Inspection of 14 Schools Construction Submitted by Assess

Construction Inspection

Inspection of 14 Schools Construction

Prepared for the Ministry of Education and the Embassy of Denmark

Submitted by Assess, Transform & Reach Consulting (ATR) 26th September 2016 Construction Inspection

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT ...... 2

ACRONYMS ...... 3

Executive Summary ...... 4

Part 1: Background and Methodology ...... 5

Part 2: Findings ...... 9 1. Mohammad Dawood School, Kishm, Badakhshan ...... 9 2. Imam Azam Aqtash School, Said Khail District, Parwan ...... 16 3. Shahi Khil School, Ghorband District, Parwan ...... 23 4. Shahaba Umarz School, Shahaba District, Panjshir ...... 25 5. Ashraf Yawand School, Warsaj, Takhar ...... 33 6. Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School (Abdul Hai Habibi High School), Khost Center, Khost ..... 41 7. Hasan Waraqa School, Qarabagh District, Ghazni ...... 48 8. General Workshop, Guard Room, Toilet, and Boundary Wall, Kabul City, Kabul ...... 54 9. Abdul Raoof Benawa School, Kabul City, Kabul ...... 61 10. Ayesha School, Behsood District, Nangarhar ...... 65 11. Abdul Matin School, Lashkargah, Helmand ...... 70 12. Omar Farooq School, Chak District, Wardak ...... 74 13. Abdul Hai Square School, Nad Ali, Helmand ...... 81 14. Block III School, Marja, Helmand ...... 82

Part 3 – Conclusions and recommendations ...... 84

Annex 1: Photos ...... 86

2 Construction Inspection

ACRONYMS

ATR Assess Transform & Reach Consulting DAART Danish Assistance to Afghan Rehabilitation and Technical Training DANIDA The Danish International Development Agency PCC Simple Cement Concrete RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete ISD Infrastructure Services Department

3 Construction Inspection

Executive Summary ATR Consulting and Global Trust conducted an inspection of 14 construction projects of the Ministry of Education under the Education Support Programme for Afghanistan funded by DANIDA. This inspection used visual observation of the construction sites to compare delivery by contractors to what had been intended to be delivered by each of the projects. The majority of these construction sites were schools. Most of these had also previously been monitored by the Danish Assistance to Afghan Rehabilitation and Technical Training while they were under construction. ATR and Global Trust therefore also inspected whether or not issues identified by DAART had been addressed.

The inspection found different results for the various projects which were inspected, and the main body of the report provides a detailed description of the construction issues which were found, an assessment of the level of risk which these issues present, and estimates of how long would be required for work to address each issue. The report also makes recommendations as to which of these issues should be rectified, though these are only recommendations the final decision remains that of other stakeholders. Overall, there were only a small number of medium-risk issues with the construction found, and only one high-risk issue. There were however a considerable number of low- risk issues or defects relating to the quality of the construction which was delivered, and a small number of sites where contractors had not completed all of the work that was specified in the Bill of Quantities and project specification.

4 Construction Inspection

Part 1: Background and Methodology

1.1 Scope of Work ATR Consulting and Global Trust were contracted by the Embassy of Denmark to inspect 14 buildings in Northern, Eastern and Southern Afghanistan. The purpose of this inspection was to establish what construction work had been completed on the buildings, what work remains outstanding in comparison to the original plans, and to recommend future action for the Embassy relating to these buildings.

Inspections were performed on twelve locations. It was intended that a further two locations in Helmand would be inspected. However, security issues caused by ongoing fighting in Marjah and Nad Ali prevented access to the sites. The complete list of construction projects to be inspected is shown in the list and on the map below:

Construction Project District Province Mohammad Dawood School Kishm Badakhshan Imam Azam Aqtash School Said Khail District Parwan Shahi Khil School, District Ghorband Parwan Shahaba Umarz School Khenj Panjshir Ashraf Yawand School Warsaj Takhar Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School (Abdul Hai Habibi Khost Center Khost High School) Hasan Waraqa School Qarabagh Ghazni General Workshop, Guard Room, Toilet, and Boundary Kabul City Kabul Wall Abdul Raoof Benawa School Kabul City Kabul Ayesha School Behsood Nangarhar Abdul Matin School Lashkargah Helmand Omar Farooq School Chak Wardak Abdul Hai Square School Nad Ali Helmand Block III School Marja Helmand

5 Construction Inspection

Figure 1: Map of locations inspected

11 of these construction locations had previously been inspected by DAART, in a series of inspections conducted during the construction period. These had identified a number of issues with the construction projects. The findings from these inspections were used to inform the final inspection conducted by ATR and Global Trust here.

1.2 Methodology The Bill of Quantities was provided for each construction project. Field engineers visited each project and assessed what had been constructed against what was described in the Bill of Quantities. Field engineers also assessed what had been constructed against the points raised by DAART in their inspection reports. These assessments were conducted visually only; there was no provision in the contract for laboratory testing of concrete. Some important elements of construction could therefore not be assessed. Detailed photographs were taken of all of the project sites. The findings of the field engineers were written down and communicated to analysts in Kabul.

In Kabul, each of the issues identified by the field engineers was considered and assessed. A rough assessment of the ‘risk’ of each issue was performed. Risk here can be understood to mean a risk to the safety of students at the school, or as an important part of the project which has not been delivered by the contractor.

An assessment of whether the issue could be rectified was also made by engineering staff in Kabul. In addition, an assessment of what kind of work is necessary to do so was made, as well as a broad estimate of how long such work would require, and a very approximate estimate of the cost of performing such work. The percentage of the project completion is calculated based on the overall budget and completed work: The estimated cost of unconstructed items (that have not been initially constructed or major items that need reconstruction because they are under warranty period) is deducted from the overall budget and an approximate percentage has been provided showing the

6 Construction Inspection

level of work completed. The caveats to this process in the limitations section below are important to note in this respect.

Conclusions and recommendations for further work on each school were then made based on the collected information and assessments. These are presented in the findings section below, along with the detailed findings of the inspections.

Short interviews were also constructed with teachers, students, and the local community around the schools. The insights from these interviews are presented in a text box in the main body of the report.

1.3 Limitations There are some important limitations to the inspection, which are noted here. The findings presented in the following section should be considered firmly in light of these caveats.

First, laboratory testing of materials was not conducted for this inspection. Since this was the final phase of inspections, technically only surface of the construction work (i.e. paintings, surface concrete, doors, windows, power sockets and other similar structures) was observable. The inspections were limited to what could be observed. There are some crucial elements of construction quality which are beyond the scope of work at the very last phase and cannot be observed after the construction is complete. They are normally supposed to be observed right at the time of putting concrete in the building by taking samples and testing in laboratories. This activity should have been conducted by DAART in the initial monitoring phases. This includes the quality of the concrete which is used (most importantly, the ratio of cement to sand and water which was used) and the number of reinforcing steel rods that have been placed inside of reinforced concrete. Both of these are important for the safety of the structure, as poor quality cement and inadequate steel rods can significantly weaken the concrete that has been installed. It worth mentioning that laboratory testing of materials was also not part of the scope of work of the contractors. For the above mentioned reasons this report does not provide findings on these unobservable elements of the structures.

Second, all cost estimates are highly approximate, and should be understood as such. The cost of construction can vary considerably in different parts of Afghanistan, due to differences in labour costs, the cost of materials, and the security of the area, among other factors. Cost estimates provided in the findings section of this report are very general estimates of the cost of performing various construction and maintenance tasks. The project Terms of Reference did not provide for establishing costing estimates, and therefore fieldwork did not include a component to precisely measure the areas and dimensions of the work which needed to be done (for example, field researchers were not expected to measure the surface area that needs to be painted, the number of door handles broken, etc). It was therefore not possible to estimate the real cost of the work that this report concludes should be undertaken. Such costing estimates are insufficiently reliable to be used to deduct payment amounts from contractors, and should be made more precisely if further construction work is commissioned. They do, however, provide a ‘ballpark’ figure in order to aid decisions on whether to proceed with further construction work or not.

7 Construction Inspection

Cost estimates were used to calculate the percentage of the project complete. The estimates of the project which is complete are also, therefore, somewhat approximate.

8 Construction Inspection

Part 2: Findings

1. Mohammad Dawood School, Kishm, Badakhshan Overview On March 14, 2015, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 12,363,331.01 contract to Kabul Modern Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 6 Class Rooms in two stories with a Boundary Wall, 5 Set Latrine, Water Well, Water Tank, Garbage Collection Point and Main Gate for Mohammad Dawood School located in Kishm District of Badakhshan Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and was accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Kishm District, Badakhshan Province The closest possible GPS point Latitude: 36.64235

Longitude: 70.21885

Photo 1: Front View of the Mohammad Dawood School located at Kishm District of Badakhshan Province Photo: August 2016 9 Construction Inspection

An NGO hired by Ministry of Education, Danish Assistance to Afghan Rehabilitation and Technical Training (DAARTT), was responsible to conduct third party monitoring of the project in the period of. DAARTT reported in May-June 2015 that the boundary wall should be extended to 191m from the 171m initially estimated in the Bill of Quantities, and the cantilever (sun visor to protect against sun, rain and snow) for the classrooms building to be constructed. In November 2015 the report recommended replacement of iron sheet for the latrine roof and oil painting of I beams. Since the extension of the wall was not initially contracted and it needs additional budgets, the contractor is not required to take corrective action to address this problem. It was only a proposition of DAART for further improvements.

We visited Mohammad Dawood School on August 15, 2016, and found that some of the problems of the infrastructure components reported by DAARTT had been completed, but that other issues remained.

Summary and conclusions 98% of the project has been completed. There are no major observable structural issues with the project. It is recommended that the issues identified as medium-risk should be resolved.

