EVALUATION REPORT FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (BAIDP) July 10, 2019 This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ME&A, Inc. EVALUATION REPORT FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (BAIDP) July 10, 2019 USAID Contract No. GS-10F-154BA USAID Order No. 72038819M00001 USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity Prepared by ME&A, Inc. 4350 East-West Highway, Suite 210 Bethesda, MD, 20814 USA DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of ME&A, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Identifying Information...............................................................................................1 1.2 Program Background ..................................................................................................1 1.3 Development Problem and USAID’s Response .........................................................3 2.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE ...............................................................................................4 2.1 Evaluation Purpose .....................................................................................................4 2.2 Audience and Intended Use ........................................................................................4 2.3 Evaluation Questions ..................................................................................................4 3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY..................................................................................5 3.1 Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................5 3.2 Sampling Approach ....................................................................................................8 3.3 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................9 3.4 Methodological Strengths and Limitations ...............................................................10 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................10 4.1 Construction Projects ................................................................................................11 4.2 Program Management ...............................................................................................13 4.3 Impact for LGED as an Institution............................................................................16 4.4 Impact for Farmers and Communities ......................................................................19 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................27 5.1 Construction Projects ................................................................................................27 5.2 Program Management ...............................................................................................27 5.3 Impact for LGED as an Institution............................................................................28 5.4 Impact for Farmers and Communities ......................................................................28 6.0 LESSONS LEARNED .....................................................................................................29 6.1 Construction Projects ................................................................................................29 6.2 Program Management ...............................................................................................29 6.3 Impact for LGED as an Institution............................................................................29 6.4 Impact for Farmers and Communities ......................................................................30 ANNEXES ...............................................................................................................................31 Annex 1: Scope of Work ..................................................................................................32 Annex 2: Evaluation Design Matrix .................................................................................43 Annex 3: Evaluation Tools ...............................................................................................51 Annex 4: Mini-Survey Questionnaire and Selected Data ................................................77 Annex 5: Lists of KIIs and FGDs .....................................................................................83 Annex 6: Bibliography/List of Documents Reviewed .....................................................87 Annex 7: Problems Identified at BAIDP Infrastructure Sites ........................................107 Annex 8: Database and Maps of BAIDP Construction Sites .........................................111 Annex 9: Photos of BAIDP Construction Sites ..............................................................112 Annex 10: Evaluation Team Members ...........................................................................113 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Number of KIIs, FGDs, and Participants in Dhaka and Districts 6 Table 2: Demographic and Economic Factors 8 Table 3: USAID/ACME Case Study Locations 8 Table 4: Locations of BAIDP Evaluation 9 Table 5: Original and Revised BAIDP Infrastructure Targets 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Number and Type of BAIDP Projects in Upazilas of Jashore District 2 Figure 2: BAIDP Results Framework 3 Figure 3: BAIDP Evaluation FGD and Mini-Survey Locations 7 Figure 4: Improved Farm Inputs and Increased Local Businesses 19 Figure 5: Decreased Wastage, Increased Sales and Profits 19 Figure 6: Percentage of Respondents Mentioning Business-Related Benefits 20 Figure 7: Agricultural Sales – LGED Baseline and Impact Data 20 Figure 8: Reduced Travel Time and Increased Traders 21 Figure 9: AADT of BAIDP Roads Before and After Construction 22 Figure 10: AADT of BAIDP Roads: Motorized and Non-Motorized 22 Figure 11: Increased Road Use and Site Visit Frequency 22 Figure 12: People Benefitting from the Roads – LGED Baseline and Impact Data 23 Figure 13: Increased Access to Healthcare 24 Figure 14: Increased Access to Education 25 LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Description AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ACME Accelerating Capacity for Monitoring and Evaluation ADB Asian Development Bank BAIDP Bangladesh Agricultural Infrastructure Development Program BC Box Culvert BMEL Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Activity BOQ Bill of Quantities CC Collection Center CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDP CDPIC CPTU Capacity Development Plan CDP Implementation Committee Central Procurement Technical Unit COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer Representative CRIMP Climate Resilient Infrastructure Mainstream Project DAE Department of Agricultural Extension DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DLI Development-Linked Indicator DO Development Objective DOF Department of Fisheries DQA Data Quality Assessment e-GP e-Government Procurement EMMP Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Plan EQ Evaluation Question ET Evaluation Team FARA FGD Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement Focus Group Discussion FTF Feed the Future G2G Government-to-Government GCF United Nations’ Green Climate Fund GOB Government of Bangladesh GPS Global Positioning System ha Hectare HBB Herring Bone Bond IO Implementation Order IP Implementing Partner IPM Integrated Pest Management IR Intermediate Result JICA KII Japan International Cooperation Agency Key Informant Interview km Kilometer Acronym Description LGED Local Government Engineering Department M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MC Market Center NGO Non-Governmental Organization OCD Organizational Capacity Development PFMRAF PPE Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework Personal Protective Equipment PWD Person with Disability QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete RRSM Rural Road Safety Manual RSDMS Road and Structure Data Management System SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SOW Scope of Work SUPRB Support for Rural Bridge Project TOC Theory of Change UAO Upazila Agriculture Officer UC Upazila Chairman UFO Upazila Fisheries Officer UNO Upazila Nirbahi Officer UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene WBM Water-Bound Macadam WBS WeCARE Work Breakdown Structure Western Economic Corridor and Regional Enhancement Project i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROGRAM PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The Bangladesh Agricultural Infrastructure Development Program (BAIDP) is part of the United States Government’s (USG) Feed the Future (FTF) initiative of the United States Agency for International Development in Bangladesh (USAID/Bangladesh). The purpose of the BAIDP is to upgrade priority infrastructure in targeted rural farming communities by improving horizontal infrastructure (roads and irrigation and drainage systems) and vertical infrastructure [markets and collection centers, (MCs and CCs)]. According to the evaluation Scope of Work (SOW) in Annex 1, the objective of BAIDP is “Increased Farmer Access to Markets and Improve[d] Agricultural Production.” The BAIDP was designed to improve access to rural markets and input supplies and to lower transportation costs and crop loss and increase trade volume, thereby contributing to USAID’s Development Objective (DO) 2 “Food Security Improved.” The BAIDP is a direct Government-to-Government (G2G) agreement with the Government of Bangladesh (GOB), implemented by the GOB’s Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) with technical assistance from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The program started in 2013 and was extended to December 2019, with overall funding of $15,000,000. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of the Final Performance Evaluation of the BAIDP was to assess the extent to which the program has achieved its overall objectives, based on 10 Evaluation Questions (EQs) listed in the evaluation SOW. The 10 EQs have been organized under the following thematic headings: 1) Output of Construction Projects; 2) Program Management; 3) Impact for LGED; and 4) Impact for Farmers and Communities. The evaluation was carried out over a period of 10 weeks, from March to May 2019, by a three-person evaluation team (ET). The evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach. The ET reviewed approximately 270 documents, including 150 documents related to 27 USAID construction site Implementation Orders (IOs); performed technical assessments of 59 (out of 62) BAIDP infrastructure sites; and created an interactive database with maps of all BAIDP construction sites. The ET also conducted 56 key informant interviews (KIIs) in Dhaka and the Jashore and Jhenaidah districts, including representatives of USAID and its implementing partners (IPs); held 23 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 216 farmers, traders, and market users; and implemented a mini-survey involving 141 male and female respondents from among the FGD participants. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Output of Construction Projects EQ 1: To what extent has the BAIDP activity been able to meet its overall objective [regarding rehabilitation of roads, construction/improvement of MCs/CCs, improvement of irrigation and drainage systems, and plans for remaining projects]? BAIDP is mostly on track to achieve its objective through improvement of 115.21 kilometers (km) of 40 rural roads (exceeding the goal of 100 km), construction or rehabilitation of six market centers (out of 10 planned MCs), and 14 collection centers (exceeding the 10 planned CCs), and improvement of irrigation/drainage systems for more than 1,000 hectares (ha) of land. A no-cost program extension is being negotiated until June 2020, by which time USAID and LGED program managers are confident that all infrastructure targets in the 2016 Agreement Amendment #2 will ii be completed, with the exception of planned MCs where land title remains an issue. Based on direct observations and interviews with LGED staff and the USACE representative in Bangladesh, the ET concurs with this anticipated completion schedule of BAIDP infrastructure targets. EQ 8: How effective has the infrastructure maintenance and repair plan been by BAIDP? LGED’s Road Design Standards (Rural Roads), developed in 2005 with support from Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and were enhanced with guidance by USACE to meet global best practice standards. BAIDP’s quality assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) processes for BAIDP contractors, including the third-party verification process, enhanced construction quality. LGED has a Rural Roads and Culverts Maintenance Program and develops annual maintenance and repair plans. However, implementation of these annual plans is dependent on inconsistent GOB funding allocations. Program Management EQ 5: What challenges has BAIDP faced in implementing its activities and how has it responded to those challenges? Are there recommended alternatives to these approaches? USAID initially did not have a clear understanding about LGED’s institutional capacity to implement the planned BAIDP activities. After further analysis, USAID, with contractual support from USACE and UNOPS, tackled numerous issues together with progressive leadership within LGED. Among numerous challenges, local construction contractors required training and mentoring to meet USAID and LGED standards. By May of 2016, significant improvement had been achieved in all areas, including dividing milestone payments, with LGED taking ownership of new approaches. EQ 6: How has the LGED’s ability to complete the projects on time and within budget changed during the course of the BAIDP? What factors may have delayed completion of these contracts? LGED contractors’ unfamiliarity with BAIDP’s milestone and QA/QC-based contracting mode were among the major factors that delayed completion of several contracts in the early years of the program. Other factors included land issues, design changes and variation orders, as well as program-required lab tests that LGED described as overwhelming for their laboratory staff and equipment. According to LGED staff, required documentation and third-party verification related to the QA/QC process resulted in occasional delays. In addition, LGED reported that unanticipated funding delays resulted in construction delays as did contracts awarded during the approach of the rainy season. LGED’s ability to complete projects on time and within budget has improved through clearer specifications for each kind of construction and BAIDP training for LGED and contractors. EQ 10: What caused original milestones to be reduced? What caused a three-year extension? Where is the LGED on implementing the final projects? The early years of the BAIDP in 2013-2015 were an extended period of learning and adaptation for all parties involved. The initial agreement between USAID and LGED lacked specific design definitions for roads and MCs (i.e., what each kind of construction project should include) and was predicated on outdated cost data (the main cause of reductions of km of roads). Previous LGED rural roads were anticipated to have a 5-10-year life, while BAIDP roads were intended to last for 20 years. Addition of the components not articulated in the initial agreement resulted in re-designs and cost increases. Land issues delayed MC construction plans and eventually limited the number iii and size of MCs. The net result was a reduction in the number of infrastructure projects and a time extension for BAIDP. Subject to an anticipated (no-cost) six-month extension to the current agreement, the ET projects that BAIDP will complete additional work on 12 roads (37.27 km), two MCs, and four CCs by June, 2020. Impact for LGED as an Institution EQ 3: How effective has the BAIDP activity been in improving and/or changing the LGED’s procurement processes? To what extent have these processes been institutionalized? Will these remain sustainable beyond the activity period? BAIDP helped LGED to develop a procurement-related Risk Management Handout, Internal Audit Manual, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and Code of Ethics. The first two protocols have been institutionalized across LGED. Although not mandated, all procurement related to BAIDP infrastructure was done through the GOB e-Government Procurement (e-GP) system. There has been substantial improvement in Bill of Quantities (BOQ) and the BAIDP milestone￾based QA/QC process and improved cost estimation have been welcomed by LGED. LGED has been proactive and progressive in adopting processes that provide ease of business for suppliers and deter corruption. As more of the BAIDP procurement-related processes are internalized across LGED, sustainability will be further enhanced. EQ 4: How effective have the USAID capacity-building initiatives been in terms of having the LGED be more compliant with standard construction procedures, e.g., environmental compliance/road safety compliance/labor health compliance? