10 007 0 surfaces RAP's Inspection Lekpor- Lekpor- Repairing of Form Kotghar Kothghar Drains Leveling of Road Edges Clearance of Landslides Repairing of Pavement & Field Verification Jumla-Upallo Shoulder 63DR Jumla- 0+00 confirms the 4 Rana 5 4+000 4.14 surfaces 008a Upallorana 0 RAP's Inspection Segment Repairing of Form Drains Dry stone solling & Repair of Retaining wall Clearance of Landslides Repairing of Field Verification Upallo Rana- 63DR Upallorana- 0+00 11+00 pavement confirms the 5 Urthu-Khali 6 13.44 08b Urthu-Khali 0 0 surfaces RAP's Inspection Segment Repairing of Form Drains Dry stone Solling Clearance of Landslides Field Verification Chandannat Repairing of 63DR Chandannat 8+00 13+60 confirms the 6 h- 8 13.6 pavement 009a h-Garjyankot 0 0 RAP's Inspection Garjyangkot surfaces Form Repairing of Drains

Length Assigned RMG RMG Group according to Workplan S.N Road Name DRCN Works assigned Remarks Code Name Lengt Start End h(km) Clearance of Snow

Width measured in field Width Samp RBGs Chainage (m) reported Remarks le ID Name Lengt by RAP3 Start End h(m) Start Mid End (m)

Field Verification Confirms with the 1 Jagrati 1,840 1,900 60 5.5 4.5 5.6 4.5 width reported by RAP3.

Field Verification Confirms with the 2 Bhume 2,550 2,580 30 5.4 5 4.9 4.5 width reported by RAP3.

Field Verification Confirms with the 3 Karnali 2,600 2,620 20 5 5 5 4.5 width reported by RAP3. 1

Work in Progress. Field Verification 4 Betal 2,800 2,840 40 5 5 5 3.5 Confirms with the width reported by RAP3.

Karnali Field Verification Confirms with the 5 3,280 3,300 20 8.6 8.3 7 4.5 2 width reported by RAP3.

Field Verification Confirms with the 6 Kuldev 3,330 3,350 20 7 7 7.8 4.5 width reported by RAP3.

Shanti Field Verification Confirms with the 7 3,510 3,540 30 5 6.9 7 4.5 Bikash width reported by RAP3.

Chank Field Verification Confirms with the 8 4,108 4,138 30 5.5 6.1 6 4.5 heli width reported by RAP3.

Nabaaa Field Verification Confirms with the 9 8,900 8,940 40 5.2 5 4.9 4.5 darsha width reported by RAP3.

Field Verification Confirms with the 10 Masta 9,355 9,380 25 5.1 6 7.8 4.5 width reported by RAP3.

Kalika 10,66 Field Verification Confirms with the 11 Nirma 10,720 60 5.4 5.2 5.3 4.5 0 width reported by RAP3. n

Width measured in field Width Samp RBGs Chainage (m) reported Remarks le ID Name Lengt by RAP3 Start End h(m) Start Mid End (m)

Aashid 13,04 Field Verification Confirms with the 12 13,085 40 6.3 6.2 6.6 4.5 hara 5 width reported by RAP3.

Mathid 14,42 Field Verification Confirms with the 13 14,440 20 5.9 4.8 4.9 4.5 hara 0 width reported by RAP3.

Gora 14,44 Field Verification Confirms with the 14 14,470 30 4.8 5 5.1 4.5 Khola 0 width reported by RAP3.

Nepal 20,23 Field Verification Confirms with the 15 20,250 20 5.5 5 4.5 4.5 Dalit 0 width reported by RAP3.

21,04 Field Verification Confirms with the 16 Bijaya 21,070 30 5 5 5.2 4.5 0 width reported by RAP3.

21,22 Field Verification Confirms with the 17 Himal 21,244 20 5.1 5 5 4.5 4 width reported by RAP3.