There is a risk that the roof of the latrine will begin to leak due to the poor quality installation work. This could reduce the lifespan of the latrines, and can be fixed at a low cost.

The cracks in the floors, hallways and sidewalks suggest that they will continue to fall apart. This could in a short time make the school unusable. It is therefore important that this is fixed, though the estimated cost is considerable ($15,000).

There is no water in the school, although a bore well was included in the contract and a water tank in the Bill of Quantities. These were not installed. The provision of water to students would be an important improvement to the quality of the school. The cost of this work is low, and this work should be performed.

There were a number of further issues, none of which is serious: - No cantilever for the main school building was constructed, as per the specifications of the project. This was intended to protect the building from rain. - I-beams of the latrine roofs were painted with only one coat of oil paint, rather than the three coats specified in the Bill of Quantities - Ceiling and wall plastering was not of high quality - The painting of doors and windows was not performed to a high standard, and did not use the oil pain specified in the Bill of Quantities - Internal painting was not performed with the correct quantities of emulsion or number of coats, as per the Bill of Quantities - Fly screens were not installed in the windows, and door handles and locks were not installed correctly - Student furniture was not varnished to the specifications of the Bill of Quantities

10 Construction Inspection

The contractor should be paid, but should first fix the identified deficiencies. The project was completed and handed over to the Ministry of Education less than a year ago, and is still under warranty. The contractor could therefore also be asked to perform necessary maintenance work.

Project %age of project which has been completed 98% - the 2% remaining work is the uninstalled bore well. Based on our observation, the construction of a bore well was part of the contract, however, it was not recorded in the BoQ. According to ISD, payments are made based on BoQs, not the contract; therefore, it is argued that the contractor is not required to construct the bore well. Eventually, it is up to DANIDA to decide about cutting the 2 percent budget for the mentioned issue. Should the contractor be paid? Yes Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Replacement of roof latrine roof

Cracks in floors, hallways and sidewalks should be fixed

Bore well should be installed

Maintenance work

Detailed inspection findings

Issue 1 The iron sheet for the latrines roof was not in accordance to the project specification and has been installed with low quality material and poor workmanship—See Photos BDK003 and BDK 004.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Medium – may cause roof leakage Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement How long would further work take? 20 days

11 Construction Inspection

How much would further work cost? $5,000

Issue 2 We found cracks in the school’s floors, walkways and sidewalks. We could not determine whether they were due to poor workmanship or lack of maintenance during the school has been operating; but our inspector indicates that low quality PCC was used during construction. The Bill of Quantities requires all PCCs in floors, walkways and sidewalks to be in 1:2:4 ratios with 10cm thickness—See Photo BDK006.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium – could fall apart quickly Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Take out the damaged parts and cast new concrete How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $15,000

Issue 3 No gutter was installed for latrine, and no bore well, water tank, and garbage collection points were constructed and installed for the school— See Photos BDK020.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium risk – there is no water or garbage collection points Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Construct gutter, bore well, water tank and garbage collection points How long would further work take? 1 month How much would further work cost? $5,000

Issue 4 The cantilever for the main building has not been constructed —See Photos BDK001 and BDK 002. This was neither part of the contract nor the

12 Construction Inspection

design and the contractor was not required to take corrective action to address this problem. However, based on the MoU between DAART and MoE, some issues were noticed beyond the contractual aspects, so that overall corrective measures are taken for future improvements. Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Additional construction work that needs construction? contractual amendment. Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Install a cantilever How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $3,000

Issue 5 The I Beams for latrine roofs were oil painted but was not as per the Bill of Quantities and the project specifications. The Bill of Quantities defines the oil painting to be made in 3-coat with smooth finishing—See Photo BDK005.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repaint as per specification (3 coats) How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $50

Issue 6 In lieu of the required plastering work with 1:4 mortars and smooth finishing, the contractor did very poor job in ceiling and wall plastering that had rough finishing visible from long distance— See Photo BDK007.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes

13 Construction Inspection

What work would be required? On top of the plastering, paint putty and fillings How long would further work take? 2 months How much would further work cost? $6,000

Issue 7 All external and internal painting was in poor quality. The Bill of Quantities requires 3-coat white washing 60% emulsion painting for interiors and 100% emulsion painting for exteriors. Our inspection shows the painting was made as poor as 1-coat with lower than 30% emulsion used—See Photos BDK008, BDK009, BDK010, BDK011.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repaint How long would further work take? 25 days How much would further work cost? $3,500

Issue 8 We also found that the painting of doors and windows were not made in accordance to Bill of Quantities which requires 3-coat oil painting for all wooden fixtures. The workmanship and painting quality were both very unprofessional— See Photos BDK012, BDK013, BDK014.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repainting How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $700

Issue 9 Fly screens were not installed for all of the windows. Doors and windows handles were not

14 Construction Inspection

installed properly and within the quality required by the project specification; most of them were broken and not in operation—See Photos BDK015, BDK016, BDK 017, BDK 018.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Install fly screens, door handles and window handles How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $1,000

Issue 10 The student furniture was only varnished in one- coat where the project specification calls for 3- coat oil painting—See Photos BDK019. However, according to ISD, they have modified their overall requirements in regard to painting furniture. Based on ISD’s latest criteria, furniture in general could be only varnished and there is no need for 2-3 coat painting. The below propositions are only for further improvements, however, if only varnishing of furniture is acceptable by ISD, they could be ignored.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Paint as per specification How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $600

15 Construction Inspection

2. Imam Azam Aqtash School, Said Khail District, Parwan Overview On May 13, 2014, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 17,473,628.70 contract to Danyar Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 24 Class Rooms in three stories for Imam Azam Aqtash School located in Said Khail District of Parwan Province, Afghanistan. This initial budget was increased to AFN 22,929,146. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and was accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Said Khail District, Parwan Province

The closest possible GPS point

Latitude: 35.04148 Longitude: 69.26568

Photo 2: Front View of the Imam Azam Aqtash School, located at Said Khail District of Parwan Province

16 Construction Inspection

DAART was responsible for monitoring the project from May to November 2015. DAARTT reported in May-June 2015 that no conduits for electrical wiring were installed in the main building. In October 2015 the report shows that the thickness of wooden planks for sample of chairs and desks wasn’t in accordance to the drawing, and some of the supporting truss members were not installed, weakening the roof structure and more than 50% of the truss members were not attached to the roof slab. In November 2015 DAARTT reported the diameter of tube well pipes and filter was not in accordance to the Bill of Quantities, finishing of some parts of interior surfaces in classrooms weren’t smooth and ready for painting, and the concrete casted for the tube well apron was not according to the drawing.

Summary and conclusions 100% of the project is now complete. There are some concerns around the quality of the building in some areas, but there are no observable structural problems.

There is one issue which has been identified as medium-defect. Some of the floors of classrooms in the school have become damaged, due to the use of lower quality concrete used to construct the floors. The floors therefore have holes in, in some of the classrooms. These do not present a structural risk to the building, but present a safety risk in that children can trip on the holes. This issue should therefore be resolved through the replacement of the concrete. It would also be beneficial to perform some maintenance work.

There were also minor quality and maintenance issues: - No bracings had been installed on the truss frames, as had been recommended by DAART. - The painting of some interior surfaces had been performed without the walls being smoothed, which has resulted in the painting being damaged. - In the well, a less effective INDUS pump had been installed rather than the specified PAMIR pump. - Twenty door locks and handles were broken, a problem of maintenance - Window frames were constructed of low quality materials, and most were twisted. Fly screens had not been installed on the windows, as was required by the project specifications. - Four door jumps were broken, a problem of maintenance - Some walkways had minor cracks - Plastering on the building exterior was of poor quality, with cracks visible, and painting was performed with low quality emulsion - I-beams in the latrine had not been painted

Project %age of project which has been completed 100% Should the contractor be paid? Yes

17 Construction Inspection

Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Replacement of concrete on damaged classroom floors

Maintenance

Detailed inspection findings Issue 1 Some of the classrooms floors were damaged due to poor quality PCC placed during construction—See Photo PRN 019.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium – students can trip on the holes Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of concrete How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $3,000

Issue 2 Pursuant to DAARTT’s report we checked for no conduits for electrical wiring were installed in the main building. The ISD engineer told us that the contractor installed all necessary conduits for electrical wiring after DAARTT’s report; but we couldn’t observe or judge as the walls were plastered and the conduits were embedded— See Photo PRN 001.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect If not installed, low risk Is this a problem of maintenance or - construction? Can it be resolved with further work? - What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 3 We observed that the contractor constructed

18 Construction Inspection

and installed all student furniture per the dimensions in the Bill of Quantities, but used low quality material and did poor workmanship (the wooden planks were not connected and tighten properly) —See Photos PRN 002, PRN 003.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacing the wood and painting How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 4 We couldn’t physically observe the pipe sizes and installed filter in the well. The ISD engineer was saying that the contractor didn’t replace tube well pipes and filter reported by DAARTT—See Photo PRN004.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect If pipe sizes too small, risk is low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 5 The contractor didn’t take necessary corrective actions to install bracings for the frame of truss, and the distance of the steel bars by which they should be fastened was too large (more than 120mm) —See Photos PRN 005, PRN 006.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes

19 Construction Inspection

What work would be required? Replacement of bracings How long would further work take? 20 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

Issue 6 The contractor made all interior paintings on rough and wet walls. During our observation some parts of interior surfaces in classrooms weren’t smooth and the painting was damaged. An interior painting of about 50 SQM in the stairways and corridor of the 3rd floor and conference hall located at the same floor was damaged—See Photos PRN 007, PRN 008.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repainting How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $100

Issue 7 Contractor installed INDUS hand pump instead of the required and approved PAMIR pump—See Photo PRN 009.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $200

Issue 8 We indicated that all door locks were installed but during our observation 20 of the door locks and handles were broken—See Photos PRN010, PRN 011.