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Will these practices remain sustainable beyond the activity period? With USACE’s guidance, BAIDP enhanced LGED’s construction procedures to adapt to international best practices. The program also received capacity development support from the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which guided the development of materials and trainings. BAIDP developed technical specifications for road structures and an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) matrix, environment and safety training for contractors and community members, and QA and QC training for engineers and contractors. These later protocols and trainings are yet to be fully institutionalized across LGED. Sustainability of these initiatives is likely with further capacity-building inputs and internal LGED action. EQ 7: Has there been an impact on the LGED’s ability to receive and implement additional activities funded by other donors as a result of BAIDP? The institutional capacity of LGED enhanced through BAIDP—in terms of procurement, QA/QC, milestone-based payments, compliance with environmental, safety and ethics standards, trainings for contractors and LGED staff, as well as more extensive community consultation—has demonstrated LGED’s capacity to responsibly manage large donor funded programs to increasingly higher standards. LGED managers said that LGED received accreditation from the United Nation’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) in part due to BAIDP’s contributions to LGED’s institutional improvements. iv Impact for Farmers and Communities EQ 2: How effective have the improved rural roads, MCs, and CCs been in promoting and increasing agricultural trade in the working areas? Business activity—including the number of traders, businesses and sales—has increased in the areas of BAIDP construction projects. Mini-survey respondents reported interacting with 50.8 percent more traders, and most respondents (99.2 percent) said there are now more businesses in their local area. According to LGED data for four roads, farmers reported increased sales between 25 and 100 percent. BAIDP infrastructure improvements also have contributed to increased access to agricultural extension services, new agricultural inputs, improved yields for traditional crops, easier and quicker access to markets, options to produce high-value perishable crops, reduced agricultural wastage, a reported average reduction in transportation cost of 40 percent, additional vendors and consumers, and increased income for farmers. EQ 9: What have been some of the major socio-economic benefits of the BAIDP infrastructure for the surrounding communities? Will these benefits sustain beyond the life of the BAIDP? The ET found socio-economic benefits similar to those reported by the Accelerating Capacity for Monitoring and Evaluation (ACME) Case Study in December 2018 of the impact of BAIDP improved infrastructure projects. Participants in FGDs and mini-surveys reported improvements in access to health care services and children’s access to schools after roads were improved by BAIDP. One-third of FGD participants spoke of access to increased food variety and a positive change in diet. These benefits will be sustained as long as the infrastructure is maintained and sustained. RECOMMENDATIONS Construction Activities LGED and USAID should continue to be proactive about ensuring that land ownership issues for CCs and MCs are clearly resolved prior to allowing any funds to be expended. LGED should offer incentives and penalties to contractors related to roughness (surface irregularities)1 and completion timelines. LGED should do everything possible to get GOB budget allocations disbursed for ongoing maintenance of improved roads in order to avoid preventable deterioration. To facilitate impact assessments and ongoing maintenance of BAIDP roads, LGED should establish a baseline annual average daily traffic (AADT) as well as roughness baseline for all roads. Program Management LGED should conduct additional and systematic pre- and post-bid training for contractors. LGED should continue to ensure that designs and estimates are based on actual field visits of the designers, not based on type of design. USAID and LGED should develop a plan to mitigate delays related to construction contract awards, especially as concerns contract timeline requirements. Impact for LGED as an Institution USAID should continue to invest in capacity building within LGED by supporting LGED’s efforts to institutionalize SOPs and Code of Ethics related to procurement, as well as improvement in 1 https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-management/pavement-evaluation/roughness/ v BOQ, cost estimates, and QA/QC planning. The EMPP Matrix and environment and safety training developed under BAIDP, as well as QA/QC-related training for engineers and contractors, also should be institutionalized with further support from USAID. LGED needs more laboratory equipment to comply with its lab test requirements, which are required by LGED’s own SOPs but not always followed; however, BAIDP ensured that these tests were conducted. USAID should continue and increase its coordination with other LGED international development partners on these institutional strengthening initiatives to maximize impact and sustainability. Impact for Farmers and Communities USAID should continue to invest in rural road improvement through LGED in close coordination with other ongoing USAID-funded projects and with increased coordinated with projects funded by other donors. Whenever feasible, LGED should continue to enhance its process of engagement with local stakeholders; conduct a socio-economic rapid assessment baseline before each construction project (including nutritional data and access to health clinics and schools); and conduct an impact study after each project. USAID technical assistance on baseline and impact studies could be valuable. LGED should expand its public awareness campaign on road safety and should continue to enhance networking and coordination locally with other government agencies and the private sector to maximize impact for communities. LESSONS LEARNED Construction Activities Significant time is required for local partners to introduce, implement and begin to institutionalize new standards and methods. Site visits by designers added quality and resulted in fewer design changes for construction projects. Land issues constrain construction initiatives, and uncertain GOB funding for maintenance constrains sustainability. Program Management LGED considers the milestone-based system to be one of BAIDP’s most significant innovations. LGED indicated a need for more laboratory equipment to comply with GOB/LGED test requirements that were uniquely enforced during BAIDP. USACE has been an invaluable asset in the performance of BAIDP. The use of a third-party QA partner was valuable for BAIDP. Impact for LGED as an Institution Enabling local partners to take ownership and exercise leadership for institutional strengthening and capacity building, as USAID, USACE and UNOPS did with BAIDP, leads to positive results. Building upon existing systems and materials is a good approach. LGED is a willing and proactive partner for continuing G2G capacity-building initiatives. Institutionalizing improvements to ensure sustainability is a significant challenge and requires considerable time. Impact for Farmers and Communities Rural infrastructure has significant and diverse benefits for individuals, families and communities. Consultation with local communities before and during infrastructure development, as implemented by BAIDP, helps ensure strongest impact. MCs require time to mature into community focal points. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1. Program Name: Bangladesh Agricultural Infrastructure Development Program (BAIDP) 2. Agreement Number: 388-F-00-13-00001-00 3. Program Dates: January 2013 – December 2019 4. Program Funding: $15,000,000 5. Implementing Partners: Government of Bangladesh Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1.2 PROGRAM BACKGROUND Since 1984, and in subsequent National Five-Year Plans, the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) has identified enhancing rural infrastructure—including roads and markets—as a development priority. Aligned with the GOB’s priorities, the United States Agency for International Development Bangladesh’s (USAID/Bangladesh) Development Objective (DO) 2 Food Security Improved includes Intermediate Result (IR) 2.2 Improved Access to Market Systems. The objective of the Bangladesh Agricultural Infrastructure Development Program (BAIDP), which is part of the United States Government’s (USG’s) Feed the Future (FTF) initiative,2 is Increased Farmer Access to Markets and Improved Agricultural Production. BAIDP’s purpose has been to improve rural infrastructure in order to facilitate trade by physically linking farmers to markets, thereby reducing transportation costs and crop losses. The program promotes agricultural productivity, reducing rural poverty and improving food security. BAIDP is USAID/Bangladesh’s first FTF Government-to-Government (G2G) activity. The G2G is an agreement between the GOB Local Government Engineering Department (LGED)3 and USAID Economic Growth office FTF team, with technical support supplied by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Managing and implementing any G2G program is challenging, and BAIDP has unique features that create additional challenges. These features include a Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) grant instrument, 4 the use of Quality Assurance with Quality Control oversight (QA/QC), and a milestone-based payment system. The initial Agreement (Grant) between LGED and USAID for BAIDP was signed on January 6, 2013. The agreement envisaged rehabilitation of 140 kilometers (km) of rural roads, rehabilitation or construction of 80 market centers (MCs) and 80 collection centers (CCs), and improvement of irrigation and/or drainage systems for 2,000 hectares (ha) of land by December 2016. However, the 2013 Agreement did not include design parameters or definitions of any of the intended construction projects. In 2016, Agreement Amendment #2 defined each type of infrastructure project,5 based on discussion among all BAIDP partners, and revised the targets down to 100 km 2 https://www.feedthefuture.gov/country/bangladesh/ 3 http://www.lged.gov.bd/ProjectHome.aspx?projectID=284 4 “The recommendation of the use of the FARA was due to the ‘significant risks present in the GOB financial management system’ and the conclusion that ‘an attempt to complete the process mandated by ADS 220 for other than a fixed amount reimbursement-based project could subject the Mission to an unacceptable level of risk.’” USAID PFMRAF Stage 1 Rapid Appraisal Update 2016, page 20, quoting PFMRAF Report 2011, page 6. 5 For example, road rehabilitation was defined to include a field-proven design along with QA and QC requirements, which aimed to result in roads with a 20-year life. 2 of road, ten MCs, ten CCs, and 1,000 ha of irrigation/drainage-improved land. The program was extended to December 2019 through Agreement Amendment #2 in 2016 and #4 in 2017. Although the phrase “pilot program” never appears in any documents related to BAIDP, the initial two years of the program were effectively a “pilot.” During this period USACE and USAID spent a lot of time and resources on capacity building activities with both the private sector and LGED. Working with LGED, construction standards and designs were brought up to international standards; communities were engaged in a systematic system of visits; and communities and the private sector received training in best practices, environmental mitigations, and the creation of practical QA and QC systems. USAID also provided a grant to the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) to develop the organizational capacity of the LGED. As part of the G2G Agreement, USAID and LGED agreed upon a Capacity Develop Plan (CDP) for LGED focused mainly on financial and procurement management. Both USACE and UNOPS report initial resistance within LGED to necessary changes intended to lead toward best practices. During 2014-2017, UNOPS partnered with LGED to address the organizational capacity gaps in five distinct areas: 1) Code of Ethics and Training; 2) Financial Management; 3) Internal Controls, Performance Assessment and Audit System; 4) Risk Identification System and Training; and 5) Contract Administration Manual. USACE worked with LGED to develop QA/QC protocols and milestone-based infrastructure plans and designs, loosely based on LGED’s Road Design Standards (Rural Roads) developed in 2005 with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). BAIDP developed Technical Specifications for Roads and Road Structures in 2013. BAIDP monitoring was the responsibility of LGED, which agreed to participate in the development of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan, although it was not required or implemented. By May 2016 when Agreement Amendment #2 was signed, the BAIDP had matured into a well￾structured program. LGED staff had embraced the relationship with USACE and USAID, which had developed an appreciation for LGED as a progressive implementor willing to adapt and take ownership of new concepts. The LGED website and the evaluation Scope of Work (SOW) state that BAIDP was “implemented in 20 southern districts … in Barisal, Dhaka, Figure 1: Number and Type of BAIDP Projects in Upazilas of Jashore District Source: USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity (BMEL), based on BAIDP Implementing Orders (IOs). 3 and Khulna divisions.”6 BAIDP ultimately implemented 59 projects in Khulna division (Jashore and Jhenaidah districts), and three projects in Barishal division (Patuakhali, and Pirojpur districts). Figure 1 shows the BAIDP sites in each upazila (administrative sub-unit) of the Jashore district. Annex 8 provides a database and maps of all BAIDP construction sites in each upazila with global positioning system (GPS) coordinates and other details. Over the course of the six-year life of BAIDP, the program will have resulted in institutional capacity building of the LGED as well as rehabilitation of 115.21 kilometers of 40 rural roads (including drainage facilities), improvement of six MCs and 14 CCs, and re-excavation a major irrigation canal and reconstruction of the existing sluice gate for the irrigation system. 1.3 DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM AND USAID’S RESPONSE 1.3.1 Theory of Change According to the evaluation SOW, BAIDP’s theory of change (TOC) is “if rural roads are constructed7 and market centers are constructed and/or improved, then rural agricultural production and farmers’ access to markets will increase.” BAIDP operationalizes this TOC through three interdependent components. The first component (corresponding to IR-1) focuses on improving transportation networks in order to ensure weather-safe and stable transport means for agricultural products. The second component (IR-2) focuses on improving market facilities in order to accommodate more agricultural commodities and thereby increase sales. The third component (IR-3) focuses on improving irrigation and drainage systems in order to increase agricultural production with a positive corollary effect on weather-safe transportation means. 1.3.2 Results Framework The BAIDP has been intended to stimulate agricultural development, to increase production and productivity in the agricultural sector, reducing rural poverty, improving access to food, and improved food security in southern Bangladesh. It was intended to directly support farmers and the private sector with infrastructure that would facilitate trade, improve productivity through improved water management at the farm level, physically link farmers to markets, and reduce farmers’ transportation cost and losses. The Results Framework of BAIDP, according to the evaluation SOW, is shown in Figure 2, but it was not required, finalized or approved. Figure 2: BAIDP Results Framework 6 BAIDP Agreement, Attachment 1, Activity Description, Geographic Focus states that “The geographic focus for Ag-Infra will be twenty southern districts total in Barisal Division… Dhaka Division… and Khulna Division.” 7 BAIDP was prohibited from constructing roads and instead was only allowed to upgrade existing roads. 4 BAIDP did not employ a traditional M&E plan or regular narrative reporting. USAID notes that the FARA and milestone-based system of funding approval served in those functions. USAID facilitated the development of an M&E plan with LGED, but it was not implemented or used as a management tool. The program reported on one USAID standard indicator, “Kilometers of roads constructed,” with data reported to USAID annually. USAID conducted data quality assessments (DQAs) for this indicator and found the methodology to be credible. 2.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this final performance evaluation of BAIDP was to assess the extent to which the program has achieved its overall objectives, including how many kilometers of road have been renovated as well as how effectively the program has supported LGED to improve its systems, policies, procedures, and training and provided other capacity-building for the LGED. In addition, the evaluation team (ET) was to determine if the BAIDP infrastructure has had a positive impact for farmers and communities. This evaluation report offers strategic and programmatic options intended for G2G activities. 2.2 AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USE The primary intended audience for the evaluation findings and recommendations is USAID in Bangladesh. USAID may disseminate the report to stakeholders, including BAIDP Implementing Partners (IPs), other GOB agencies, sector-specific donors, and the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). The evaluation’s findings and recommendations are intended to inform future designs and implementation of agricultural infrastructure projects and G2G activities. 2.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The ET assessed the BAIDP by addressing the following ten evaluation questions (EQs): EQ 1: To what extent has the BAIDP activity been able to meet its overall objective? The response to this question will, at a minimum, address the following: ● Status and achievement of rural feeder roads rehabilitation and renovation work as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments); ● Status and achievement of construction of new and/or improvement of existing rural MCs and CCs as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments); ● Status and achievement of the irrigation and drainage systems improvement work as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments); and ● Status of the management and maintenance plans for remaining projects to be completed by December 2019. (Note: The ET will measure roads and irrigation/drainage systems.) EQ 2: How effective have the improved rural roads, MCs, and CCs been in promoting and increasing agricultural trade in the working areas? EQ 3: How effective has the BAIDP activity been in improving and/or changing the LGED’s procurement processes? To what extent have these processes been institutionalized? Will these remain sustainable beyond the BAIDP activity period? 5 EQ 4: How effective have the USAID capacity-building initiatives been in terms of having the LGED be more compliant with standard construction procedures, e.g., environmental compliance/road safety compliance/labor health compliance? To what extent have these practices been institutionalized? Will these practices remain sustainable beyond the activity period? Please provide a detailed assessment of the LGED capacity development plan. EQ 5: What challenges has the BAIDP faced in implementing its activities and how has it responded to those challenges? Are there any recommended alternatives to these approaches? EQ 6: How has the LGED’s ability to complete the infrastructure projects on time and within budget changed during the course of the BAIDP? What factors may have delayed completion of these contracts? EQ 7: Has there been an impact on the LGED’s ability to receive and implement additional activities funded by other donors as a result of BAIDP? EQ 8: How effective has the infrastructure maintenance and repair plan been by BAIDP? EQ 9: What have been some of the major socio-economic benefits of the BAIDP infrastructure projects for the surrounding communities? Will these benefits sustain beyond the life of the activity? (The contractor should build on an existing case study by ACME [USAID Accelerating Capacity for Monitoring and Evaluation].) EQ 10: What caused original milestones to be reduced? What caused a three-year extension? Where is the LGED on implementing the final projects (as of January 31, 2019)? Findings, conclusions and recommendations related to each of the ten EQs are presented under four thematic headings: 1) Output of Construction Projects; 2) Program Management; 3) Institutional Impact for LGED; and 4) Impact for Farmers and Communities. 