20 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement How long would further work take? 5 days How much would further work cost? $200

Issue 9 Windows frames were constructed from low quality materials. Most of them were twisted during our inspection. Also, the contractor didn’t install fly screens for all the windows—See Photos PRN 012, PRN 013.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of some (not all) frames and installation of fly screens How long would further work take? 7 days How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 10 4 of the doors jumps were broken and plasters of the corners were damaged—See Photos PRN 014, PRN 015.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replastering and painting How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $50

Issue 11 Some of the walkways had minor cracks—See Photo PRN 016.

21 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of parts of the walkways How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $150

Issue 12 All exteriors of the building were roughly plastered and the painting was made with poor quality emulsion. There were also some visible cracks in the plastering—See Photos PRN 017, PRN 018.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repainting How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $10,000

Issue 13 The I Beams in latrine roofs weren’t painted— See Photo PRN 020.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Painting How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $50

22 Construction Inspection

3. Shahi Khil School, Ghorband District, Parwan Overview On June 03, 2014, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 19,077,976.00 contract to Esteqamat-e- Noor Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 10 Class Rooms in one story, Computer Lab, Chairs and Tables, 350m Boundary Wall, 10 Set Latrine, 60m Water Well and Main Gate for Shahi Khil School located in Ghorband District of Parwan Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school. DAARTT reported in September 2015 that the construction of the project is stopped due to financial hardship and no issuance of additional payment in response to fund request made by the contractor. We visited Shahi Khil School on August 30, 2016, and found that that the contractor has still not resumed construction work.

Ghorband District, Parwan Province

The closest possible GPS point:

Latitude: 35.04148

Longitude: 69.26568

23 Construction Inspection

Summary and conclusions 40% of the project has been completed, as per the report produced by DAART, and no further progress has been made. The project site has been occupied by Taliban, who are using it as a base. It is therefore not recommended to perform further work on the site. If it were possible to continue work, it is estimated that between six months and one year would be required to complete the school as per the design.

The contractor should be paid for the 40% of the work which they have completed.

Project %age of project which has been completed 40% Should the contractor be paid? Yes, for 40% Should further work be undertaken? No What further work should be undertaken? -

24 Construction Inspection

4. Shahaba Umarz School, Shahaba District, Panjshir Overview On September 04, 2013, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 14,411,488.00 contract to Masood Mosawer Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 12 Class Rooms in two stories, Computer Lab, Chairs and Tables with 240m Boundary Wall and Main Gate for Shahaba Umarz School located in Shahaba District of Panjshir Province, Afghanistan. This initial budget was later increased to AFN 17,411,488. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Shahaba District, Panjshir Province

The closest possible GPS point: Latitude: 35.38514 Longitude: 69.64969

Photo 3: Front View of the Shahaba Umarz School, located at Shahaba District of Panjshir Province

25 Construction Inspection

DAARTT reported in August 2015 that the excavation of boundary wall was ongoing without any drawing or site plan. In November 2015 DAARTT also reported that the used woods for truss members were not in proper dimensions required by the project specification and drawings.

We visited Shahaba Umarz School on August 28, 2016, and found that that the contractor did not take corrective actions to address some of the problems reported by DAARTT. We did also observe some other construction problems with these components described in detail below.

Summary and conclusions 100% of the project has been completed. However there are some weaknesses in the quality of what was produced by the contractor. There is one issue, a weak balcony, which represents a safety issue for the children attending the school, and should be addressed as a priority. As Panjshir is accessible from Kabul, it perhaps has more visibility than other projects in other parts of the country. This issue can be addressed at a low cost (an estimate of $500).

It is also recommended that the iron sheets of the roof of the school be replaced. The sheets which have been installed are of insufficient quality to prevent leakage. Leakage can damage walls and floors, which can then cause structural problems with the school. This is however somewhat costly in comparison to many of the alterations recommended in this report (an estimate of $30,000), due to the size of the school and the cost of the necessary material.

There are also minor quality issues with: - The concrete which has been installed in walkways and ramps is too thin, and cracks have appeared - the installation of thinner roof trusses than those specified in the project design - the quality of workmanship and materials in the installation of doors - a lack of sealant on water and sewer pipes - lower quality materials used in classroom furniture, which had also not been painted - lower quality cupboards being used - the handrail for the ramp is not according to the project specification, and was not stable - the electrical changeover and fuses were not of a high quality, and most of the lighting fixtures had not been tightened correctly and therefore were not in operation - concrete was not installed on top of the stone masonry and the boundary wall, as per the project specification - there was no light above the main gate of the school, which was included in the project specification

The contractor should be paid for 100% of the project. It is recommended that they are only paid if they correct the more important of the issues noted here, since the project is still under warranty.

Project %age of project which has been completed 100% Should the contractor be paid? Yes

26 Construction Inspection

Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? As a high priority, the second floor balcony should be stabilized

Iron sheets of the roof should be replaced

Detailed inspection findings Issue 1 Second floor balcony had a crack in concrete slab—See Photo PJR 014.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect High – this is a crack in the structure of the building. This is a risk in case of earthquake (Panjshir experiences earthquakes), as the balcony may fall down. It is also a risk if a heavy load is placed on the balcony (such as ten or twenty students), as it may collapse.

Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of an additional supporting column underneath the balcony How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 2 The installed iron sheet for roofing was made of low quality material with poor workmanship. It had leakages — See Photos PJR 016, PJR 017, PJR 018.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium – leakage can damage the whole building Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of iron sheets How long would further work take? 1 month

27 Construction Inspection

How much would further work cost? $30,000

Issue 3 The PCC in walkways, sidewalks and ramps had cracks and is not placed by required thickness. The northern side of the building has no PCC sidewalk at all—See Photos PJR 012, PJR 013.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of concrete in damaged areas How long would further work take? 3 days How much would further work cost? $300

Issue 4 Pursuant to DAARTT’s report we checked the boundary wall. We found that the contractor constructed boundary wall in southern, eastern, and western sides of the school only and left northern side of the school open to mountain— See Photos PJR 001, PJR 002.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Build remaining boundary wall How long would further work take? It is nearly impossible due to the mountain How much would further work cost? -

Issue 5 Following to woods for the truss members; the contractor used woods were 10cm x 6cm instead of 12cm x 12cm and 10cm x 10cm—See Photos PJR 003, PJR 004.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low

28 Construction Inspection

Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of bracings How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $600

Issue 6 All doors and windows were not properly installed, and the contractor used poor quality materials. We found visible joints between the floor/walls and the doors and windows with no sealant material used. The wooden frames were also bended—See Photos PJR 005, PJR 006.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Fixing door and window frames and door swings (ie the door) How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $1,000

Issue 7 The sewer and water down pipes from second floor to the first weren’t covered by sealant or any other appropriate material—See Photo PJR 007.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Covering with sealant How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $50

Issue 8 The installed chairs and desks in computer lab, conference room and classrooms were not made

29 Construction Inspection

of approved material required by the Bill of Quantities and project specification. The furniture wasn’t painted, and had visible gaps between the wooden planks—See Photos PJR 008, PJR 009, PJR 010.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement with new chairs and tables How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $1,500

Issue 9 The cupboards in library were made of low quality material with poor workmanship—See Photo PJR 011.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repairs to the cupboards How long would further work take? 5 days How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 10 The concrete hand rail for ramp wasn’t in accordance to the drawing and project specification. It was made of poor quality material and wasn’t stable—See Photos PJR 015.

30 Construction Inspection

How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $300

Issue 11 The installed changeover and electrical fuses had no quality. Most of the lighting fixtures were not tighten properly and not in operation—See Photos PJR 019, PJR 020.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Tighten lighting fixtures and replace electrical fixtures How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 12 The contractor didn’t place PCC on top of stone masonry and the boundary wall—See Photo PJR 021.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Placing concrete as per specification How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $1,500

Issue 13 No lights above main gate of the school was installed—See Photo PJR 022.

31 Construction Inspection

How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $200

32 Construction Inspection

5. Ashraf Yawand School, Warsaj, Takhar Overview On September 20, 2014, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 9,581,895.00 contract to Warono Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 8 Class Rooms in one story with 5 Set Latrine, 40m Water Well and Garbage Collection Point for Ashraf Yawand School located in Warsaj District of Takhar Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on gathered information from the Ministry of Education, the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Warsaj District, Takhar Province The closest possible GPS point: Latitude: 36.16233 Longitude: 69.85717

Photo 4: Side View of the Ashraf Yawand School located at Warsaj District of Takhar Province

33 Construction Inspection

DAARTT reported in October 2015 that the 25mm PCC has not been placed on top of the roof slab before adding clay for insulation. In November 2015 another report issued by DAARTT shows that a steel bar on the top of roof slab to fasten the truss with the building is not in required measures, a layer of bitumen paper and 5cm light PCC for insulation of classroom floors before placing chips had not been placed, and the RCC rings on top of stone masonry in latrine had not been constructed. DAARTT also reported a poor vibration in RCC columns at the same time.

We visited Ashraf Yawand School on August 17, 2016, and found that the contractor did not take corrective actions to address the problems report by DAARTT in the period of May to November 2015.

Summary and conclusions 95% of the project has been completed, with the outstanding parts being the installation of a bore well for water and some of the classroom furniture.1 The bore well was specified in the project design and was intended to provide the school with water. Materials for the construction of the classroom furniture appear to have been procured, but of the eight classrooms, only three contained constructed furniture. The raw materials to construct the remainder of the furniture were left in the classrooms and yard of the school.