3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 3.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS The evaluation implemented a mixed-methods evaluation design with a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies. The qualitative component consisted of a document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs) with program stakeholders and beneficiaries. The quantitative component consisted of a mini-survey with stakeholders and beneficiaries and data collection as part of physical assessments of all infrastructure projects. Each method is described in more detail below. 3.1.1 Document Review The ET conducted a desk review of 270 existing sources of information, including most of the documents listed in the evaluation SOW. Relevant sources included BAIDP documentation and reports; 27 Implementation Orders (IOs) consisting of approximately 150 documents; the USAID/Bangladesh Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and FTF Multi-Year Strategy; and the GOB National Five-Year Plan. The ET also studied secondary source documents, such as analysis of agricultural infrastructure and market access by other donors and external experts. See Annex 6 for the full list of documents and literature reviewed. 6 3.1.2 Key Informant Interviews The ET conducted 56 KIIs involving 76 individuals representing a broad range of program stakeholders. Ten KIIs were held in Dhaka and 46 were held in the Jashore and Jhenaidah districts. KIIs used semi-structured questionnaires (see Annex 3), allowing interviewers to guide the conversation to systematically gather needed information while allowing informants to add other relevant information. Persons selected to participate in KIIs were stakeholders with unique knowledge of BAIDP, selected in consultation with USAID and the IPs. KII participants included staff of USAID, LGED, and USACE; UNOPS capacity-building implementers for BAIDP; representatives of USAID FTF projects; GOB officials relevant to BAIDP at the national, district, and upazila levels; local construction contractors; private sector players such as input suppliers, transporters, and retailers; and staff of other relevant donors. 3.1.3 Focus Group Discussions The ET conducted 23 FGDs with 216 local farmers, traders, transporters, and consumers located in the same upazilas in the Jashore district where KIIs were conducted. FGDs typically had 8-10 participants and followed best-practice protocols, including assignment of a moderator and a note￾taker, and use of a standardized set of questions approved in advance in the relevant data collection tool (see Annex 3). Whenever possible, the ET had separate FGDs with female and male farmers and community members. Team members were assigned to write brief reports of each KII and FGD in English immediately to prevent the “selected memory” effect. The Team Leader reviewed these reports to ensure quality, clarity, and completeness. A summary of the KIIs and FGDs conducted, disaggregated by stakeholder group and location, is presented in Table 1. A list of key informants and FGDs is presented in Annex 5. Table 1: Number of KIIs, FGDs, and Participants in Dhaka and Districts Data Collection Activities KII Categories KIIs Participants USAID BAIDP Team 1 2 USACE 1 1 LGED (Dhaka) 4 4 LGED Upazila Engineers (Districts) 7 12 BAIDP Partners (UNOPS, Ecotech) 2 2 Other Donors (World Bank and the Asian Development Bank [ADB]) 2 3 District/Upazila Government Officials (UNO, UC, UAO, UFO)8 25 31 Local Construction Contractors 7 9 Transporters/Shopkeepers/Traders 5 5 Primary School Head Teachers 2 7 Totals 56 76 FGD Categories FGDs Participants Traders 5 42 Consumers 5 46 8 Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), Upazila Chairman (UC), Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO), and Upazila Fisheries Officer (UFO). 7 Data Collection Activities Farmers 5 49 Male Beneficiaries (Local Citizens) 5 43 Female Beneficiaries (Local Citizens) 3 36 Totals 23 216 Grand Totals (Meetings/Participants) 78 290 3.1.4 Mini-Survey Before each FGD, the Bangladeshi members of the ET conducted a mini-survey among participants. The survey instrument (see Annex 4) consisted of 21 simple questions in Bangla and was administered one-by-one among 141 individuals who agreed to participate. All questions had multiple pre-coded answer possibilities for quick and easy aggregation of data. The mini￾survey data cannot be used to draw inferential conclusions, but it adds texture to the evaluation analysis and helps to triangulate information gathered through other methods. Figure 3 shows the locations where the ET conducted FGDs and mini￾surveys. 3.1.5 Direct Observations and Physical Assessments of Infrastructure Projects USAID provided a spreadsheet of 49 BAIDP infrastructure projects, including 33 road segments, 15 MCs and CCs, and one irrigation system. Immediately before the departure of the ET for their field work, USAID shared 126 technical documents (IO annexes) with the ET, which revealed a total of 64 infrastructure projects, including 58 sites in seven upazilas of Jashore district (two of these projects were cancelled), three projects in the neighboring Jhenaidah district, and three projects in relatively remote upazilas in the Patuakhali and Pirojpur districts. USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity (BMEL), which managed the ET, culled information from the volumes of IO documentation to create a unique interactive database of all BAIDP construction sites and a set of linked upazila maps showing the location of each site. This tool (Annex 8) was critical to the success of the ET’s field work. Figure 3: BAIDP Evaluation FGD and Mini-Survey Locations 8 The ET visited a few infrastructure projects together to ensure clarity and consistency of approach. The ET senior civil engineer returned to Dhaka, where he continued to provide expert input to the team remotely and supervise the work of a junior civil engineer. Thereafter, the ET’s junior civil engineer traveled each day to assess the status of all other infrastructure projects in Jashore and Jhenaidah districts. In total, the ET conducted technical assessments of 59 infrastructure sites, implementing structural tests, taking photos, and gathering GPS coordinates and material samples. ET engineers also conducted a limited number of KIIs with LGED upazila engineers, focusing on the technical engineering aspects of BAIDP construction projects. 3.2 SAMPLING APPROACH The ET visited a purposively selected sample of infrastructure sites, including 33 roads, ten MCs, six CCs, and one irrigation project in multiple upazilas of the Jashore and Jhenaidah districts, where they conducted 46 KIIs and 23 FGDs. The data relevant to site selection are shown in Tables 2-4, reflecting the following selection criteria: ● Concentration of populations, farmers, fisherman, and agribusiness trading potential; ● Locations where the USAID/ACME Case Study was conducted; ● A range of roads, MCs, CCs, and irrigation projects; and ● Locations where current FTF projects are working, including the Rice and Diversified Crops (RDC) project, Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia – Mechanization and Irrigation (CSISA-MI) and the Bangladesh Aquaculture and Nutrition Activity (BANA).9 Table 2: Demographic and Economic Factors Upazila Population Households Farm Holding Irrigated Area Fishermen Jute Mill Kacha Road Pacca Road Jashore District Abhoynagar 262,434 62,189 36,546 31,685 11,579 5 488 219 Bagharpara 216,897 49,971 35,605 39,250 8,591 . 482 205 Chowghacha 231,370 56,440 38,329 38,749 566 . 400 223 Jhikargacha 298,908 72,266 43,341 42,490 380 . 683 225 Keshabpur 253,291 62,309 39,419 29,133 4,549 . 602 228 Monirampur 417,421 101,239 68,184 55,448 7,622 . 974 423 Sadar 742,898 169,164 64,282 52,382 670 2 806 454 Jhenaidah District Kotchandpur 141,000 34,249 21,049 22,577 919 . 413 147 Pirojpur District Matbaria 262,841 61,187 43,722 2,040 4,474 . 363 620 Patuakhali District Kalapara 237,831 57,525 30,448 4,131 2,755 . 175 78 9 At its initiation, BAIDP consulted the following other USAID projects: Enhanced Coastal Fisheries in Bangladesh (ECOFISH-BD), Cold Chain Bangladesh Alliance (CCBA), Poverty Reduction by Increasing the Competitiveness of Enterprises (PRICE) and Accelerating Agricultural Productivity Improvement in Bangladesh (AAPI). 9 Table 3: USAID/ACME Case Study Locations ID # Name of Infrastructure Projects District Upazila Types of Infrastructure Projects Road Market CC Irrigation Y1RD004 Shorrupdha (Swarrupdaha) Bagardari Road, 2 segments Jashore Chowghacha Y . . . Y1MC005 Arpara Rural Market and Collection Center Jashore Chowghacha . Y . . Y5CC001 Godkhali Flower Market and Collection Center Complex Jashore Jhikargacha . . Y . Y5SG001 Re-excavation of Digdana Kahl Jashore Jhikargacha . . . Y Table 4: Locations of BAIDP Evaluation District Upazila No. of Projects Population Types of Infrastructure Projects Road Market CC Irrigation Jashore Abhoynagar 3 262,434 3 0 0 . Bagharpara 5 216,897 4 1 0 . Chowghacha 7 231,370 5 2 0 . Jhikargacha 7 298,908 5 1 1 1 Keshabpur 2 253,291 1 1 0 . Monirampur 21 417,421 5 4 4 . Sadar 8 742,898 7 0 1 . Jhenaidah Kotchandpur 3 141,000 1 0 0 . Pirojpur Matbaria 1 262,841 1 0 0 . Patuakhali Kalapara 2 237,831 1 1 0 . Total 59 3,064,891 33 10 6 1 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS Qualitative Data Analysis The ET documented narrative responses at a sufficient level of detail to permit a systematic content analysis of the acquired qualitative data. Narrative reviews of interview and discussion responses provided an in-depth understanding of stakeholders’ experiences and perceptions. Qualitative data analysis began with note-taking. Data gathered at each KII and FGD were and shared among team members so that everyone had the most complete picture possible of all information obtained. The ET held debriefings (in-person or remotely) at the end of each data collection week, during which they began to identify common themes to use in developing an inductive coding framework. These themes served as categories for classifying respondents’ phrases, concepts, and assessments. This process identified responses mentioned by more than one key informant or discussion participant. Those with the highest frequency of response were identified as key findings. Key findings from this process were compared within and across key informant and discussion group data, then nested in the secondary data source. In this way, key pieces of evidence from the interviews, discussions, and documents were compared and triangulated to identify the main qualitative findings that respond to the EQs, based on the evaluation matrix (Annex 2). 10 Quantitative Data Analysis The ET tabulated frequencies and percentages from mini-survey data, which were triangulated with qualitative data collected through KIIs and FGDs to corroborate validity of findings. Additional quantitative data was collected through physical assessments of infrastructure projects. 3.4 METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Strengths The use of various data sources enabled the ET to triangulate information before identifying findings, drawing conclusions, and formulating recommendations. The selection of data analysis methods allowed triangulation among researchers, methods, and data—which further enhanced the reliability and validity of the evidence-based findings. Limitations An important limitation of the evaluation methodology was the delay in receiving some key documentation, including the technical IO documents and LGED baseline studies. The ET’s eventual study of the IO annexes revealed additional construction sites in Jashore and Jhenaidah districts, such that there was not enough time to assess three construction sites in two other districts. In addition, the ET was not able to gather specific impact data to measure progress against LGED baselines. The ET continued to receive additional key documents from USAID and program stakeholders throughout the process of writing the preliminary draft evaluation report. In addition, when LGED provided contacts for relevant partners, such as construction contractors, selection bias was possible because it meant the ET was hearing from informants who have had a positive experience and/or who have vested interests in the program receiving a positive evaluation. The team mitigated this bias by selecting informants and respondents identified from multiple sources whenever possible. Drawing from a diverse respondent pool including other development organizations and on-location beneficiaries helped offset biases. The ET also obtained information from non-program sources about key individuals to include in the evaluation. The availability of desired key informants varied; thus, the team worked with those available, which meant that some gaps in data were unavoidable. To mitigate this limitation, the ET tried to secure interviews with key respondents in advance. Finally, the most effective approach to combating bias was to use multiple data sources, data collection, and analysis methodologies to triangulate responses. By combining information from multiple sources, no one piece of biased data skewed the evaluation analyses. 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Findings and conclusions related to each of the ten EQs are presented under four thematic headings: [1] Output of Construction Projects (EQs 1 and 8); [2] Program Management (EQs 5, 6 and 10); [3] Institutional Impact for LGED (EQs 3, 4 and 7); and [4] Impact for Farmers and Communities (EQs 2 and 9). Recommendations in Section 5.0 follow the same approach. 11 4.1 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FINDINGS 4.1.1 EQ 1: To what extent has the BAIDP been able to meet its overall objective [regarding rehabilitation of roads, construction/improvement of MCs/CCs, improvement of irrigation and drainage systems, and plans for remaining projects]? The original agreement between USAID and LGED in 2013, envisaged that BAIDP would upgrade 140 km of rural feeder roads, 80 MCs, 80 CCs, and irrigation and drainage facilities for 2,000 ha of land within four years (2013-2016). The initial agreement lacked specific design definitions for roads and MCs and what each kind of construction project should include. Through several agreement modifications, including clarification of the specifications of each kind of infrastructure project, BAIDP’s infrastructure targets were revised to renovation of 100 km of roads, construction or rehabilitation of ten MCs and ten CCs, and improvement of irrigation and drainage facilities for 1,000 ha of land in four districts (mostly in Jashore district) within seven years (2013-2019). As of end of March 2019, with about nine months of the current agreement remaining, BAIDP had completed 28 rural feeder roads with a total length of 77.94 km (about 78 percent achievement), three MCs (30 percent achievement), ten CCs (100 percent achievement), and irrigation and drainage facilities for over 1,000 ha of land (100 percent achievement), including construction of U-drains, maintenance of culverts and bridges, re-excavation of a 1.35 km irrigation canal, and renovation of a related sluice gate system. Subject to an anticipated (no-cost) six-month extension to the current agreement, the ET projects that BAIDP will complete work on a total of 40 roads (115.21 km), eight MCs, 14 CCs, and one irrigation canal by June 2020. Depending on land availability, additional MCs could also be completed within the same timeframe, but the need to acquire land title to enable development of MCs and CCs continues to be a constraint. Subject to the issue of land tenure and ownership, LGED has also planned completion of more CCs in their Development Project Proforma, in addition to those included in the BAIDP IOs. 4.1.2 EQ 8: How effective has the infrastructure maintenance and repair plan been by BAIDP? The initial two years of BAIDP was a period of learning for all parties involved as would be typical of a USAID “pilot” program with the objective of designing effective future programming. LGED’s construction design standards10 and Rural Roads and Culverts Maintenance Program11 were further improved with guidance from USACE12 to achieve durable results, including “20- year roads.” Achieving these results required extensive consultation and training of LGED staff and contractors (including pre-tender meetings) related to QA, QC, Environment and Safety, and road maintenance management, which were effective in improving construction quality. 10 Road Design Standards (Rural Roads), Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) (2005). http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/UnitPublication/4/11/2005_Road%20Design%20Standards_Rural%20 Roads_Final.pdf. 11 Guideline for Implementation of Rural Roads and Culverts Maintenance Program, LGED (June 2010). http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/UnitPublication/7/23/Maintenance%20Guidelines%202010%20Englis h.pdf 12 See also USAID Implementation of Construction Activities: A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapters 303 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303maw.pdf 12 BAIDP construction sites satisfied the following contracted design specifications:13 dimensions of beams, columns, and roofs of MCs; Portland cement concrete; reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and corrugated galvanized iron (CGI) sheets of MCs; lengths and widths of CCs; water-bound macadam (WBM, i.e., aggregate base); carpeting with asphalt; seal coat; brick edging; side slope; turfing; slope protection work (guide walls); tractor ramp; guide post; road markings; road signs; carpet layer thicknesses; road widths; U-drains; and culverts). Design additions have improved the effectiveness of construction, maintenance, and repair, such as wing walls in U-drains, tractor ramps, extension of repair work up to 100 meters (m) at intersection locations, use of mobile hot￾mix plant for bituminous mix, use of good quality angular crushed stone chips. The ET collected the data of all lab tests that were done as part of the QA/QC processes. The test data showed the materials used passed the specification requirements. In addition, the ET drilled and took core samples at random road site locations to check the layer characteristics and thicknesses. In all cases, the ET found the thicknesses were adequate as compared to design thickness specifications and the asphalt concrete layers were intact. Samples of whole bricks, stone chips, brick chips, and sand were collected on a random basis and tested at the Jashore LGED laboratory under the supervision of the ET’s senior civil engineer. In the testing, the stone chips and brick chips samples passed the specification requirements of Los Angeles (LA) abrasion testing. The sand sample also passed the specification requirements of Fineness Modulus. The brick samples were not fully ready for the compressive strength test; capping was made on one side only. Also, the cap (plaster) was not fully cured. As a result, as expected, the samples did not pass the specification requirements of compressive strength test. However, the ET conducted three common field tests—the hammer test, scratch test, and the T-test—on those samples, and the samples passed those tests. However, in a few locations (see Annex 7), the ET identified some problems. They included: unstable mixture in carpeting due to low temperature compaction; movement of tractors and oil spills that are detrimental to the bituminous surface; shorter than required slope protection walls; use of substandard bricks in Herring Bone Bond (HBB) road; road surface depression at the joint between the bridge and the road; no-standard side slope; shallow but open drains in MCs and CCs; and malfunctioning of one of two sluice gate control systems. In addition, many site offices of ongoing works lack mandated facilities (first aid box, fire extinguisher, etc.), no construction zone safety/warning signs were observed at ongoing construction sites, and no Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were seen to be used by the workers at the ongoing sites. LGED’s Road Maintenance and Road Safety Unit (RMRSU) provides training for staff on road maintenance management.14 In addition, LGED develops annual maintenance and repair plans, which specify resource needs. However, GOB funding allocations for LGED’s maintenance and repair plans are unreliable, which is a concern for LGED. CONCLUSIONS Within the context of a proposed no-cost extension being negotiated between the parties, with the exception of land issues related to MC, BAIDP is generally on track to achieve its overall objective in terms of infrastructure development. There are reasonable explanations for the delays resulting 13 All names of construction materials and quality tests are standard to the construction industry. 14 Training Manual on Road Maintenance Management, LGED (undated). http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/UnitPublication/7/581/Training%20Manual%20on%20Road%20Maint enance%20Management.pdf 13 in a no-cost extension due to land ownership issues and contractor capacity. Mitigation strategies to address many issues, including clarifying design specifications and providing contractor training, were developed due to the excellent working relationship among the partners. BAIDP’s training on QA and QC, environment and safety, and the tender process have enhanced construction quality. The QA process by LGED and the QA consultant as well as the QC process followed by the contractors have proven to be successful. Reflective of the extensive trainings, the ET found that the construction quality of roads and MCs by BAIDP improved continually during the six years BAIDP has been operating. In addition, LGED has effective road maintenance management plans and training. Based on the ET’s engineering assessments and the past experience of the ET senior civil engineer, the quality of workmanship and performance of maintenance and repair works for BAIDP roads, MCs, CCs, and irrigation systems are much better compared to similar works done under other LGED programs (both GOB- and externally-funded). However, the longevity of BAIDP roads is also dependent upon consistently allocated funding from the GOB for LGED’s annual maintenance and repair of roads, which is uncertain. 4.2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FINDINGS 4.2.1 EQ 5: What challenges has BAIDP faced in implementing its activities and how has it responded to those challenges? Are there recommended alternatives to these approaches? Major challenges that BAIDP has faced include: 1) according to LGED, “stringent” USAID enforcement of LGED environmental requirements compared to other GOB works; 2) requirement of significant documentation related to QA/QC and milestones; 3) scarcity of government land for MCs and CCs; 4) the long process of milestone certification; 5) low financial and technical capacity of the majority of LGED enlisted contractors, who were not familiar with milestone-based contracts; 6) political unrest during 2013-2014; 7) several incidents of price hikes of construction materials; and 8) several periods when funding from USAID was unexpectedly delayed. With patient but persistent guidance from USAID, USACE and UNOPS, along with progressive leadership within LGED at all levels, BAIDP gradually overcame several construction and capacity-related challenges by providing relevant training to contractors and LGED staff. These changes represent adaptive management, though this learning process has not been consistently documented. Subdividing milestones and payment schedules along with linking estimates and lab reports with milestones resulted in a workable business environment for contractors. Beginning in October 2017, payment milestones became subdivided based on LGED’s practical experience. Eighty (80) percent of each milestone is paid after a third-party inspector (Ecotech) employed by USACE certifies that a milestone has been completed. The remaining 20 percent of the milestone payment is issued after getting clearance from USACE and USAID. This procedure evolved as LGED field officials and the third-party inspector suggested that contractors should be included in discussions relative to milestone procedures. As noted, most LGED-enlisted contractors are generally small businessmen who were not at all familiar with milestone-based QC-heavy infrastructure works. BAIDP was unique among LGED programs in offering pre-bid training for potential contractors. In addition, preparing realistic estimates by taking into account market dynamics and planning construction works to be implemented during the dry season also led to a more practical arrangement for contractors. 14 Another specific challenge was that initially road U-drains did not have wing walls. According to USACE, in 2015 the designers noted that in certain conditions the lack of wing walls could lead to inside slope failure, clogging by mud, and dysfunctional U-drains. As a result, a wing wall component was added in early 2016. These were found to be functioning well at project sites. Tractor ramps were also added to protect the side slopes and road from failure from heavy tractors using the side slopes at random locations. LGED is working to implement a conversion to a fully web-based Road and Structure Data Management System (RSDMS), which will further enhance the efficiency and performance of the entire system. 4.2.2 EQ 6: How has the LGED’s ability to complete the projects on time and within budget changed during the course of the BAIDP? What factors may have delayed completion of these contracts? LGED’s performance in implementing the BAIDP varied greatly from the beginning of the program compared to the performance from May 2016 onward. Mentoring of contractors and LGED field staff by USACE led to continual improvement in timeliness and meeting budget projections. A majority of projects have been delivered on time and within budget. In the early years of the program, there were a few sites that went over budget and required extra time to complete. Any additional expense beyond the mutually agreed budget for each site was borne by LGED. Out of 39 completed infrastructure projects as of March 2019, six had exceeded FARA costs, and LGED used savings from other projects to cover the increased costs. Four infrastructure projects in the earlier phase of the program had time overruns; all others were completed on time. (See the database of BAIDP infrastructure projects in Annex 8.) LGED’s contractors’ low financial and technical capacity as well as their unfamiliarity with BAIDP’s milestone and QA/QC-based contracting mode were the major factors that delayed completion of several contracts in the early years. Land availability also was a major problem. Other factors include design changes and variation orders, the required lab tests, and significant documentation related to QA/QC. LGED also reported that there were several periods when anticipated USAID funding was delayed, which, in turn, resulted in work being stopped until funding became available. Another factor that delayed earlier projects was awarding contracts just before the rainy season. LGED’s overall ability to complete projects on time and within budget improved due to training contractors and LGED staff, proactive laboratory facilities, enhanced QA/QC, accurate cost estimates, and an improved design process. LGED’s earlier designs and cost estimates did not include some important components, such as wing walls of U-drains and slope protection at a few locations. Consequently, early road projects needed multiple design changes and variation orders, which resulted in delays and cost-escalation. LGED’s BAIDP infrastructure design consultant noted that the design quality has improved over time with more field visits and suggestions from the USACE Project Manager. Designs and estimates of more recent infrastructure projects have been based on more rigorous site-specific assessments. Therefore, delays and cost escalation from design changes and variation orders have been reduced. 4.2.3 EQ 10: What caused original milestones to be reduced? What caused a three-year extension? Where is the LGED on implementing the final infrastructure projects? The original and revised BAIDP infrastructure targets are presented in Table 5. 15 Table 5: Original and Revised BAIDP Infrastructure Targets Detail/Type of Construction Original Agreement (2013) Revised Agreement (2016) Road 140 km 100 km MC 80 10 CC 80 10 Irrigation/Drainage 2,000 ha 1,000 ha Duration 4 years (2013-2016) 7 years (2013-2019) The information in Table 5 would appear to be straightforward. For example, 140 km of road is the target in the original agreement, and 100 km of road is the target in the amended agreement. However, the original agreement did not define what would be included in a road design. Prior to BAIDP, the typical LGED rural road was expected to last 5-10 years. USACE and USAID requirements, when merged with the LGED/JICA road design standards, were intended to result in a road with a 20-year life. Irrigation components and environmental mitigations also were not included. Moreover, the original agreement did not articulate the size and facilities to be provided for MCs and CCs. The expense of component additions (e.g., culverts, U-drains, tractor ramps, etc.), design changes (e.g., adding wing wall in U-drain) were not considered in 2013. In addition, the original infrastructure targets were based upon a 2010 ADB study of costs, and design and cost estimates of early projects were not fully based on actual field conditions or an assessment of future material prices and availability. For some early BAIDP projects, the price of bricks and stone were reportedly 150-200 percent higher than original estimates. The original planning of BAIDP did not consider the long period required for design development and the training of LGED staff and contractors. Lack of available land caused some delays in designation of MC and CC’s. The development of a functioning QA/QC program required considerable consultation between the parties. There were also extended periods of political unrest that interfered with project progress, including January-May 2015, July 2016-June 2017, and October-December 2018. Moreover, many changes in administrative positions occurred inside USAID during 2016 and 2017, contributing to delays in administrative and financial decisions and subsequent approvals. The combination of all these factors resulted in decreasing program targets for each type of infrastructure site and a three-year time extension, another example of learning and adaptation. As of the end of March 2019, the program has completed the rehabilitation or renovation of 77.94 km of roads, three MCs, ten CCs, and irrigation and drainage facilities for over 1,000 ha of land, including construction of U-drains, maintenance of culverts and bridges, and re-excavation of a 1.35 km-long irrigation canal, as well as renovation of its sluice gate system. Construction work is ongoing for 12 more rural feeder roads with a length of 37.27 km (total 115.21 km), four more MCs (total of eight), and three more CCs (total of 13). A tender award process is ongoing for another MC. CONCLUSIONS The ET found very constructive results as related to road repairs and construction of MCs and CCs. There was also significant improvement in the institutional capacity of LGED, due to the consistent and persistent interaction between USAID program management, LGED staff, USACE, UNOPS and the third-party QA monitor (Ecotech) working in a concerted effort with private contractors to respond to challenges. By May 2016 when BAIDP goals were redefined with much more specific parameters, many of the initial challenges had been resolved. From that 16 point in time forward, all aspects of the program were operating in a well-structured, efficient manner. Contractors interviewed by the ET had not only accepted the milestone concept and other requirements unique to BAIDP, but reported enthusiasm for all aspects of rehabilitating BAIDP roads and constructing MC and CC. There is still scope for improvement, some of which is anticipated from planned procedural changes related to a fully operational RSDMS. LGED is already working on this conversion in-house. LGED needs support to upgrade their in-house laboratory testing capability, which is limited in all respects. The overall performance of BAIDP will be enhanced by follow up workshops as well as systematic retraining programs. In the initial years of BAIDP, USAID overestimated LGED’s capacity to meet LGED and GOB’s own engineering and environmental mitigation standards as related to a G2G program. Also, the original agreement did not provide specifications for each type of infrastructure project. Addressing these issues resulted in a reduction of the original program goals and a three-year extension. USAID, with the support of USACE, UNOPS, and capable, progressive leadership within LGED, is expected to accomplish all intended rehabilitation and construction goals as per the revised agreement of May 2016 (with the exception of some planned MCs) with a proposed no-cost extension. LGED’s ability to complete projects on time and within budget has improved through BAIDP. The role of USACE and UNOPS cannot be understated as related to the continually improving performance of LGED for the BAIDP. These partners were particularly adept at inspiring LGED to adopt and take ownership of new concepts. 4.3 IMPACT FOR LGED AS AN INSTITUTION FINDINGS 4.3.1 EQ 3: How effective has the BAIDP activity been in improving and/or changing the LGED’s procurement processes? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Will these remain sustainable beyond the activity period? BAIDP has developed the Risk Management Handout for procurement, Internal Audit Manual, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for procurement, and Code of Ethics for procurement. The first two protocols have been institutionalized across LGED. In addition, the milestone-based QA/QC process and improved cost estimation developed by BAIDP have been welcomed by LGED, but not yet fully institutionalized. Improvements in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) and QA/QC planning in tender documents also have not been institutionalized. Although not mandated, all procurement for BAIDP was done using the e-Government Procurement (e-GP) system. Since 2013, LGED has been working with the Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU) to improve their procurement system and have progressed well in the utilization of e-GP. 4.3.2 EQ 4: How effective have the USAID capacity-building initiatives been in terms of having the LGED be more compliant with standard construction procedures, e.g., environmental compliance/road safety compliance/labor health compliance? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Will these practices remain sustainable beyond the activity period? With USACE’s guidance, BAIDP enhanced LGED’s infrastructure procedures to adapt to best practices, including environmental compliance, road safety compliance, and labor health compliance. In 2013, BAIDP developed a design protocol titled: “Technical Specifications for Road and Road Structures” though this protocol has yet to be institutionalized across LGED. All 17 projects of BAIDP follow the Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (EMMP) matrix developed under BAIDP, but the EMMP also has not been fully institutionalized. The ET found that LGED officers are regularly getting environment and safety training through BAIDP that was developed by the USAID Program Manager. LGED also received support in its institutional capacity development from UNOPS, which guided LGED toward ownership of a Capacity Development Plan, signed in 2014.15 LGED formed an internal CDP Implementation Committee (CDPIC) with members from all the relevant LGED departments.16 The goal of the CDP was to improve LGED’s existing systems through implementation of improved policies, manuals, processes, and procedures and training of LGED staff to achieve the following goals: ● Improved Code of Ethics and training to prevent and detect fraud, promote segregation of duties, ethics and integrity, alignment of authority and responsibility, etc. (The Code has been circulated and implemented throughout LGED.) ● Improvement of a financial management system to track disbursements and monthly financial progress of projects. ● Developing and strengthening of internal controls, performance assessments, and an internal audit system to focus on anti-fraud activities, prevention, and detection and that analyzes the entire operating system and governance, especially financial management systems and procurement. ● Development and implementation of a risk identification system and training staff on risk management. ● Development of a manual to improve upon LGED’s contract administration to ensure fairness and avoid the transfer of price fluctuation risk and major unforeseen circumstances to contractors. UNOPS reported that, by 2016, “We were beginning to hear from the BAIDP Director and the Chairperson of CDP Implementation Committee a change of language from ‘UNOPS plan’ to an ‘LGED CDP that UNOPS can support.’”17 Although the USAID capacity-building contract with UNOPS has expired, the LGED CDPIC continues to work toward progress on the topics above. In addition to the Risk Management Handout, Internal Audit Manual, SOPs, and Code of Ethics mentioned previously, UNOPS guided LGED in the development of an e-module on Code of Conduct for Civil Servants in LGED. All LGED staff involved with BAIDP were required to complete the course with a minimal score of 80 percent. With the exception of the Risk Management Handout and Internal Audit Manual, other UNOPS capacity enhancement tools have yet to be fully institutionalized across LGED. 15 LGED Capacity Development Plan: Bangladesh Agricultural Infrastructure Program (BAIDP), signed May 4, 2014. http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/ProjectLibraryGallery/385/Capacity%20Development%20Plan%20sig ned%20May%205.PDF 16 LGED Assessment Final White Paper 2016 - BAIDP 17 KII with Joy Jakasalem Balane, former team leader for the UNOPS OCD project, March 21, 2019. See also: Organizational Capacity Development (OCD) for USAID’s Local Implementing Partners in Bangladesh, Final Completion Report 01/10/2014-30/09/2017, UNOPS, December 2017. 