Some minor quality and maintenance issues were found with the construction: - 25mm of concrete should have been added to the roof slab before clay was added, in order to insulate the roof, as per the project specification. This was not performed. - As reported by DAART, the steel bars used to fasten the truss to the building were not of standard measurements. The bars were too short to correctly fasten the truss to the main building. - The reinforced concrete rings which should have been constructed on top of the stone masonry in the latrines had not been constructed - There were cracks in the concrete of ramps, walkways and sidewalks - Some door locks had been broken - The toilets in the latrines were in poor condition - I-beams in the latrine roof were not oil painted, as per the project specification - Iron sheet to cover the garbage collection was not installed - Hand rails were not installed in stairs

It is recommended that the contractor be paid for the project, excluding the cost of the bore well and the classroom furniture as per the Bill of Quantities. Alternatively, the contractor could be asked to install the classroom furniture and bore well, and receive full payment.

Project %age of project which has been completed 95%

1 This figure has been calculated by deducting the approximate cost of these parts of the work from the total AFN cost of the project

34 Construction Inspection

Should the contractor be paid? Yes, for 95% Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Classroom furniture should be constructed

Bore hole should be built

Maintenance

Detailed inspection findings

Issue 1 During our inspection, only 3 classrooms were furnished with students’ furniture. The remaining 5 classrooms had no furniture; instead the raw materials were laid down in classrooms and yard of the school remaining uninstalled—See Photos TKH012, TKH013, TKH014.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium – students need desks and chairs to learn Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Construct the remaining furniture How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $3,000

Issue 2 No bore well was constructed as required by the contract documents and project scope of work.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium risk/defect – quality of education would be improved if children have access to water Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Building of bore well How long would further work take? 1 month How much would further work cost? $5,000

35 Construction Inspection

Issue 3 The 25mm PCC has not been placed on top of the roof slab before adding clay for insulation. The Bill of Quantities and the project specification require a layer of PCC to be placed before adding clay as an insulation on the top of the roof slab— See Photos TKH001, TKH002.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? No What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 4 We found that an issue reported by DAARTT for the steel bars on the top of roof slab to fasten the truss with the building is really not in standard measures. The contractor left the steel bars too short and not straight enough to fasten truss with the main building—See Photos TKH003, TKH004.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Adding additional steel bars and clamps to fasten the trusses to the roof How long would further work take? 5 days How much would further work cost? $300

Issue 5 We did not observe that the contractor didn’t place bitumen paper and 5cm light PCC for insulation of floors before placing chips, as the floors were covered by chips at the time of inspection—See Photos TKH005, TKH006.

36 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect No Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? No – the floor is already laid with concrete and chips What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 6 We found that the RCC rings of top of stone masonry in latrines had not been constructed and the contractor did not take corrective action to address the problem—See Photos TKH007.

Issue 7 The stone masonry and pointing of latrines were in poor quality—See Photos TKH008.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? By re-pointing2 How long would further work take? 3 days How much would further work cost? $200

Issue 8 We found cracks in rumps, walkways and

2 Pointing is a process by which the gaps between masonry stones are filled with cement, to make the structure more solid

37 Construction Inspection

sidewalks. The Bill of Quantities requires all PCCs in ramps, walkways and sidewalks to be in 1:2:4 ratios with 10cm thickness—See Photos TKH009, TKH010.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Filling cracks with sealant How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $200

Issue 9 Some of the doors locks were broken and not in operation—See Photos TKH011

Issue 10 The toilets in latrines were in poor condition; there were no pre-fabricated concrete cabinets installed by the contractor—See Photos TKH015, TKH016.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repairs How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 11

38 Construction Inspection

We observed that the I Beams for latrine roof were not oil painted. The Bill of Quantities defines the oil painting to be made in 3-coats— See Photos TKH017, TKH018

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Painting How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $100

Issue 12 The contractor didn’t install an iron sheet cover for the garbage collection point —See Photo TKH019.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Install iron sheet cover How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $150

Issue 13 The contractor didn’t install hand rails nor placed required chips in stairs, instead they placed in poor quality PCC—See Photos TKH020, TKH021.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of concrete with chips, and installation of handrails How long would further work take? 5 days How much would further work cost? $500

39 Construction Inspection

40 Construction Inspection

6. Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School (Abdul Hai Habibi High School), Khost Center, Khost Overview On May 30, 2011, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 5,105,523.37 contract to Hemat Khail Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 8 Class Rooms in one story for Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School (Abdul Hai Habibi High School) located in Center of Khost Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Khost Center, Khost Province

The closest possible GPS point:

Altitude: 33.33509

Longitude: 69.91841

Photo 5: Front View of the Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School changed from Abdul Hai Habibi High School, located at the Center of Khost Province

41 Construction Inspection

DAARTT reported in May-June 2015 that the doors did not have metallic locks and handles, windows had no glasses, the quantity and dimensions of the furniture (desk and chairs) were not according to the Bill of Quantities and project specification, the metallic gutters were not installed, windows had cracks and bends, and the stairs of the main entrance have settled due to poor foundation. In July 2015 DAARTT also reported that the finishing of some portions of painted classroom walls and ceilings were not smooth.

We visited Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School (Abdul Hai Habibi High School) on August 20, 2016, and found that some of the problems of the infrastructure components reported by DAARTT had been completed but we did observe some other construction problems with these components described in detail below.

Summary and conclusions 99% of the project had been completed by the contractor. There are no structural issues. Some wiring remains exposed because the contractor did not install some of the electrical switches and sockets, which presents a safety issue. This is the only outstanding part of the project, and should be rectified by the contractor. It would also be beneficial for maintenance work to be performed by the contractor, as the project is still under warranty.

There were also a number of minor issues identified through the inspection: - Window glass had been installed, but had been broken and covered by wooden planks at the time of inspection - Locks and handles had been installed by the contractor, but had been broken - Some of the windows had defects, including cracks and bends in the frame - Stairs in the main entrance and the latrines had been covered with poor quality plaster, which now requires maintenance - The painting of some classrooms had not been smoothed correctly - Reinforced concrete rings, which should have been placed on top of the foundations, had not been installed - There were cracks in the walkways and the sidewalks - The wood used to install fly screens was not high quality, and some of the fly screens had been torn

The contractor should be paid, when they have installed the electrical switches and sockets.

Project %age of project which has been completed 99% Should the contractor be paid? Yes Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Electrical switches should be made safe

Detailed inspection findings Issue 1

42 Construction Inspection

The contractor did not install some of the electrical switches/sockets—See Photos KST 017, KST 018.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium – wiring is exposed Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of remaining switches / sockets How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $300

Issue 2 We observed that the contractor installed all required glasses in the windows, but some were broken by the students and covered with wood planks during our observation—See Photo KST001.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of glasses How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $50

Issue 3 The contractor installed all required locks and hardware for the doors but some were broken during our inspection which require replacement/reinstallation—See Photos KST002, KST 003, KST 004.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Install new locks How long would further work take? 3 days

43 Construction Inspection

How much would further work cost? $150

Issue 4 We inspected that the contractor supplied and installed all required furniture for the classrooms with best quality in accordance to the Bill of Quantities and project specification—See Photos KST 005, KST 006.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Issue has been resolved Is this a problem of maintenance or - construction? Can it be resolved with further work? - What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 5 The contractor supplied and installed all required gutters in accordance to the Bill of Quantities and project specification—See Photo KST 007.

Issue 6 We observed that some of the windows had serious defects including cracks and bends—See Photos KST 008, KST 009.

44 Construction Inspection

ow long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

Issue 7 The contractor corrected the previously reported settlement problem

Issue 8 Stairs in the main entrance and the latrines had covered with poor plaster that requires immediate maintenance—See Photos KST 010, KST 011.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replastering How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $50

Issue 9 The finishing of some portions of painted classroom walls and ceilings were not smooth— See Photo KST 012.

45 Construction Inspection

How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 10 No RCC rings on top of the foundation were installed—See Photo KST 013.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? No What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 11 We found cracks in walkways and sidewalks. The Bill of Quantities requires all PCCs in floors, walkways and sidewalks to be in 1:2:4 ratios with 10cm thickness—See Photos KST 014, KST015.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacing the concrete in the damaged areas How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $200

Issue 12 Chufties for fly screens in windows were made of poor quality wood, and some of the fly screens were torn—See Photo KST 016.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of chufties How long would further work take? 2 days

46 Construction Inspection

How much would further work cost? $80

47 Construction Inspection

7. Hasan Waraqa School, Qarabagh District, Ghazni Overview On January 12, 2015, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 13,578,174.00 contract to Spin Dara Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 8 Class Rooms in one story, 450m Boundary Wall, 5 set Latrines, 40m Water Well, Main Gate and Garbage Collection Points for Hasan Waraqa School located in Qarabagh District of Ghazni Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Qarabagh District, Ghazni Province

Latitude: 33.80289

Longtitude: 67.42411

Photo 6: Front View of the Hasan Waraqa School, located at Qarabagh District of Ghazni Province

48 Construction Inspection

DAARTT reported in August 2015 that the contractor provided 6” plastic casing pipes and filter for water well instead of 8” required by the Bill of Quantities and project specification. In October 2015 the report shows that the construction joints in the boundary wall were not according to the drawings.

We visited Hasan Waraqa School on August 23, 2016, and found that that the contractor did not take corrective actions to address some of the problems reported by DAARTT. We did also observe some other construction problems with these components described in detail below.

Summary and conclusions

100% of the project has been completed.

Some minor issues were found: - A KAWSAR hand pump had been installed instead of the PAMIR pump specified - Construction joints were not installed in the foundations - Painting was not performed to a high standard, and the building now requires interior and exterior repainting - Wooden frames of doors and windows had been damaged, and the locks and handles had been broken - There were cracks in the concrete of walkways and sidewalks. The quality of the concrete which was used was low and likely not according to what was specified in the Bill of Quantities - There were some cracks in classroom furniture, and the furniture was not painted as it should have been. A laboratory table, which should have been installed by the contractor, had not been installed - The sink in the latrine did not have a sink or a mirror - The contractor did not install the required water tank

Project %age of project which has been completed 100% Should the contractor be paid? Yes Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Maintenace

Detailed inspection findings

Issue 1 Steel bars on top of the roof slab to fasten the truss with the building were not installed. The roof had leakages as the contractor didn’t install fascia of steel sheet under the pick of building— See Photos GZN 011, GZN 012.

49 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installing clamps and sealing leakages with sealants How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $1,500

Issue 2 The sewer pipes were installed on ground surface. They were broken and not in operation. The project specification require all sewer/water piping to be installed underground and covered—See Photo GZN 007.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium – this means students cannot use toilet, and the smell is disturbing the students Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repairing and maintenance How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $250

Issue 3 We observed the water well for the size of the pipe and filter reported by DAARTT but we couldn’t judge on the specific activity as the well was already constructed and in operation. We found that the contractor installed KAWSER hand pump instead of required PAMIR brand—See Photos GZN 001, GZN 002, GZN 003.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low (if issue still exists) Is this a problem of maintenance or - construction? Can it be resolved with further work? - What work would be required? - How long would further work take? -

50 Construction Inspection

How much would further work cost? -

Issue 4 The construction joints were started from the brick masonry starting point while it’s required from the foundation. The contractor didn’t take corrective actions and didn’t insulate constructed joints. They were all covered in plaster. The contractor also didn’t cast the required PCC on top of stone masonry of the boundary wall—See Photos GZN 004, GZN 005.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? No – the boundary wall would need to be removed in order to replace them What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 5 The contractor used low quality painting in all exterior and interior portions of the building. It requires repainting and maintenance—See Photo GZN 006.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repainting How long would further work take? 1 month How much would further work cost? $5,000

Issue 6 Some of the wooden frames of doors/windows were damaged and the locks/handles were broken that require maintenance—See Photos GZN 008, GZN 009, GZN 010.

51 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacing lock and door / window frames How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $800

Issue 7 PCC3 in walkways, rumps and sidewalks had some cracks. The used material quality was low and the job wasn’t done in accordance to the contract. The Bill of Quantities and project specification require the PCC to be in 1:2:4 ratios with 10cm thickness—See Photos GZN 013, GZN 014.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement How long would further work take? 3 days How much would further work cost? $250

Issue 8 Classrooms furniture had some cracks and was not painted in accordance to drawing.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Using putty and replacement How long would further work take? 7 days How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 9

3 Plain Cement Concrete (i.e., concrete not containing steel bars)

52 Construction Inspection

Laboratory table was also not provided by the contractor—See Photos GZN 015, GZN 016

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Buy laboratory table How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 10 The installed sink in corridor of latrine had no faucet and mirror—See Photo GZN 017.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of sink and mirror How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $100

Issue 11 The contractor didn’t construct/install required water tank.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of water tank How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $350

53 Construction Inspection

8. General Workshop, Guard Room, Toilet, and Boundary Wall, Kabul City, Kabul Overview On December 03, 2012, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 14,538,922.00 contract to Abid Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of General Workshop, Guard Room, Toilet, and Boundary Wall located in Kabul City of Kabul Province, Afghanistan. This budget was later increased to AFN 17,411,488. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the project.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on May 20, 2014, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date. This site was not monitored by DAART.

Kabul City, Kabul Province Latitude: 34.50833 Longtitude: 69.13527

Photo 7: Side View of the Project, located at Kabul City of Kabul Province Photo: August 2016

54 Construction Inspection

Summary and conclusions 100% of the project has been completed. There are no major issues with the project, and the contractor should be paid. However, it is recommended that some maintenance work is performed at this site.

There are some minor issues identified through the inspection: - The concrete of the yard floor was not high quality, and had some cracks. There was also insufficient drainage in the yard - The wooden frame and the iron sheet of the maintenance building were damaged - Some parts of the plastering of the walls, ceilings and boundary walls require maintenance - Interior and exterior require repainting - The hinges of two doors were broken - All electrical wiring and the installation of electrical fixtures was poor quality - Fuses, electrical panel boards, switches/sockets, and distribution panels were all poor quality - Distribution manholes were not construction, as per the Bill of Quantities - Plumbing fixtures were installed using low quality materials, and may require replacement - Brick and stone masonry was in poor condition, and requires maintenance - Apron was not constructed as per the Bill of Quantities - Cupboards, shelves, and sinks for washing dishes were not installed

Project %age of project which has been completed 100% Should the contractor be paid? Yes Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Maintenance

Detailed inspection findings Issue 1 The PCC placed in yard floor was constructed with poor quality material and had some cracks. Also, the area didn’t have proper drainage system to drain water outside—See Photo KBL 001.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement in damaged areas How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $400

55 Construction Inspection

Issue 2 The installed wooden frame and iron sheet for the maintenance building was damaged including two sheets flashing on parapet wall—See Photos KBL 002, KBL 003.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of frame and iron sheet How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $100

Issue 3 Some parts of the plastering work for walls, ceiling, and boundary wall require maintenance—See Photo KBL 004.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Maintenance – re-plastering and painting How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 4 The interiors white washing with 60% emulsion and 100% emulsion white washing for exteriors require repaint —See Photos KBL 005, KBL 006.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repainting How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

56 Construction Inspection

Issue 5 The hinges of two doors were broken—See Photo KBL 007, KBL 008.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of hinges How long would further work take? 2 day How much would further work cost? $100

Issue 6 All electrical wiring and installation of electrical fixtures were made with poor workmanship. During our observation we found some fixtures broken and or removed from the ceiling—See Photos KBL 009, KBL 010.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of damaged fixtures and tightening of loose fixtures How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 7 The fuses, electrical panel board, switches/sockets and main distribution panels were all had low quality. The contractor installed no water proof fixtures in outdoor—See Photos KBL 011, KBL012.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes

57 Construction Inspection

What work would be required? Replacement of panel boards, switches and sockets How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $200

Issue 8 No electrical, sewer, and water distribution manholes were constructed as they are required by the Bill of Quantities and project specification—See Photo KBL 013.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of manholes How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $1,000

Issue 9 The plumbing fixtures (water closet, sink, hose bib, electrical water heater, and floor drain, clean out, soap dispenser) were all installed of low quality material and the mirrors above sinks were not installed. It requires immediate replacement—See Photos KBL 014, KBL 015, KBL016.

Identified by DAART? Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $800

Issue 10 Some brick/stone masonry were in very bad condition, that requires rework in accordance to the Bill of Quantities and project specification— See Photos KBL 017, KBL 018.

58 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repointing How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $100

Issue 11 Edges of Pits of maintenance were not constructed as required by the Bill of Quantities and project specification. Most of them were broken during our observation—See Photos KBL 019, KBL 020.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Re-concreting, or installation of steel angle iron nosing How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

Issue 12 The apron was not constructed per the drawings and Bill of Quantities—See Photo KBL 021.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Construct apron How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $50

Issue 13 The cupboards, shelves, dish sinks were not installed—See Photo KBL 022.

59 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of cupboards, shelves and dish sinks How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $2,500

Issue 14 The guard rooms’ doors and windows wooden frames were bent and had cracks. Four door locks and handles were broken and not in operation—See Photos KBL 023, KBL 024.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of frames and locks / handles How long would further work take? 3 days How much would further work cost? $150

60 Construction Inspection

9. Abdul Raoof Benawa School, Kabul City, Kabul Overview On December 03, 2012, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 4,288,000.00 contract to Afghan Shahab Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 652m Boundary Wall and Main Gate for Abdul Raoof Benawa School located in Kabul City of Kabul Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on December 02, 2013, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date. This project was not monitored by DAART.

Kabul City, Kabul Province

Latitude: 34.30646

Longitude: 69.19499

Photo 8: View of the Abdul Raoof Benawa School’s Boundary Wall Project, located at Kabul City of Kabul Province

61 Construction Inspection

We visited the Project on August 29, 2016, and found some major construction problems described in detail below.

Summary and conclusions 75% of the project has been completed by the contractor. Some important parts of the project remain outstanding, and one part (the steel gate at the entrance) has been installed by an NGO and not the contractor itself. The boundary has not been plastered and painted, which leaves the wall exposed and vulnerable to damage by rain. 80 meters of the wall has not been topped with a layer of concrete, and the concrete which has been placed on the rest of the wall is not of good quality.

The steel gate at the entrance had not been installed by the contractor, but instead had been installed by an NGO. It is not clear why this was the case, but it is understood that the contractor did not pay for the installation of the steel gate.

There was also one minor issue: - Masonry work in the boundary wall was of poor quality

It is recommended that the contractor is asked to complete the project by plastering and painting the boundary wall as per the project specifications, and installing a layer of high quality concrete on the remaining part of the wall which has not been topped. Payment for the full price of the project should be made conditional on this work being performed.

Project %age of project which has been completed 75% Should the contractor be paid? Yes, for 75% Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Remainder of boundary wall should be topped with concrete

Wall should be plastered and painted

Maintenance

Detailed inspection findings Issue 1 The contractor didn’t plaster the wall and no painting was made—See Photos KBL 027.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Medium – without plastering the wall can be damaged by rain Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction

62 Construction Inspection

construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Plastering and painting How long would further work take? 45 days How much would further work cost? $ - should be deducted from the Bill of Quantities

Issue 2 The PCC on top of the wall and stone masonry was placed of poor quality material. The 80m length of the wall is without PCC—See Photos KBL 028, KBL 029.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Medium Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Construct remaining copping on top of the 80m of wall How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $1,500

Issue 3 The burnt brick masonry work in the boundary wall was made with poor workmanship. During our inspection we found big holes in the masonry work and no foam used to seal the joints. There were also some vertical cracks visible—See Photos KBL 025, KBL 026.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Install insulation in joints, and cover the holes with bricks How long would further work take? 1 week How much would further work cost? $500

Issue 4 The steel main gate was installed by an NGO (not the contractor) —See Photo KBL 030.

63 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? - What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? Should be deducted from the Bill of Quantities

64 Construction Inspection

10. Ayesha School, Behsood District, Nangarhar Overview On October 21, 2013, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 2,913,607.23 contract to Sediq Omar Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 4 Class Rooms in two stories for Ayesha School located in Behsood District of Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Behsood District, Nangarhar Province

Latitude: 34.25393

28206 Longitude: 70.

DAARTT reported in September 2015 that the structure and material of wooden truss was not according to project specification.

Photo 9: Front View of the Ayesha School, located at Behsood District of Nangarhar Province

65 Construction Inspection

We visited Ayesha School on August 21, 2016, and found that that the contractor did not take corrective actions to address the problems reported by DAARTT.

Summary and conclusions 91% of the project has been completed. Ramps and stairs for the main entrance, which were included in the project specification, are the principal outstanding element of the work. These should be constructed by the contractor in order to receive payment.

There are some minor issues with the construction which has been performed: - The boards for the trusses were 2.5cm thick, rather than the specified 3cm - A steel grill parapet was installed instead of a reinforced concrete parapet - Some wooden doors were cracked or otherwise damaged - No electrical changeovers were installed - All student furniture was made of low quality wood, which had sustained some damage

The contractor should be paid for 91% of the work, or should be provided the opportunity to construct the ramp and be paid. The 9% of deduction is calculated based on issues # 1, 3 and 6, because they are items that are either not constructed initially or they are items that need to be completely replaced. Other issues are part of low risk/defect maintenance that could be fixed by the contractor. Project %age of project which has been completed 91% Should the contractor be paid? Yes, for 91% Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Construction of ramps and stairs for the main entrance

Maintenance

Detailed inspection findings

Issue 1 Ramps and stairs for the main entrance were not constructed—See Photo NGR003. Based on the ISD report, there is no place for ramps and stairs in the site. If this is the case and it is impossible to construct ramps and stairs, the allocated budget for these items needs to be deducted from overall budget.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction

66 Construction Inspection

construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? To construct ramps and stairs for the main entrance How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

Issue 2 We observed that the contractor installed wooden board with 2.5cm thickness in 20cm spaces for the wooden truss, where the project specifications and Bill of Quantities require the wooden board to be 3cm thick and made of Russian Khar. The contractor didn’t resolve this specific problem—See Photos NGR001, NGR002.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? No – whole roof would need to be reinstalled What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 3 In lieu of constructing RCC parapet required by the project specification and Bill of Quantities, contractor installed a steel grill parapet—See Photo NGR004.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of steel parapet with RCC parapet How long would further work take? 25 days How much would further work cost? $1,500

Issue 5

67 Construction Inspection

During our inspection some of the wooden doors had cracks and some were damaged. -See Photo NGR005.

Issue 6 No electrical changeovers were installed for the entire building. The project specification and Bill of Quantity require 3 Phase and 1 Phase changeovers to be installed.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low

Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of electrical changeovers How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $300

Issue 7 All student furniture was made of low quality wood which at the time of inspection we observed major cracks almost in each of desk and chair; and the filling before painting was not made appropriately—See Photo NGR006.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Using putty and repainting How long would further work take? 15 days

68 Construction Inspection

How much would further work cost? $1,500

69 Construction Inspection

11. Abdul Matin School, Lashkargah, Helmand Overview On November 04, 2009, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 13,194,307.00 contract to Naqib Zamarial Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 16 Class Rooms in two stories with 10 Set Latrine, Bore Well, Boundary Wall and Main Gate for Abdul Matin School located in Lashkargah District of Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on gathered information from the Ministry of Education, the Contractor reported completion of the project on September 17, 2011, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date. DAART monitored the project, as it did many of the other projects, but did not report any issues. We visited Abdul Matin School on August 30, 2016.

Lashkargah District, Helmand Province The closest possible GPS point: Latitude: 31.58000 Longitude: 64.37740

Photo 10: Side View of the Abdul Matin School located at Lashkargah District of Helmand Province

70 Construction Inspection

Summary and conclusions

100% of the project has been completed. There are no medium- or high-risk issues with the school which has been constructed. Field engineers identified only a small number of minor issues: - Exterior walls were roughly plastered and painted, using lower quality material and workmanship - Most of the door frames were bent, doors locks and handles were broken, and the fly screens of windows were torn - Hand rails were broken - There are some small issues with the installation of electrical fixtures

The contractor should be paid, if it has not already been paid. The project requires some maintenance work, but is out of warranty, so the contractor is not obligated to perform such maintenance work.

Project %age of project which has been completed 100% Should the contractor be paid? Yes Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Maintenance

Detailed inspection findings Issue 1 The exterior and interior walls of the building including all ceilings were roughly plastered and painted with low quality material and poor workmanship. It requires repainting—See Photos HLD001, HLD002, HLD003.

Issue 2 Most of the door frames were bent, swings of doors had visible gaps, fly screens of windows were tore and most of the door locks and

71 Construction Inspection

handles were broken—See Photos HLD004, HLD005, HLD006, HDL007, HDL008.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacement of door frames, door swings, door locks, fly screens, and door handles How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

Issue 3 Down spots, student furniture and balconies hand rails were all broken that require maintenance—See Photos HLD009, HLD010, HLD011.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repairing of furniture, down spots and hand rails How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $1,500

Issue 4 Ventilation pipes had no caps in latrines building and light above gate was also not installed—See Photos HLD012, HLD013.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of light and ventilation caps How long would further work take? 2 days How much would further work cost? $150

Issue 5

72 Construction Inspection

Electrical fixtures were not installed properly, and most of the switches/sockets and lighting fixtures were removed—See Photos HLD014, HLD015, HLD016.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Maintenance construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Maintenance work How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

73 Construction Inspection

12. Omar Farooq School, Chak District, Wardak Overview On September 18, 2013, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 15,059,380.00 contract to Azmati Hashimi Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 8 Class Rooms in one story, 320m Boundary Wall, 5 set Latrines, 60m Water Well, Main Gate. Computer Lab and Furniture for Omar Farooq School located in Chak District of Wardak Province, Afghanistan. Figure and Photo below show the location and view of the school.

Based on our information the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Chak District, Wardak Province

The closest possible GPS point

Latitude: 34.13609

Longitude: 68.45139

Photo 11: Front View of the Omar Farooq School, located at Chak District of Wardak Province

74 Construction Inspection

DAARTT reported in August 2015 that the contractor used fewer steel bars than specified and required in the drawing and the main building conduits for electrical wiring had not been installed. In October 2015 the DAARTT report shows that the conduits used by contractor wasn’t in accordance to the Bill of Quantities and project specification. The project scope of work required one electric circuit for each room but the contractor connected two rooms to one circuit. DAARTT also reported that due to lack of measuring box for concrete mixing the 200 was not confirmed.

We visited Omar Farooq School on August 25, 2016, and found that that the contractor did not take corrective actions to address the problems reported by DAARTT. We did also observe some other construction problems with these components described in detail below.

Summary and conclusions We estimate that 75% of the project has been completed. The parts which remain incomplete are considerable. The contractor did not construct a boundary wall, the bore well, or the main door of the school. The contractor also did not provide all of the furniture or the computer laboratory specified by the Bill of Quantities. The cost of this work and these items in the Bill of Quantities totals $53,000 USD.

There were also some problems with the construction of the roof of the school which should be addressed. Roof trusses were constructed with low quality material and workmanship. The contractor did not install bracings on the trusses, and did not connect the roof frame to the roof slab. GI sheets were also missing, and where they were used, they were of poor quality. This is not high risk, but the missing materials should be considered in the decision regarding the payment of the contractor.

A number of other minor issues were identified: - Electrical conduits were low quality - There are substantial cracks in floors and walkways - Exterior walls were roughly plastered and not painted - No handrail was installed on the stairs, as per the project specification - I beams in the latrines were not painted, and latrine doors were not installed - Blackboards were not installed to the project specifications - Fly screens were not installed on some windows

The contractor should be paid for a maximum of 75% of the work. Alternatively, the contractor should be given the opportunity to complete the work in order to receive full payment. The 25% of deduction is related to the items that are either not constructed initially or they are items that need to be completely replaced. Other issues are part of low risk/defect maintenance that could be fixed by the contractor.

Project %age of project which has been completed 75% Should the contractor be paid? Yes, 75%

75 Construction Inspection

Should further work be undertaken? Yes What further work should be undertaken? Build the remaining parts

Detailed inspection findings

Issue 1 The contractor didn’t construct the boundary wall, bore well, main door, and didn’t provide all required furniture for students and the computer laboratory. The school seriously needs water— See Photo WDK 022. Based on ISD report, the boundary walls and gate has been built for another school (Ghazi Momin). This is an issue that could be clarified by ISD to DANIDA.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Medium Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Build and install bore well and boundary wall, computer laboratory, and student furniture How long would further work take? 3 months How much would further work cost? $53,400 (from Bill of Quantities)

Issue 2 The trusses for the roof was constructed of low quality material and with poor workmanship. The used wood size and truss frames were not according to the drawing. The contractor missed bracings and the truss frames were not connected to roof slab. The planks of fascia were not covered by GI sheets. The contractor also used low quality instead of smooth GI sheets— See Photos WDK 009, WDK 010, WDK 011, WDK 012.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction

76 Construction Inspection

construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of bracing How long would further work take? 1 month How much would further work cost? $5,000

Issue 3 We couldn’t observe the used steel bars in columns, as they were already constructed—See Photo WDK 001.

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect - Is this a problem of maintenance or - construction? Can it be resolved with further work? - What work would be required? - How long would further work take? - How much would further work cost? -

Issue 4 We observed that the contractor installed all required conduits but were all with low quality. The contractor didn’t install electrical bulbs and fixtures, switches/sockets, distribution panels and electrical wiring—See Photos WDK 002, WDK003, WDK004.

Identified by DAART? Yes (partly) Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of bulbs, fixtures, switches / sockets, and distribution panels How long would further work take? 20 days How much would further work cost? $ should be deducted from Bill of Quantities

Issue 5 Following DAARTT report on concrete mixing mark, there are substantial cracks in floors and walkways —See Photos WDK 005, WDK006, WDK007.

77 Construction Inspection

Identified by DAART? Yes Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Replacing damaged concrete How long would further work take? 10 days How much would further work cost? $2,000

Issue 6 Contractor didn’t construct stair steps and didn’t install hand rails—See Photo WDK 008.

Identified by DAART? - Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of steps and handrail How long would further work take? 15 days How much would further work cost? $1,500

Issue 7 The exterior walls of the school building and latrine were roughly plastered and painted with low quality material. The painting was not made in 3-coats as required by Bill of Quantities and project specification—See Photos WDK 013, WDK 014, WDK 015.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repainting How long would further work take? 20 days How much would further work cost? $7,000

Issue 8 I Beams of the latrine ceilings ware not painted. The quality of the planks was not as required by

78 Construction Inspection

the scope of work, and the contractor didn’t install doors of latrines—See Photos WDK 016, WDK 017, WDK 018.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Repainting How long would further work take? 1 day How much would further work cost? $50

Issue 9 The black boards in classrooms were not constructed according to drawing and Bill of Quantities. The contractor didn’t install wooden frame around the blackboard—See Photo WDK 019.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of wooden frame How long would further work take? 5 days How much would further work cost? $200

Issue 10 The contractor didn’t install fly screens for all the windows—See Photo WDK 020, WDK 021.

Identified by DAART? No Level of risk/defect Low Is this a problem of maintenance or Construction construction? Can it be resolved with further work? Yes What work would be required? Installation of fly-screens How long would further work take? 5 days How much would further work cost? $ deduct from Bill of Quantities

79 Construction Inspection

80 Construction Inspection

13. Abdul Hai Square School, Nad Ali, Helmand Overview On December 09, 2015, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 20,365,718.00 contract to Wares Afghan Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 12 Class Rooms in two stories with 2 Set Latrine, 40m Water Well, 704m Boundary Wall and Main Gate, Computer Lab and Students’ Chairs and Tables for Abdul Hai Square School located in Nad Ali District of Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Figure below show the location of the school.

Based on gathered information from the Ministry of Education, the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Nad Ali District, Helmand Province Latitude: N/A Longitude: N/A

We tried to visit Nad Ali District of Helmand from August 27, 2016 to August 30, 2016 but Afghan forces were continuing their operation against Taliban in the area. Taliban fighters had heavily mined the roads from neighboring districts and they were in control of all the roads leading to Nad Ali District of Helmand Province. It remains an ongoing security concern and there has been fighting down there for the last several weeks. Engineers also reported that the Taliban is using the school as a base.

It was therefore not possible to perform the inspection, or to make recommendations for future action.

81 Construction Inspection

14. Block III School, Marja, Helmand Overview On March 31, 2014, the Ministry of Education awarded a AFN 22,343,554.00 contract to Sami Aman Construction Company, an Afghan Company, for the Construction of 12 Class Rooms in two stories with 2 Set Latrine, 40m Water Well, 704m Boundary Wall and Main Gate, Computer Lab and Students’ Chairs and Tables for Block III School located in Marja District of Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Figure below show the location of the school.

Based on gathered information from the Ministry of Education, the Contractor reported completion of the project on November 30, 2015, and is accepted by the Ministry of Education on the date.

Marja District, Helmand Province Latitude: N/A Longitude: N/A

We tried to visit Marja District of Helmand from August 27, 2016 to August 30, 2016 but Afghan forces were continuing their operation against Taliban in the area. Taliban fighters had heavily mined the roads from neighboring districts and they were in control of all the roads leading to Marja District of Helmand Province. It remains an ongoing security concern and there has been fighting down there for the last several weeks. Again, there are reports from the field engineers that the site is being used as a base by the Taliban.

It was therefore not possible to perform the inspection, or to make recommendations for the future of this project.

82 Construction Inspection

15. Interview Findings Engineers conducted a number of short interviews with the teachers at the schools, students, and the local community. It should be noted that these interviews were not approached in a statistically representative manner (which would have required a far greater amount of interviews, time and resources in order to perform), and should not be understood as such. They are designed to provide general qualitative insights into the perceptions of the local community into the schools.

Teachers were interviewed at six of the schools (in Wardak, Ghazni, Takhar, Khost, Badakhshan and Kabul). Teachers in some schools were more satisfied with the school facilities than teachers in other schools. All of the teachers in the school in Wardak and most of the teachers at the school in Khost reported that they were not satisfied with the school facilities. In the other schools, however, most or all teachers reported being satisfied. Surprisingly, almost all teachers in these schools reported that security is good in their area, and that they feel safe in the school.

Students were interviewed in five of the schools (Wardak, Ghazni, Takhar, Khost and Badakhshan). In all schools, they reported that they rarely did not attend school. They also reported feeling safe both at school and while travelling to school. The students were also overwhelmingly positive about attending school, and reported that they enjoy school because they have the opportunity to learn new things. Children also reported that they wanted to continue to study in further education after they leave school.

The local community was interviewed in Takhar, Khost, Nangarhar, Ghazni, Badakhshan and Wardak. They were similarly positive about schools and education. Almost all reported that they thought education was important, for both boys and girls. They were broadly positive about the schools which had been constructed by the project, with the exception of the school in Ghanzi, where about half of those interviewed reported that the school was poor.

83 Construction Inspection

Part 3 – Conclusions and recommendations Overall, the construction work in the twelve sites which were inspected has been adequate. Though there are small quality issues in all of the sites, most of these issues do not present a risk to the safety of the users of the buildings. Only one high-risk issue was identified, at the school in Panjshir. A small number of medium-risk issues with the construction were also identified in various locations. All of the construction works were more than 90% complete, except for two. One project was an estimated 75% complete, while one further project had stopped work at 40%.

The inspections have allowed for a number of recommendations to be made across the schools and other sites inspected. They are summarized here.

Work which should be completed prior to closure of the project The decision as to whether to perform further work on these projects, and the amount of work which should be performed, is the decision of the Embassy of Denmark. ATR and Global Trust make the following recommendations in order to support and inform those who are making these decisions.

1. Those issues in the construction projects which have been assessed as medium- or high-risk should be rectified 2. Of these, the only high-risk issue identified (the balcony of the school in Panjshir), should be addressed as an urgent priority. 3. It would be preferable to also rectify the low-risk issues or defects, which would improve the quality of the environment in the schools and other construction locations. However, these can be considered non-essential improvements. 4. The work to be completed should be performed by the original contractors where possible.

Payment of contractors The decision of whether to pay contractors or not for the work which they have completed, and the amount which they should be paid, is a sensitive decision which will finally be made by the Embassy of Denmark. However, recommendations for payment have been made here regarding the payment of contractors, as requested by the Embassy, based on the conclusions of the inspections.

With regard to these recommendations, it is important to again note that many of the estimated costs of the work which was not performed are rather approximate, and may benefit from an examination of the Bill of Quantities and the costs listed there prior to a final decision being made.

1. Broadly, the recommendation for payment is that contactors should be paid for the work which they have completed, and not paid for the few major aspects of the work which have not been completed. These are clearly identified in the main body of this report. 2. A percentage figure for the proportion of the planned work which has been completed has been calculated for most of the construction projects. This figure has been calculated by estimating the cost of the major aspects of the work which has not been completed, calculating the cost of this work as a percentage of the overall project budget, and then deducting this percentage figure from 100%.

84 Construction Inspection

3. For minor issues relating to the construction of the projects (ie all of those identified as ‘low- risk/defect’), such as inadequate number of coats of paint, plastering etc., contractors should be paid. Alternatively, it would be possible to calculate the costs of these from the Bill of Quantities, and deduct them from the total payment to contractors. 4. Many minor issues identified in the inspection relate to the quality of the work that was produced, rather than work not being performed. While it is helpful for the Embassy to be aware of these issues, it is perhaps simpler and more efficient to pay contractors for these, rather than to enter discussions with the MoE and contractors regarding whether or not the quality of what was produced was sufficient. 5. Many of the major issues identified by the inspection can be rectified by the contractors. It is recommended that contractors are provided the opportunity to complete this work, and to then receive full payment, rather than the reduced payment which should result from this work being incomplete. 6. If the contractors are unwilling or unable to complete the work necessary to rectify the major issues identified in the inspection, DANIDA should complete the work by other means, such as though awarding further contracts to other construction contractors. The work in Panjshir should be considered a high priority for urgent action. 7. Many of the projects have been handed over to the Ministry of Education less than one year ago, and are therefore still under warranty. In such cases, the contractor remains theoretically liable for performing any necessary maintenance work (such as repairing damaged locks, fly-screens, etc). It would be beneficial to the schools and other buildings if contactors can be convinced to perform this maintenance work prior to payment being released.

85 Construction Inspection

Annex 1: Photos

1. Mohammad Dawood School, Kishm, Badakhshan

BDK001 BDK002

No Cantilever for the Main Building No Cantilever for the Main Building

BDK003 BDK004 Iron Sheet of the Latrines Roof Iron Sheet of the Latrines Roof

BDK005 BDK006 I Beams of the Latrine Roofs Cracks in Walkways and Sidewalks

86 Construction Inspection

BDK007 BDK008

Poor Quality Plastering Work Poor Quality Interior Painting

BDK009 BDK010 Poor Quality Interior Painting Poor Quality Exterior Painting

BDK011 BDK012 Poor Quality Exterior Painting Unprofessionally Painted Windows

87 Construction Inspection

BDK013 BDK014

Poor Quality Doors Painting Unprofessionally Painted Windows

BDK015 BDK016 No Fly Screen for Windows No Fly Screen for Windows

BDK017 BDK018 Broken Handles/Locks of the Doors Poor Quality Handles for Doors

88 Construction Inspection

BDK019 BDK020

Not Painted Student Furniture No Gutter for Latrine

89 Construction Inspection

2. Imam Azam Aqtash School, Said Khail District, Parwan

PRN001 PRN002

Installed Electrical Switches/Sockets Installed Student Furniture

PRN003 PRN004 Installed Student Furniture Well and Hand Pump

PRN005 PRN006 Supporting Truss Members Supporting Truss Members

90 Construction Inspection

PRN008 PRN007 Interior Finishing/Painting Interior Finishing/Painting

PRN009 PRN010 INDUS Hand Pump Broken/Damaged Doors Locks and Handles

PRN011 PRN012 Broken/Damaged Doors Locks and Handles Windows with No Fly Screens

91 Construction Inspection

PRN014 PRN013 Twisted Windows Door Jumps and Plasters

PRN015 PRN016 Door Jumps and Plasters Walkways with Cracks

PRN017 PRN018 Exterior Plaster/Painting Cracks in Plastering

92 Construction Inspection

PRN020 PRN019 Classroom Floor I Beams in Latrine Roofs

93 Construction Inspection

3. Shahi Khil School, Ghorband, Parwan

94 Construction Inspection

4. Shahaba Umarz School, Karanj, Panjshir

PJR001 PJR002

Boundary Wall Boundary Wall

PJR003 PJR004 Truss Members Truss Members

PJR005 PJR006 Doors with Joints Windows with Joints 95 Construction Inspection

PJR008 PJR007 Down Sewer/Water Pipes Student Furniture

PJR009 PJR010 Installed Furniture Installed Furniture

PJR011 PJR012 Library Cupboards PCC Walkways

96 Construction Inspection

PJR014 PJR013 No PCC Walkway Cracks in Concrete Slab

PJR015 PJR016 Ramp Hand Rail Roofing Iron Sheet

PJR017 PJR018 Leakage in Roof Poor Quality Iron Sheet Used in Roof

97 Construction Inspection

PJR020 PJR019 Installed Electrical Fixtures Installed Lighting Fixture

PJR021 PJR022 No PCC on Top of Boundary Wall No Lights above Gate

98 Construction Inspection

5. Ashraf Yawand School, Warsaj, Takhar

TKH001 TKH002 TKH003 Top of the Roof Top of the Roof Steel Bars on Top of Roof

TKH004 TKH005 TKH006 Steel Bars on Top of Roof Chips in Floors Chips in Floors

99 Construction Inspection

TKH007 TKH008 TKH009 No RCC Rings Poor Stone Masonry Cracks in Walkways

TKH010 TKH011 TKH012 Damaged Rumps Broken Doors Locks Installed Student Furniture

100 Construction Inspection

TKH013 TKH014 TKH015 Uninstalled Furniture Stocked Furniture Material Poor Toilets in Latrine

TKH016 TKH017 TKH018 Poor Toilets in Latrine Not Painted I Beams Not Painted I Beams

101 Construction Inspection

TKH019 TKH020 TKH021 No Iron Sheet Cover No Chips Installed in Stairs No Hand Rails

102 Construction Inspection

6. Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School (Abdul Hai Habibi High School), Khost Center, Khost

KST002 KST001 Broken Glasses Broken Locks

KST003 KST004 Broken Locks Broken Handles

KST005 KST006 Supplied/Installed Furniture Supplied/Installed Furniture

103 Construction Inspection

KST008 KST007 Installed Gutters Bended Window

KST009 KST010 Cracked/Damaged Window Poor PCC in Stairs

KST011 KST012 Poor PCC in Stairs Rough Finishing of Painting

104 Construction Inspection

KST014 KST013 No RCC Ring on Top of Stone Masonry Cracks in Walkways

KST015 KST016 Cracks in Side Walks Low Quality Chufties

KST017 KST018 Uninstalled Electrical Components Uninstalled Electrical Components

105 Construction Inspection

8. Hasan Waraqa School, Qarabagh, Ghazni

GZN001 GZN002 Installed Hand Pump Hand Pump in Operation

GZN003 GZN004 Students Using Hand Pump Plastered Joints

GZN005 GZN006 No PCC on top of Stone Masonry Poor Quality Interior Painting

106 Construction Inspection

GZN007 GZN008 Installed Sewer Pipes Broken Door Locks/Handles

GZN009 GZN010 Bended Wooden Frames Bended Window

GZN011 GZN012 Iron Sheet on top of the Building Wooden Truss of the Iron Sheet

107 Construction Inspection

GZN013 GZN014 PCC in Floors Cracks in Sidewalks PCC

GZN015 GZN016 Student Furniture Student Furniture

GZN017 Sink with no Faucet

108 Construction Inspection

8. General Workshop, Guard Room, Toilet, and Boundary Wall, Kabul City, Kabul

KBL002 Iron Sheet

KBL003 KBL004 Parapet Flashing

KBL005 KBL006 External Painting Exterior Painting

109 Construction Inspection

KBL007 KBL008 Door Hinges Door Hinges

KBL009 KBL010 Electrical Bulbs Electrical Wiring

KBL011 KBL012 Electrical Fixtures Electrical Fixtures

110 Construction Inspection

KBL013 KBL014 No Sewer and Water Manholes Plumbing Fixtures

KBL015 KBL016 Plumbing Fixtures Plumbing Fixtures

KBL017 KBL018 Constructed Stone/Brick Masonry Wall Constructed Stone/Brick Masonry Wall

111 Construction Inspection

KBL019 KBL020 Pits of Maintenance Area Pits of Maintenance Area

KBL021 KBL022 Apron No Cupboards, Shelves and Dish Sinks

KBL023 KBL024 Broken Door Handles/Locks Bended Wooden Frames

112 Construction Inspection

9. Abdul Raoof Benawa School, Kabul City, Kabul

KBL025 KBL026 Brick Masonry in Wall Boundary Wall

KBL027 KBL028 No Plaster No PCC on top of the 80m Space

KBL029 KBL030 Low Quality PCC on top of Stone Masonry Steel Main Gate

113 Construction Inspection

10. Ayesha School, Behsood, Nangarhar

NGR002 NGR001 Wooden Truss Components Wooden Truss Components

NGR003 NGR004 No Ramps and Stairs at the Entrance Steel Grill Parapet

NGR005 NGR006 Cracks in Doors Furniture with Cracks

114 Construction Inspection

11. Abdul Matin School, Lashkargah, Helmand

HLD001 HLD002 HLD003 Exterior Painting Exterior Plastering Damaged Plaster/Paint

HLD004 HLD005 HLD006 Tore Fly Screens of Windows Doors Gaps Bended Frames

115 Construction Inspection

HLD007 HLD008 HLD009 Bended Wooden Frames Broken Locks/Handles Broken Down Spots

HLD010 HLD011 HLD012 Broken Balcony Hand Rails Broken Down Spots No Vent Pipes Caps

116 Construction Inspection

HLD013 HLD014 HLD015 No Lights above Gate Installed Electrical Fixtures Removed Electrical Bulbs

HLD016 Removed Switches/Sockets

117 Construction Inspection

12. Omar Farooq School, Chak, Wardak

WDK002 No Electrical Fixtures

WDK001 Columns of the Building

WDK003 WDK004 No Electrical Fixtures No Electrical Bulbs

WDK005 WDK006 Cracks in PCC Damaged Side Walks

118 Construction Inspection

WDK007 WDK008 No Stair Steps and Hand Rail No Electrical Fixtures

WDK009 WDK010 Wooden Truss Frame Wooden Truss Frame

WDK011 WDK012 Iron Sheet on top of the Roof Used GI Sheet

119 Construction Inspection

WDK013 WDK014 Exterior Plastering and Painting Exterior Plastering and Painting

WDK015 WDK016 Rough Plastering and Low Quality Painting No Painted I Beams

WDK017 WDK018 Low Quality Wooden Planks in Latrines Roof No Doors in Latrines

120 Construction Inspection

WDK019 WDK020 No Wooden Frames around the Black Boards No Fly Screens in Windows

121 Construction Inspection

Annex 2: GPS Coordinates of the construction locations

Construction Project Province Latitude Longitude Mohammad Dawood School9 Badakhshan 36.64235 70.21885 Imam Azam Aqtash School Parwan 35.04148 69.26568 Shahi Khil School, District Parwan 34.94753 68.84492 Shahaba Umarz School Panjshir 35.38514 69.64969 Ashraf Yawand School Takhar 36.16233 69.85717 Gharghasht Bibi Halima High School Khost 33.33509 69.91841 (Abdul Hai Habibi High School) Hasan Waraqa School Ghazni 33.80289 67.42411 General Workshop, Guard Room, Toilet, Kabul 34.30300 69.87000 and Boundary Wall Abdul Raoof Benawa School Kabul 34.30646 69.19499 Ayesha School Nangarhar 34.25393 70.28206 Abdul Matin School Helmand 31.58000 64.37740 Omar Farooq School Wardak 34.13609 68.45139 Abdul Hai Square School Helmand N/A N/A Block III School Helmand N/A N/A

122