18 4.3.3 EQ 7: Has there been an impact on the LGED’s ability to receive and implement additional activities funded by other donors as a result of BAIDP? The institutional capacity of LGED, developed through the BAIDP—including those related to procurement, best practices in QA/QC and milestone-based design and construction, high-level environment, safety and ethics compliances, various trainings for contractors, staff, and community—contributed to LGED receiving accreditation from the United Nations Green Climate Fund (GCF). As a result, LGED has been able to develop a 6-year (2018-2023) Climate Resilient Infrastructure Mainstreaming Project (CRIMP) funded by GCF, KfW (a German development bank), and the GOB.18 In addition, the World Bank’s Senior Transport Specialist indicated that LGED’s capacity enhancement through implementing the milestone-based BAIDP has made LGED a good candidate for the World Bank’s new Development-Linked Indicator (DLI)-based Support for Rural Bridge (SUPRB) program. CONCLUSIONS LGED has been proactive and progressive on their own initiative in adopting processes that provide ease of business for suppliers and deter corruption. Furthermore, BAIDP has had a positive impact on the cost estimation process. LGED has institutionalized the Risk Management Handout and the Internal Audit Manual. The improved Code of Ethics—designed to prevent and detect fraud and to promote segregation of duties as well as ethics and integrity, alignment of authority and responsibility—has been circulated and implemented throughout LGED, including training for all personnel. However, much remains to be achieved regarding capacity building within LGED. Although the milestone-based QA/QC process and improved cost estimation developed by BAIDP have been welcomed by LGED, they have not yet been fully institutionalized. Improvements in the BOQ and QA/QC planning in tender documents also have not been institutionalized. All of the subject areas targeted by UNOPS would require additional capacity-building and integration within LGED in order to become sustainably embedded within the institution as best practices for all projects. The initial successes of the CDPIC are evidenced by the adoption of these documents. LGED and its contractors have benefitted significantly from BAIDP manuals, tools and training programs— such as the online e-module on the Code of Conduct, which was required for all LGED staff involved with BAIDP—but they have yet to be institutionalized. Sustainability is assured for the BAIDP tools for which LGED has taken ownership and applied to other programs. Further capacity-building achievements can be accomplished within LGED through mentoring and training similar to that which UNOPS has provided. LGED’s ability to attract funding from other donors has been enhanced as a result of BAIDP. 18 CRIMP will establish a Climate Resilient Local Infrastructure Center (CReLIC), build 45 new multipurpose cyclone shelters, rehabilitate 20 existing multipurpose cyclone shelters, and improve 80 km of critical road connectivity. 19 4.4 IMPACT FOR FARMERS AND COMMUNITIES FINDINGS 4.4.1 EQ 2: How effective have the improved rural roads, MCs and CCs been in promoting and increasing agricultural trade in the working areas? Increased Agricultural Extension Services: The majority of FGD participants along with KIIs with agricultural extension agents confirmed an increase in extension services available around BAIDP improved roads, both from the public and private sectors. This increased assistance from extension workers has reportedly resulted in improved farming practices, increased production, and improved yields and productivity. Private companies are establishing demonstration plots adjacent to roads and organizing farmers’ field days. FGDs with farmers as well as KIIs with Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) and Department of Fisheries (DOF) officials and input retailers confirmed companies are providing agricultural production-related information and services through regular communication and field visits. The result, according to FGDs with farmers, is that they are cultivating new crops, including summer tomatoes, and income has increased. Farmers in FGDs reported using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for vegetable growing, thereby reducing the cost of production, resulting in safer food for consumers. According to a farmer in Monirampur upazila of Jashore district, production of vegetables (such as pointed gourd and bitter gourd) increased by about 20 percent after road improvement. Increased Availability of Agricultural Inputs: According to the majority of FGD participants and 98.1 percent of mini-survey respondents (Figure 4) along with many well-informed local KIIs, quality agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizers, and agro-chemicals) are more available locally due to the opening of new shops adjacent to the improved roads. DAE officials and vendors—such as East West Seeds Bangladesh Ltd., Krishibid Seed Ltd, and Syngenta Bangladesh—reported that companies are extending dealer networks to rural areas with the result that farmers are getting the benefit of good quality inputs at lower prices. As a result, production and cropping intensity has increased. Most FGD participants attribute the greater availability of agricultural inputs locally to the road improvements. Based on an FGD with aquaculture farmers, transporting their inputs (fingerlings and feed) to the ponds and selling marketable fish to markets has been made easier after the improvement of roads. Two-thirds of FGD participants stated that the produce they are able to grow and deliver to markets is fresher after improvement of the roads. Due to more easily accessible transportation, farmers are able to supply fresh produce to customers. 20 Figure 4: Improved Farm Inputs and Increased Local Businesses Data source: Evaluation Mini-survey Increased Number of Local Businesses and Services: Most mini-survey respondents (99.2 percent) said that there are more businesses in their local area after improvement of the roads (Figure 4), an increase that was also frequently mentioned during FGDs. Mini-survey respondents (Figure 8) reported a 50.8 percent increase in the number of traders they deal with locally. FGD participants stated that improved roads increased business opportunities and have enhanced local economic development through new employment creation, transport business, agri-shops, traders, grocery shops, rice mills, and food processing. FGD participants also stated that access to credit markets (from microfinance institutions and non-governmental organizations [NGOs]) and service delivery are all becoming more available and are beneficial for the new business entrants found around the improved roads. The number of small rural non-farm businesses (e.g., food processing and marketing enterprises, agricultural-input shops, electronic repair shops, transportation and trade, and tea stalls, grocery shops, repair maintenance shops, and services) also reportedly has increased as a result of improved roads. After road improvement, local employment opportunities have emerged, especially for youth, to do business in transportation, open shops, raise poultry or fish, and farm high-value vegetables. Reduced Agricultural Wastage: According to 85.3 percent of mini-survey participants (Figure 6), and confirmed in general in FGDs, wastage has been reduced by 86 percent after road improvement (Figure 5). All DAE and DOF representatives (upazila level officers) also mentioned reduced wastage due to good roads. 21 Figure 5: Decreased Wastage, Increased Sales and Profits Data source: Evaluation Mini-survey Increased Freshness, Sales, Price, and Profit: When asked an open-ended question about the business-related benefits of the improved roads (Figure 6), two-thirds (66.4 percent) of mini￾survey participants said that they are able to sell their produce while it is fresher, and 80.4 percent said they are able to get a higher price for their produce. According to LGED baseline and impact data for four roads, farmers reported between 25 percent and 100 percent increases in agricultural product sales (Figure 7). Three-quarters (74.1 percent) said they are earning more profit; and the average increase in daily profit reported by mini-survey participants before and after the improvement of the roads was 43 percent (Figure 5). Good roads bring more buyers looking for produce that has not suffered the damage from a rough ride to market. In addition, due to the improved roads, buyers are frequently purchasing produce directly from farmers. Many of the participants in FGDs were beneficiaries of FTF projects that were in operation while BAIDP was engaged in the area.19 Figure 6: Percentage of Respondents Mentioning Business-Related Benefits Data source: Evaluation Mini-survey 19 For example: Rice and Diversified Crops (RDC); Agricultural Value Chains (AVC); Livestock Production for Improved Nutrition (LPIN); Accelerating Agriculture Productivity Improvement (AAPI). 22 Figure 7: Agricultural Sales – LGED Baseline and Impact Data Data source: LGED Reduced Transportation Time and Cost: A significant change has occurred in terms of transport costs and travel time where BAIDP has improved roads. About three-quarters of FGD participants said their transportation time was significantly reduced due to improved roads. Motorized vehicles are carrying agricultural products to buyers much faster. According to 88.1 percent of mini-survey respondents (Figure 6), the time saved transporting their agricultural products to markets and buyers allowed them to spend more time on productive activities. Mini-survey participants reported (Figure 8) that previously it took on average 40.7 minutes for a journey on that route; now, the same trip takes only 15.4 minutes (a 62.1 percent reduction). The majority (93.1 percent) of mini-survey respondents (Figure 4) reported decreased transportation costs after the improvement of the road near them. FGDs with farmers, traders, and transporters all confirmed a reduction in transportation cost of at least one-third due to the larger volume which can be carried on the improved roads. An earlier case study conducted by ACME reported a 32 percent reduction cost for the same purpose. Figure 8: Reduced Travel Time and Increased Traders Data source: Evaluation Mini-survey 23 Figure 9: AADT of BAIDP Roads Before and After Construction Figure 10: AADT of BAIDP Roads: Motorized and Non-Motorized Data source: LGED (before); ET (after) Data source: LGED (before); ET (after) Roads improved under BAIDP have generated a significant number of commuters. The ET conducted several day-long traffic counts on BAIDP roads both on Hat (bazar) days and on non￾Hat days to assess the annual average daily traffic (AADT) for both motorized and non-motorized traffic. The AADT data of these roads just prior to the BAIDP were collected by LGED. Based on this study, the ET found that AADT figures on the improved roads have increased between about 7 and 28 times for motorized vehicles, between about 3 and 14 times for non-motorized vehicles, and between about 5 and 17 times for all vehicles (both motorized and non-motorized). These are very significant increases considering the rural context of these roads. The changes are represented in the Figures 9 and 10. Confirming the increased use of the improved roads, 88.4 percent of mini-survey respondents (Figure 11) said they use the road five or more days per week now, representing a 92.9 percent increase; three-quarters of mini-survey respondents (77.3 percent) said they come to the area where the road has been improved five days or more per week, representing a two-thirds (64.7 percent) increase. Much more generally, LGED baseline and impact data records exponential increases in the number of people “benefitting from” the roads for which they have gathered such data (Figure 12). Figure 11: Increased Road Use and Site Visit Frequency Data source: Evaluation Mini-survey 24 Figure 12: People Benefitting from the Roads – LGED Baseline and Impact Data Data source: LGED Benefits of Market Centers and Collection Centers: FGD participants generally reported that, where the BAIDP MCs and CCs are operational, they are getting better prices for their produce. Many also reported being able to sell a higher percentage of their production at the MCs, and more than one-third said they increased their daily profit as a result. According to FGD participants, wastage has been reduced due to having a good place for sorting and grading, thereby resulting in better prices. More recently constructed BAIDP MCs and CCs require more time to be fully utilized and functional since it takes time to attract vendors and consumers and for markets to mature into community focal points. 4.4.2 EQ 9: What have been some of the major socio-economic benefits of the BAIDP infrastructure for the surrounding communities? Will these benefits sustain beyond the life of BAIDP? (The contractor should build on an existing case study.) Improved Food Security: All FGD participants stated the variety of food alternatives has improved due to increased income, access to the markets, and increased agricultural production after improvement of the roads. Families are eating at least three meals per day and dietary diversity of food has improved. As one KII with shopkeepers revealed—and as confirmed by most participants of FGDs—there are many new shops selling daily essentials and food stuffs (e.g., rice, egg, fruits, pulses, milk, oils, salt, etc.). Fruit and dairy products are available and accessible— and are being consumed by the local citizens. Increased Access to Health Care: In response to various questions on the mini-survey (Figure 13), 97.7 percent of respondents said that their access to healthcare has increased since the improvement of the roads. About 85.3 percent said they have easier and quicker access to health services; and more than three-quarters (79 percent) stated that women now have better access to pre- and post-natal health care and/or birth attendants. During field visits, the ET noted that pharmacies were available near roads improved by BAIDP. It was also frequently mentioned by FGD participants that every house has built sanitary latrines and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities due to transportation of the required raw materials (such as bricks) on improved 25 roads. Diabetes patients are observed walking on the new roads every morning and afternoon. According to women in FGDs, accessibility for people with disabilities has also improved, including smooth access for wheelchairs, facilitating access to services and goods. Similar information was found during the ACME case study. Figure 13: Increased Access to Healthcare Data source: Evaluation Mini-survey Increased Access to Education: Three-quarters (77.6 percent) of mini-survey participants said that it is now safer for girls to go to school, and almost all said that improved roads have contributed to families sending their girls to school (Figure 14). FGD participants often recalled that, prior to the road improvement, girls were harassed while walking to school. Now girls can get motorized transportation to school and avoid harassment. All mini-survey participants said children in general now have easier access to schools; 88.8 percent said their children can get to school more quickly; and two-thirds (66.4 percent) said they have more money available to invest in children’s education. Head teachers at two schools stated that the drop-out rate declined, and school attendance increased during the rainy season after the roads were improved. At their schools, attendance during the 2016 rainy season was below 80 percent; in 2018, after the road improvement, it was above 87 percent. FGD participants said the benefits of the improved roads for school children were very significant. Earlier, children often did not want to go to school during the rainy season because of bad roads. After the road improvement, they could use their bikes to get to school. Enhanced Gender Equality: According to the majority of female FGD participants, girls and women now have increased mobility due to the increased motorized vehicles on the roads so that they can more easily and safely travel alone. Increased mobility enables girls to attend school and facilitates women’s income-generating activities and household management, which FGD participants said reduces household conflict. In all FGDs, especially with women, participants stated that they now take more family decisions jointly (e.g., child education, asset purchase, movement, agricultural production and sales, etc.) since improvement of the roads. FGD participants also described improved prospects for marriage of their female children; bridegrooms were previously reluctant to marry into their isolated villages because of bad road conditions. In addition, KII and FGD participants reported that child marriage is occurring less frequently, in part because of an awareness program conducted by teachers, other development practitioners and 26 government agencies, which was significantly facilitated because of improved roads. Similar information was reported in the ACME case study. Figure 14: Increased Access to Education Data source: Evaluation Mini-survey Increased Land Value: FGDs with local community participants said the value of land adjacent to the improved roads had increased. In addition, during FGDs and field observation, the ET found that construction materials were being transported more easily after road improvement; thus, many villagers were able to build secure brick homes. However, the increase in the value of land adjacent to improved roads also has negative implications for income inequality in the local community. Poor and landless farmers may find it more difficult to secure land for their cultivation and this is likely to result in sharecropping for farmland. The ACME case study included similar information. Benefits for Minority Communities: Ambassador Road (Y1RD004 Shorupdha-Bagardari Road in Chowgacha upazila) was improved by BAIDP to the benefit of a nearby Hindu community in which women and men are focused on fishing as an enterprise. After the improvement of the road, they are able to transport fish feed and fish fries more easily. During an FGD in this area, women reported a production increase of harvested fish and the ability to increase sale volumes as buyers are able to access this community via the improved road. Previously they sold at lower prices, wastage was significant, and they could not reach the market on time to keep the fish fresh. Five agri-input and grocery shops also recently have opened in the area where villagers buy groceries and other daily essentials. CONCLUSIONS Based on the KIIs and FGDs conducted by the ET, as well as the Case Study Report by ACME, BAIDP’s improved roads have significantly increased access to extension services, agricultural inputs, new farming techniques, farm productivity, and access to markets, traders, and other business services. The improved roads also have contributed to reduced agricultural waste, increased sales of more fresh produce, and increased profits. Transportation costs per commodity unit also has been reduced. MCs and CCs have facilitated commodity aggregation, sorting, 27 grading, and trading. The new roads have created a business-enabling environment for farmers and traders that enhances local economic development generally. The results of the ET and ACME interaction with stakeholders also suggest increased income and land value due to improved agricultural infrastructure. Improved nutrition and food security seem likely to be sustained based upon the field work by the ET and ACME. In general, travel is apparently now faster, easier, and usually less expensive, contributing to social benefits such as easier access to health services, including pre- and post-natal care; increased school attendance by girls and boys, especially during the rainy season; greater mobility and safety for girls and women; and benefits for a minority fishing community. LGED’s public awareness campaign related to responsible use of roads contributes to the longevity of the infrastructure and, therefore, the sustainability of all of these benefits. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS EQ 1: Acquiring land title as related to developing MC and CC continues to be a constraint, and experience during the implementation of BAIDP has demonstrated the complexity of this issue. Although USAID and LGED have been proactive relative to this issue, LGED should do additional forward planning prior to confirming construction site locations whenever possible, and coordinate with other GOB departments to ensure that land has been formally acquired. EQ 8: Although LGED has a maintenance and repair plan for roads, GOB funding allocations for long-term road maintenance are uncertain. USAID should strategize with LGED about how to undertake a collective effort with all donors funding road upgrades to address this issue with the GOB. Along with having a baseline AADT, road projects should also have a roughness baseline, so that before-and-after assessment is possible. The duration of the construction process and the durability of roads could be linked with bonuses and penalties for construction contractors. 5.2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EQ 5: The ET supports a recommendation from the Jashore LGED office for more systematic training of contractors including pre-bid and follow-up trainings. Enhanced training would improve the quality of construction planning and reduce construction delays. The use of a third￾party construction monitoring and certification entity worked very well for BAIDP, and the ET suggests replicating this solution in any future program. EQ 6: The LGED reported difficulties due to unanticipated delays in BAIDP funding. Past experience provides an opportunity to pre-plan for such delays and establish mutually acceptable procedures to mitigate their impact. Construction project designs and cost estimates should continue to be based on actual field visits of the designers. Furthermore, if contracts are awarded just before the rainy season, they should have extended timelines for completion to allow for the favorable construction season (October to June in Bangladesh). LGED also could consider offering contractor incentives and penalties to deter delay, including completion timelines. LGED requested support to upgrade laboratory equipment in order to comply with lab test requirements more efficiently. EQ 10: The cost, design, and construction oversight provided by USACE was excellent. As the USACE staff member has been working within the Mission with USAID staff, his comprehension 28 of USAID objectives as related to BAIDP has been advantageous. USACE participation as a partner for future USAID G2G construction-related programs would be beneficial. In addition, information generated by LGED through community-based assessments contributed positively to the site selection process. For future programs, the ET recommends a more institutionalized approach to site selection, including gathering additional information through social, economic, environmental, and risk assessments. 5.3 IMPACT FOR LGED AS AN INSTITUTION EQ 3: Future USAID infrastructure programs should be designed based on a realistic assessment of the existing capacity of the implementing agency. The e-GP system of procurement worked well for BAIDP and should be continued. Additional initiatives should be taken to further institutionalize LGED’s procurement-related SOPs and Code of Ethics and training, as well as improvements in the BOQ, cost estimates, and QA/QC planning and processes. EQ 4: USAID should continue to invest in capacity-building within LGED. All of the subject areas targeted by UNOPS will require additional capacity-building and integration within LGED in order to become embedded within the institution. The EMMP Matrix and environment and safety training developed under BAIDP should be institutionalized, along with QA/QC-related training for contractors and engineers. The “Technical Specifications for Road and Road Structures” also needs further institutionalization. The ET recommends a structured organizational approach with other relevant donors as a vehicle to further advance the capacity-building of LGED (and other GOB ministries and departments for potential future G2G programming). EQ 7: USAID can be even more proactive in communication and coordination with other development partners engaged in funding infrastructure development in Bangladesh. For example, USAID should coordinate with the World Bank and ADB for the upcoming multi-donor 1.5 billion USD mega-project known as WeCARE (Western Economic Corridor and Regional Enhancement Project) in which both the Bangladesh Roads and Highways Department and LGED will be involved as implementing agencies. The relevant ADB and World Bank personnel expressed interest to the ET in more collaboration with USAID, and USAID should capitalize on this interest. 5.4 IMPACT FOR FARMERS AND COMMUNITIES EQ 2: USAID should continue to invest in rural road improvement through LGED to further enhance farm productivity, local economic development, food security, nutrition, and improved livelihoods. With six years of experience to build upon, USAID can create more systematic links with other FTF projects during the process of infrastructure site selection and in order to measure impact for beneficiaries of those projects more directly and consistently. The ET also encourages LGED to take a more systematic approach to implementing socio-economic baseline and impact studies for each site. A consistently coordinated working relationship with other donors funding infrastructure initiatives also may lead to more robust results. For example, amenities and equipment that USAID is unable to provide could be funded by other donors. EQ 9: USAID and/or LGED should invest further in building public awareness of personal responsibility for road safety. USAID should re-engage in strengthening coordination with other donors regarding their development activities in relevant local areas to enhance the socio￾economic benefits of USAID-funded infrastructure projects. LGED should strengthen networking and coordination with other government agencies and private sector actors locally to maximize 29 socio-economic benefits of its infrastructure projects. Proactive, progressive local committees could aid the successful operation of MCs and CCs. 6.0 LESSONS LEARNED 6.1 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS The experience of the past six years has verified that a milestone-based construction and payment mode works well when the milestones are: 1) finalized based on inputs from LGED as well as contractors; 2) rationally sub-divided such that contractors can get paid on a regular basis once the milestone is accomplished; 3) logically connected with estimates and analysis of estimates; 4) certified within set deadlines; and 5) explained in trainings for both engineers and contractors. Significant time is required for local partners to introduce, implement and begin to institutionalize new standards and methods. Another lesson learned from BAIDP is that the QA/QC process and schedule should be clearly planned and documented in the bid contract document. Once the QA/QC process is institutionalized, LGED could concentrate on modernization of their lab facilities as well as preparing lab staff for new processes. In addition, site visits by designers added quality and resulted in fewer design changes for the later designs of BAIDP. Land issues constrain construction initiatives, and uncertain GOB funding for maintenance constrains sustainability. 6.2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT LGED considers the milestone-based system to be one of BAIDP’s most significant innovations. LGED indicated a need for more laboratory equipment to comply with GOB/LGED test requirements policy/procedures that were uniquely enforced during BAIDP. The use of a third￾party QA entity (Ecotech) worked very well for BAIDP. In addition, the cost, design and construction oversight provided by USACE was excellent. USACE has been an invaluable asset in the performance of BAIDP. If, in the future, USACE is not available to support a G2G infrastructure program, the role that USACE has played in the process may be difficult to duplicate under the current USAID organizational structure. 6.3 IMPACT FOR LGED AS AN INSTITUTION Building upon existing systems and materials is a good approach. The UNOPS approach to encourage LGED to take ownership of the procurement capacity development processes was a highly successful approach. Institutionalizing improvements to ensure sustainability is a significant challenge and requires considerable time. Building upon existing systems and materials is a good approach. LGED is a willing and proactive partner for continuing G2G capacity-building initiatives. The institutional changes within LGED have been dramatic and are continuing with enthusiasm. Use of a dedicated designer—either through hiring an independent consultant, such as the one trained by the USACE, or by enhancing the design unit of LGED—is important. The experience gained via BAIDP has shown that an enhanced LGED design unit should develop the skills and quality of design engineers in terms of road geometric and pavement design and the structural design of building and drainage structures. LGED already has a good bridge design team. The coordination that developed between USAID and LGED was instrumental in the success of the BAIDP program and can be a building block for enhanced coordination among donors working with LGED in the future. 30 6.4 IMPACT FOR FARMERS AND COMMUNITIES Improved rural infrastructure facilitates local economic activities and improves livelihoods of local communities. MCs require time to mature into community focal points. Consultation with local communities before and during infrastructure development, as implemented by BAIDP, helps ensure strongest impact. LGED baseline and impact studies help demonstrate the significant and diverse benefits of their rural infrastructure projects for individuals, families, and communities. 31 ANNEXES 32 ANNEX 1: SCOPE OF WORK Scope of Work (SOW) for Bangladesh Agriculture Infrastructure Development Project (BAIDP) Final Performance Evaluation PROJECT TO BE EVALUATED Project Name Bangladesh Agriculture Infrastructure Development Project (BAIDP) USAID Bangladesh Agreement No. 388-F-00-13-00001-00 Original Project Date January 2013 - December 2019 Original Funding $15,000,000 Implementing Partner GOB Local Government Engineering Department (LGED); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers I. BACKGROUND The Bangladesh Agriculture Infrastructure Development Project (BAIDP) was awarded in January 2013 as a three-year Government-to-Government (G2G) activity. The activity was then extended in 2016 for an additional three years, ending in December 2019. The purpose of the Agricultural Infrastructure Development Project is to upgrade priority infrastructure in targeted rural farming communities. BAIDP’s specific project objectives are to: 1. Improve vertical Infrastructure (markets and collection centers); and 2. Improve horizontal infrastructure (roads, irrigation and drainage systems). The implementing mechanism for this activity is a direct G2G transfer to the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), with technical oversight provided by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. LGED is the largest public engineering agency in Bangladesh and has a mission to improve the socio-economic condition of Bangladesh through the development and maintenance of local infrastructure. BAIDP is implemented in 20 southern districts of the country within the Barisal, Dhaka, and Khulna divisions. The BAIDP was designed to increase smallholders’ household income through improved access to rural markets and input supplies, thereby lowering transportation costs and crop loss and increase trade volume. The longer-term outcome was to support USAID’s Development Objective (DO) 2 “Food Security Improved.” 2. DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS, THEORY OF CHANGE AND RESULTS FRAMEWORK BAIDP is implemented under USAID’s DO 2 (Food Security Improved), and specifically aligned under IR 2.2 Improved Access through Market Systems. The theory of change for the activity is “if rural roads are constructed and market centers are constructed and/or improved, then rural agricultural production and farmers’ access to markets will increase.” Infrastructure development is closely aligned with Bangladesh’s national development strategies. The Bangladesh Planning Commission prioritized roads, storage facilities, and markets as 33 development priorities in 1984. Subsequent National Five-Year Plans have incorporated these priorities. The objective of infrastructure projects in Bangladesh has been to provide year-round access to village markets and sub-district growth centers. This access creates opportunities for marketing agricultural produce and enterprise development in rural areas as well as job creation and improved connectivity with urban, peri-urban and other rural areas. It also facilitates evacuation during emergencies and storm events. Bangladesh has limited land and the highest density of roads to available land in Southeast Asia according to a rural infrastructure strategic study conducted by the World Bank in 1996. Rather than building new roads, the priority is to rehabilitate and maintain existing roads. 2.1 RESULTS FRAMEWORK OF BAID PROJECT The BAIDP will stimulate agricultural development to increase production and productivity in agricultural sector, reducing rural poverty, improving access to food, and improving food security in southern Bangladesh. It will directly support farmers and private sector with infrastructure that will facilitate trade, improve productivity through improved water management at the farm level, physically link them to markets, and reduce transportation cost and losses. 34 3. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE The purpose of the final performance evaluation for BAIDP is to assess the extent to which the activity has achieved its overall objectives. Consistent with USAID’s 2011 Evaluation Policy, the primary goals of this evaluation are to: ● Provide evidence so USAID/Bangladesh can determine the extent to which BAIDP has or has not achieved its desired results; ● Determine how effectively the activity has implemented systems, policies, procedures, training, LGED capacity and other interventions to achieve its overall goal; ● Recommend to USAID key strategic and programmatic options for future agricultural infrastructure related activities in Bangladesh; and ● Assess all completed and ongoing infrastructure work and evaluate: o Status of maintenance and repair; o Verify completion or level of completion; o Evaluate the status of branding and marking; and o Provide photos and GPS locations. The findings and recommendations of the evaluation will inform future designs and implementation of agricultural infrastructure activity and G2G activity. With the exclusion of procurement sensitive sections, USAID intends to disseminate the report widely to stakeholders such as USAID/Bangladesh implementing partners, different GOB agencies, NGOs, other sector￾specific donors, and the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). 4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS As stated above, the evaluation team will assess and determine whether the activity achieved the targets set in the original award, and subsequent amendments. The evaluation team will also provide evidence for the impact of these activities on local communities, building on an existing case study. 1. To what extent has the BAIDP activity been able to meet its overall objective? The response to this question should at a minimum address the following: ● Status and achievement of rural feeder roads rehabilitation and renovation work as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments). ● Status and achievement of construction of new and/or improvement of existing rural market centers and collection centers as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments). ● Status and achievement of the irrigation and drainage systems improvement work as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments). ● Status of the management and maintenance plans for remaining projects to be completed by December 2019. (Note: Roads and irrigation/drainage systems will be measured by the evaluation team.) 2. How effective have the improved rural roads, market centers and collection centers been in promoting and increasing agricultural trade in the working areas? 3. How effective has BAIDP activity been in improving and/or changing LGED’s procurement processes? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Will these remain sustainable beyond the activity period? 35 4. How effective have the USAID capacity building initiatives been in terms of having LGED being more compliant with standard construction procedures, e.g., environmental compliance/road safety compliance/labor health compliance? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Will these practices remain sustainable beyond the activity period? Please provide a detailed assessment of the LGED capacity development plan. 5. What challenges has BAIDP faced in implementing its activities and how has it responded to those challenges? Are there any recommended alternatives to these approaches? 6. How has LGED’s ability to complete the projects on time and within budget changed during the course of this activity? What factors may have delayed completion of these contracts? 7. Has there been an impact on LGED's ability to receive and implement additional activities funded by other donors as a result of BAIDP? 8. How effective has the infrastructure maintenance and repair plan been by BAIDP? 9. What have been some of the major socio-economic benefits of the BAIDP infrastructure for the surrounding communities? Will these benefits sustain beyond the life of the activity? (The contractor should build on an existing case study.) 10. What caused original milestones to be reduced? What caused a three-year extension? Where is LGED on implementing the final projects (as of January 31, 2019)? 5. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation team will develop and propose an evaluation methodology and work plan for review and approval by USAID. The detailed evaluation methodology will include a data collection matrix that will explicitly link evaluation questions to particular data collection approaches and data sources. It is strongly suggested that the evaluation team use a mixed-method approach utilizing both quantitative and qualitative analysis (such as key informant interviews, stakeholder interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions). The evaluation team should develop the best evaluation design methodology in light of the evaluation questions, timeframe, budget, data collection requirements, quality of existing data sources, and potential biases. The evaluators should utilize several different, yet complementary and interrelated forms of gathering information/data such as those described below. The contractor is expected to utilize its expert judgment and evaluation best practices in selecting which methodological components to include in the evaluation design. Document Review: Evaluation team members will review documents throughout the evaluation process including the original award, all modifications, program reports, annual procurement plans, quality assurance plans, capacity development plans and relevant studies to ensure that comprehensive and grounded best practices will be identified. Key Informants Interview (KII): The team will conduct one-on-one interviews with a variety of stakeholders including LGED staff, most notably the Chief Engineer and district-level executive engineers and upazila engineers involved in the construction projects. Other relevant GOB ministries and agencies, relevant bi- and multi-lateral development partners, and the Army Corps of Engineers should be interviewed. KIIs would be conducted by administering a semi-structured or structured questionnaire and the evaluation team is expected to provide draft for USAID review prior to start of research. 36 Expert Opinion Survey: The evaluation team, with approval of USAID, can conduct expert opinion surveys to inform the evaluation. Focus Group Discussions (FGD): Small groups of 8-10 people will be convened for open discussion, led by a skilled moderator to gather semi-structured qualitative data. The preselected participants will discuss issues and concerns based on a list of key themes drawn up by the moderator. These sessions will encourage free flowing discussion about the activity. The FGD participants should comprise farmers, traders, other community people, and local LGED officials as appropriate. Mini Survey: This type of survey is small (30-40 participants) and can be performed rapidly in the field without analytical software such as SPSS or a large questionnaire. The sample size is not statistically significant; however, this type of analysis can be used to triangulate with other methods. Because of the small sample size, this type of survey can be implemented quickly when time and resources are constrained. Social and Economic Analysis: This type of analysis would require a sample survey. Due to time and resource constraints, the survey should be kept to a manageable size since it is neither possible nor desirable to carry out a complete census for social and economic analysis. The team should select a sample that is representative of the beneficiary population and triangulate the findings from this survey with other sources. The consultants would be responsible for designing, testing, and overseeing the work carried out. Regardless of data collection and analysis methods, USAID requires that qualitative and quantitative data is disaggregated by gender. Methodological limitations and challenges for this evaluation are expected to include: ● Ensuring that samples of interview sources are sufficient to support evaluation findings; ● Systematic actions to counter any biases in (a) reporting by data collection sources and (b) interpretations of collected data by the evaluation team; and ensuring “actual” results can be measured, which will only be possible if data can be gathered and analyzed beyond respondent perceptions. All the methodological strengths and weaknesses should be explicitly described in the evaluation report. Prior to the start of the evaluation, the evaluation team shall meet with EG office to refine the evaluation methodology and address any other concerns the EG office may have. 6. EXISTING SOURCES OF INFORMATION The evaluation team should consult a broad range of background documents apart from project documents provided by USAID/Bangladesh. These should include, but are not limited to, documents such as the Bangladesh 6th & 7th Five Year Plans, Country Investment Plan, Bangladesh Feed the Future Multiyear Strategy as well as other relevant national strategies and policies. USAID, BMEL, and LGED will provide the assessment team with a package of briefing materials, including: ● USAID/Bangladesh Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2011-16 (Public version) ● Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) Bangladesh Country Plan ● USAID Bangladesh DO 2 PMP ● BAIDP original agreement and modifications, as appropriate ● Technical/Project proposal, LGED Brief-Ag Infrastructure June 2018 37 ● BAIDP MEL plan ● Project quarterly and annual reports, work plans and management reviews developed as part of routine monitoring ● Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), Quality Assurance Plan Roads, DRAFT3 ● Technical Specifications for Road & Road Structures, October 2013 (and later documents if available) ● Annual Procurement Plans ● Capacity Development Plan ● Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for BAIDP LGED ● Summary of Market-Other Infrastructure Projects ● Contacts of LGED ● LGED Strategic Approach ● Training database, module, reports – if any ● M&E/data collection tools ● Year-wise project expenditure ● Project Organogram ● DQA reports ● LGED Capacity Development Action Plan – UNOPS ● Maps of completed, ongoing and planned projects 7. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will consist of the following three key personnel. Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist: The Team Leader will: ● Have a post graduate degree in engineering, agronomy, economics, agribusiness, urban planning, or an applicable social sciences field. ● S/he will be an international expert and should have a minimum of 10 years of work experience. ● S/he should have demonstrated experience of leading at least two evaluations with similar scope and complexity within the last 5-6 years. Work experience with the host country government managed activities and Army Corps of Engineers is desired, but not required. ● S/he should have extensive experience in conducting quantitative and qualitative evaluations and strong experience in conducting evaluations of infrastructure projects. ● S/he must be familiar with USAID regulations and systems including performance monitoring and evaluation guidance. ● S/he must be familiar with USAID code 22 CFR 216 and ADS 204. ● Experience in international donor development program management is preferred. ● Experience in evaluations and assessments in South Asia is preferred. ● Excellent oral and written skills in English are required Relevant experience in Bangladesh or South Asia is preferred. The Team Leader will provide overall leadership for the team, and s/he will finalize the evaluation design, coordinate activities, arrange periodic meetings, consolidate individual input from team members, and coordinate the process of assembling the final findings and recommendations into 38 a high-quality document. S/he will lead the preparation and presentation of the key evaluation findings and recommendations to the USAID/Bangladesh team and major stakeholders. Agri-Business Expert (Bangladeshi): The Agri-Business Development Expert will: ● Have a postgraduate degree in economics, business, agriculture economics, agribusiness or social science or a relevant subject. ● S/he will be a Bangladeshi national with minimum 8-10 years of demonstrated experience with agricultural programs and business development in Bangladesh. ● S/he will have strong understanding about agriculture input markets, market information systems, and transportation related to agriculture. ● S/he will have strong knowledge in socio-economic assessments and program evaluation ● Good oral and written skills in English are required. S/he will participate in team meetings, key informant interviews, group meetings, site visits, and draft the sections of the report relevant to his/her expertise and role in the team. S/he will also participate in presenting the report to USAID or other stakeholders and be responsible for addressing pertinent comments provided by USAID/Bangladesh or other stakeholders. Civil Engineer (Bangladeshi): The Civil Engineer will: ● Have a BSc degree in civil engineering, construction technology, or related construction field. ● S/he will be a Bangladeshi national with a minimum of 10 years of experience evaluating quality assurance and whether the engineering systems, materials, equipment, products, and supporting processes conform to technical, safety, workload and customer requirements. ● S/he will have knowledge and skills in implementing and assessing site plans for roads, market centers and collection centers. ● Knowledge of USAID rules, regulations, and procedures in construction sector is desirable. ● S/he will have knowledge in program evaluations and assessments. ● Good oral and written skills in English are required. S/he will participate in team meetings, key informant interviews, group meetings, site visits, and draft the sections of the report relevant to his/her expertise and role in the team. S/he also will participate in presenting the report to USAID or other stakeholders and be responsible for addressing pertinent comments provided by USAID/BD or other stakeholders. Conflict of Interest All evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project being evaluated. USAID will provide the conflict of interest forms. Consultants who have worked with LGED and US Army Corps (USACE) in the last two years will not be considered. 39 8. SCHEDULE, LEVEL OF EFFORT, AND LOGISTICS Schedule Work is to be carried out over a period of approximately ten weeks, beginning in February 2019, with field work completed by the end of February 2019 or as soon as feasible and final report and close out concluding in April 2019. A six-day work week (Saturday-Thursday) is authorized for the evaluation team while in Bangladesh. The evaluation team will submit a work plan as part of the evaluation methodology proposal with timeline and develop a Gantt chart displaying the time periods during which activities occur. Pre-departure arrangements should include: travel approval; airline tickets; visa; lodging; work facility and vehicle transport arrangements; dates for meetings with USAID/Bangladesh EG staff and key contacts; in-country travel agenda; and accommodations. Estimated Level of Effort (LOE) Level of Efforts of Team Members by Task Deliverables Task/Deliverable Duration/LOE Days Team Leader Agri￾business Expert Civil Engineer Review background documents and home-based preparation work 6 4 4 Travel to Bangladesh 2 0 0 Team planning meeting and meeting with USAID 2 2 2 Development of Evaluation Work Plan (concurrent with document review and initial meetings) 2 2 2 Development of data collection instruments 7 4 4 Information and data collection: Includes interviews with key informants (stakeholders and USAID staff) and site visits 20 20 20 Discussion, analysis, and preliminary draft evaluation report in country including discussion with USAID 10 10 10 Debrief meetings with USAID (preliminary draft report due to USAID) 1 1 1 Depart Bangladesh/Travel to U.S. 2 0 0 Finalization of draft and internal review (out of country) 7 4 4 Team revises draft report and submits final to USAID (out of country) 5 2 2 Total Estimated LOE 64 49 49 Logistics USAID/Bangladesh’s BMEL activity will be responsible for all offshore and in-country administrative and logistical support, including identification and fielding appropriate local staff. The BMEL team will arrange and schedule meetings, international and local travel, hotel bookings, briefing with stakeholders’ security officials, working/office spaces, computers, printing, and photocopying. BMEL will also be responsible for hiring a Note Taker who will assist the team in conducting FGDs, KIIs, mini surveys, etc. by taking notes as appropriate. In addition, if required by the evaluation team’s methodology, BMEL will hire a local research/survey firm to conduct a survey in Bangladesh. 40 IX. DELIVERABLES All deliverables are internal to USAID and the evaluation team unless otherwise instructed by USAID. Evaluation deliverables are indicated below: Work Plan: Prior to initiation of the evaluation activities, the evaluation team will provide a detailed initial work plan to the BMEL COR. The BMEL COR will provide any necessary feedback or edits to the work plan, after which the evaluation team will have three days to submit a final version of the document. The initial work plan will include a task timeline, a description of the methodology to answer each evaluation question, team responsibilities, document review process, key informant and stakeholder meetings, site visits, survey implementation (if applicable), data analysis, travel time, debriefings (for USAID, implementing partner, and relevant GOB officials), and draft and final report writing. The work plan will be submitted to the BMEL COR at USAID/Bangladesh for approval no later than the fifth business day after the evaluation team leader arrives in Bangladesh. In-briefing Meeting: The evaluation team will meet with USAID/Bangladesh within two working days of the international team member’s arrival in Bangladesh. Evaluation Design Matrix: The matrix is a table that lists each evaluation question and the corresponding information sought information sources, data analysis methods, and limitations. The matrix should be finalized and shared with USAID/Bangladesh as part of the Work Plan. It should also be included as an annex in the evaluation report. Data Collection Instruments: The evaluation team will develop and submit data collection instruments to USAID/Bangladesh as part of the Work Plan and included as an annex in the evaluation report. Regular Updates: The Evaluation Team Leader will brief the BMEL COR, the BMEL COP, and any other designated evaluation POC on progress with the evaluation on at least a weekly basis, by electronic communication. Any delays must be quickly communicated to USAID/Bangladesh as early as possible to allow quick resolution and to minimize any disruptions to the evaluation. Emerging opportunities to strengthen the evaluation should also be discussed with the COR as they arise. Preliminary Draft Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will submit a Preliminary Draft Evaluation Report to the BMEL COR three working days before the Mission debriefing. Within two working days after receipt, USAID staff will provide preliminary comments prior to the Mission debriefing. Debriefing with USAID: The evaluation team will present the major evaluation findings in person to USAID/Bangladesh through a PowerPoint presentation before the team’s departure from Bangladesh. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and issues as well as any preliminary findings. The team will consider USAID comments and incorporate them as appropriate in the Draft Evaluation Report. Draft Evaluation Report: A draft report on the findings and recommendations should be submitted to USAID/Bangladesh within 10 business days after departure of the international team member from Bangladesh. The written report should clearly describe and present findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The draft report must be of high quality with no grammatical errors or typos. A report is high quality when it represents a thoughtful, well-researched, and well￾organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why. The 41 draft report must have well-constructed sentences that are presented in a way that clearly presents findings, conclusions and recommendations. The report should answer all the evaluation questions and the structure of the report should make it clear how the questions were answered. The draft report must meet the criteria set forth under the Final Report section below. USAID will provide comments on the draft report within ten working days of submission. Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will submit the Final Evaluation Report that incorporates Mission comments and suggestions no later than ten working days after USAID/Bangladesh provides written comments on the Draft Evaluation report. The format of the final report is provided below. The report will be submitted electronically in English. The final report should meet the following criteria to ensure the quality of the report: ● The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why. ● Evaluation report shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work. ● The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the BMEL COR. ● Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report. ● Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, etc.). ● Evaluation findings should be based on an analysis of collected data. Limitations and assumptions associated with the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data and analysis must be clearly articulated. ● Findings should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. ● Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex. ● Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings. ● Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The total pages of the final report, excluding Table of Contents, acronyms, references, and annexes, should be no more than 30 pages. The following content (and suggested length) should be included in the report: ● Table of Contents ● List of Acronyms ● Executive Summary – concisely state the project purpose and background, key evaluation questions, methods, most salient findings and recommendations (2-3 pp.); ● Introduction – country context, including a summary of any relevant history, demography, socio-economic status, etc. (1 p.); ● The Development Problem and USAID’s Response – brief overview of the development problem and USAID’s strategic response, including design and implementation of the AIP 42 project and any previous USAID projects implemented in response to the problem, (2-3 pp.); ● Purpose of the Evaluation – purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 p.); ● Evaluation Methodology – describe evaluation and analytical methods, including strengths, assumptions, constraints, and data gaps (1-2 pp.); ● Findings and Conclusions – describe and analyze findings for each evaluation question using graphs, figures, and tables, as applicable, and include data quality and data sources, issues, and outcomes. Conclusions should be credible and should be supported by the findings (12-15 pp.); ● Recommendations – prioritized for each evaluation question; should be separate from conclusions and be supported by clearly defined set of findings and conclusions. Include recommendations for future project implementation or relevant program designs (2-3 pp.); ● Lessons Learned – provide a brief of key technical and/or administrative lessons on what has worked, not worked, and why for future project or program designs (2-3 pp.); ● Annexes – to include statement of work, documents reviewed, bibliographical documentation, evaluation methods, data generated from the evaluation, tools used, interview lists, meetings, FGDs, surveys, and tables. The Evaluation Design Matrix must be presented as an annex to the report. GIS maps and photos of all the infrastructure work assessed must be included with appropriate labels and captions. Annexes should be succinct, pertinent, and readable. Annexes should also include, if necessary, a statement of significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, or members of the evaluation team on any of the findings or recommendations. The report format should be restricted to Microsoft products and 12-point type font should be used throughout the body of the report, with page margins one-inch top/bottom and left/right. The final report will be edited and formatted by the evaluation team and provided to USAID/Bangladesh five working days after the Mission has reviewed the content and approved the final revised version of the report. A second, public version of the evaluation report, excluding any potentially procurement-sensitive or host country-sensitive information, will be submitted (also electronically, in English) to the Development Experience Clearing (DEC) and disseminated among implementing partners and other stakeholders within ten working days following approval from USAID. All quantitative data, if gathered, should be 1) provided in an electronic file in an easily readable format; 2) organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation; 3) owned by USAID and made available to the public barring rare exceptions and excluding procurement-sensitive information. A thumb drive with all the data could be provided to the BMEL COR. XII. Budget To be submitted by the Contractor for USAID approval. 43 ANNEX 2: EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX 44 Evaluation Questions Indicators/Sub-Topics Data Sources Data Collection Tools Data Analysis Methods EQ 1: To what extent has the BAIDP activity been able to meet its overall objective? To what extent has the BAIDP activity been able to meet its overall objective? Increased Farmer Access to Markets and Improve Agricultural Production Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions FTF Strategy BAIDP sites baseline information BAIDP Annual Surveys USAID FTF projects UNOPS documents KIIs and FGDs with USAID, LGED, USACE, beneficiaries, field visits Mini-survey Desk review, KIIs, FGDs, mini-survey Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification, with data gender disaggregated. Status and achievement of rural feeder roads rehabilitation and renovation work as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments) Kilometers of roads improved or constructed (M&E Plan) 140 km roads in Agreement 2013; amended to 100 km in 2016 USACE Quality Certifications Cost per km comparisons to market, ADB, and other donors involved Activity Agreement and Amendments LGED Progress Reports USAID, USACE, LGED Milestone Reports, IOs USAID, LGED, field visits in selected upazilas KII with contractors Audit reports (if available) USAID project tracker DQA reports IOs Desk review including Technical Specification of Roads and Road Structures, MEL Plan, KIIs, FGDs, observations captured in writing or photographs Analysis of data focused on visual evidence from field visits and written reports. Analysis will involve verification of reported evidence with actual evidence collected in the field, comparison of targets versus achievements, review of project milestones, and analysis of data to understand results. 45 Evaluation Questions Indicators/Sub-Topics Data Sources Data Collection Tools Data Analysis Methods Status and achievement of construction of new and/or improvement of existing rural MCs and CCs as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments) 40 MCs in Agreement 2013, amended to 10 in Amendment 2016; 40 CCs in Agreement 2013, amended to 10 in Amendment 2016 USAID, LGED, field visits in selected upazilas Activity Agreement and Amendments BAIDP M&E Plan LGED Progress Reports USAID, USACE, LGED Milestone Reports, IOs USAID, LGED, field visits in selected upazilas KII with contractors Audit reports (if available) USAID project tracker IOs Desk review, MEL Plan, KIIs, FGDs, observations captured in writing or photographs Analysis of data focused on visual evidence from field visits and written reports. Analysis will involve verification of reported evidence with actual evidence collected in the field, comparison of targets versus achievements, review of project milestones, and analysis of data to understand results. Status and achievement of the irrigation and drainage systems improvement work as per the target in the agreement (original and amendments) 2,000 ha in the 2013 Agreement, reduced to 1,000 ha in the 2016 Amendment Quality certificates LGED Reports USAID, LGED, field visits in selected upazilas Activity Agreement and Amendments BAIDP M&E Plan LGED Progress Reports USAID, USACE, LGED Milestone Reports, IOs USAID, LGED, field visits in selected upazilas KII with contractors Audit reports IOs Desk review, MEL Plan, KIIs, FGDs, observations captured in writing or photographs Analysis of data focused on visual evidence from field visits and written reports. Analysis will involve verification of reported evidence with actual evidence collected in the field, comparison of targets versus achievements, review of project milestones, and analysis of data to understand results. 46 Evaluation Questions Indicators/Sub-Topics Data Sources Data Collection Tools Data Analysis Methods Status of the management and maintenance plans for remaining projects to be completed by December 2019. (Note: Roads and irrigation/drainage systems will be measured by the ET.) Projects in operational conditions and regularly maintained USAID, LGED at national and regional levels Activity Agreement and Amendments BAIDP M&E Plan LGED Progress Reports USAID, USACE, LGED Milestone Reports, IOs USAID, LGED, field visits in selected upazilas KII with contractors Maintenance reports Desk review, MEL Plan, KIIs, observations captured in writing or photographs Analysis of data focused on visual evidence from field visits and written reports. Analysis will involve verification of reported evidence with actual evidence collected in the field, comparison of targets versus achievements, review of project milestones, and analysis of data to understand results. EQ 2: How effective have the improved rural roads, MCs, and CCs been in promoting and increasing agricultural trade in the working areas? How effective have the improved rural roads, MCs, and CCs been in promoting and increasing agricultural trade in the working areas? Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services now operating more profitably (at or above cost) because of USG assistance ACME Case Study 2019 USAID, LGED at national and regional level, beneficiaries, field visits Donor reports Desk review, KIIs, FGDs, MEL Plan, mini-survey Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification, with data gender disaggregated. Descriptive statistical analysis of mini-survey responses. 47 Evaluation Questions Indicators/Sub-Topics Data Sources Data Collection Tools Data Analysis Methods EQ 3: How effective has the BAIDP activity been in improving and/or changing LGED’s procurement processes? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Will these remain sustainable beyond the activity period? How effective has the BAIDP activity been in improving and/or changing LGED’s procurement processes? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Bangladesh Procurement Laws Procurement standards Procurement procedures in place and used Evidence of fair, transparent competition and quality/cost-effective offers Procurement training plans and reports Number of individuals who have received USG supported training USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Legislation Manuals Procedures documents UNOPS documents KII with relevant LGED officials Desk review including Annual Procurement Plans, KIIs, FGDs, MEL Plan, mini-survey Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification, with data gender disaggregated. Descriptive statistical analysis of mini-survey responses. Will these remain sustainable beyond the activity period? Procurement plans Procurement procedures Procurement manuals Contractor feedback USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Donor reports KII with relevant LGED officials Desk review of all relevant documents, KIIs Analysis of such data will focus on triangulating KIIs’ perspectives on the issue and indicators or proxies that point toward potential sustainability. Will these practices remain sustainable beyond the activity period? Please provide a detailed assessment of the LGED capacity development plan. Adequacy of staffing levels Compliance training in place Resources available to enforce compliance USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Desk review of all relevant documents, KIIs Analysis of such data will focus on triangulating KIIs’ perspectives on the issue and indicators or proxies that point toward potential sustainability. 48 Evaluation Questions Indicators/Sub-Topics Data Sources Data Collection Tools Data Analysis Methods EQ 4: How effective have the USAID capacity-building initiatives been in terms of having LGED being more compliant with standard construction procedures, e.g., environmental compliance/road safety compliance/labor health compliance? To what extent have these been institutionalized? Will these practices remain sustainable beyond the activity period? Please provide a detailed assessment of the LGED CDP. How effective have the USAID capacity-building initiatives been in terms of having LGED being more compliant with standard construction procedures, e.g., environmental compliance/road safety compliance/labor health compliance? To what extent have these been institutionalized? LGED and local IP staff awareness of environmental compliance/road safety compliance/labor health compliance standards Degree of compliance of physically observed roads USACE compliance assessments Number of individuals who have received USG supported training USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Milestone reports Progress reports Environment compliance reports KII interviews (including laborers) Desk review including Capacity Development Plan, EMMP, Quality Assurance Plan Roads, DRAFT3, KIIs, FGDs, MEL Plan, mini-survey Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification. Data will be disaggregated by gender. Descriptive statistical analysis of mini￾survey responses. EQ 5: What challenges has BAIDP faced in implementing its activities and how has it responded to those challenges? Are there any recommended alternatives to these approaches? What challenges has BAIDP faced in implementing its activities and how has it responded to those challenges? Are there any recommended alternatives to these approaches? Implementation timeliness Resources use Response to delays Response to non￾compliance Budget and expenditure management Recommendations to be developed in the Evaluation Report USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Activity Agreement and Amendments BAIDP M&E Plan LGED Progress Reports USAID, USACE, LGED Milestone Reports, IOs USAID, LGED, field visits in selected upazilas Desk review of all relevant documents, KIIs, FGDs Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification, with data gender disaggregated. 49 Evaluation Questions Indicators/Sub-Topics Data Sources Data Collection Tools Data Analysis Methods EQ 6: How has LGED’s ability to complete the projects on time and within budget changed during the course of this activity? What factors may have delayed completion of these contracts? How has LGED’s ability to complete the projects on time and within budget changed during the course of this activity? What factors may have delayed completion of these contracts? Staff qualifications Clarity of procedures LGED capacity to manage multiple donors’ conditional support Quality of contractors Competition degree USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Progress reports USACE reports and KIIs Desk review of all relevant documents, KIIs Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification, with data gender disaggregated. EQ 7: Has there been an impact on LGED's ability to receive and implement additional activities funded by other donors as a result of BAIDP? Has there been an impact on LGED’s ability to receive and implement additional activities funded by other donors as a result of BAIDP? LGED progress on GOB, ADB, Department for International Development (DFID) and other donors’ projects USAID, LGED, project documents Donor reports Desk review of all relevant documents, KIIs Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification, with data gender disaggregated. EQ 8: How effective has the infrastructure maintenance and repair plan been by BAIDP? How effective has the infrastructure maintenance and repair plan been by BAIDP? Physical condition of the infrastructure objects Adequacy of planning and resources Regularity of maintenance Compliance with USACE standards USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Desk review of all relevant documents, KIIs, FGDs Analysis of data focused on review of objectives, results, recommendations for future planning, and implementation. Analysis of qualitative data will involve coding and grouping responses and pattern identification, with data gender disaggregated. 50 Evaluation Questions Indicators/Sub-Topics Data Sources Data Collection Tools Data Analysis Methods EQ 9: What have been some of the major socio-economic benefits of the BAIDP infrastructure for the surrounding communities? Will these benefits sustain beyond the life of the activity? (The contractor should build on an existing case study.) What have been some of the major socio-economic benefits of the BAIDP infrastructure for the surrounding communities? Will these benefits sustain beyond the life of the activity? (The contractor should build on an existing case study.) Food availability Incomes Sales Improved access to schools, health centers Access to banks and financial institutions Social services accessibility ACME Case Study 2019 USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents Desk review of existing studies and all relevant documents, KIIs, FGDs Analysis of data will be used to detail an existing case study. Case study analysis will account for potential differences between women and men. EQ 10: What caused original milestones to be reduced? What caused a three-year extension? Where is LGED on implementing the final projects (as of January 31, 2019)? What caused original milestones to be reduced? What caused a three-year extension? Where is LGED on implementing the final projects (as of January 31, 2019)? Reports on progress to date Projections/plans till the end of 2019 Rate of implementation during active years (2016- 2018) USAID, LGED at national and regional level, project documents KII with USAID project manager Desk review of all relevant documents, KIIs, MEL Plan Analysis of data will focus on planning, critical assumptions, and natural or man-made events that could have affected change in milestones. 51 ANNEX 3: EVALUATION TOOLS Questionnaire for KII – Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO)/Upazlia Chairman Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from this project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? ● Are you aware of the USAID roads project? ● Has the project had any impact on local economic development in terms of road renovation, establishment of market centers (MCs), and collection centers (CCs)? ● Has the project been beneficial for the transportation system in the locality? ● Has the project had an impact on agricultural market development and access to markets and irrigation systems? ● Have you visited any of the project sites? Your impressions? ● What is your opinion of the USAID roads project and its impact on local economic development? 52 Questionnaire for KII – Upazila Engineer Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? ● Are you aware of the USAID roads project? ● How do you select locations for roads, market centers (MCs), or collection centers (CCs)? ● Does the project have any impact on local economic development in terms of road renovation, establishment of MCs and CCs? ● What are the operating procedures for CCs and MCs? Are there any committees, open every day, etc.? ● Are the CCs and/or MCs connected with utility services, e.g., electricity and water and, if so, who covers the cost? ● How are the operations of CCs and/or MCs managed as related to maintenance or repairing work? Managed financially (levies, fees, sales commissions/level of utilization)? ● What is the impact of renovated roads, CCs, and/or MCs on local markets, transportation, education health, agriculture, trade, and other types of business? ● What impact have BAIDP construction projects had on women and disadvantaged people—people with disabilities? ● What are the opportunities and challenges of the intervention for development of infrastructure projects, including roads, MCs, and CCs? ● Does the project beneficial the transportation system in the locality? ● Does the project have an impact on agricultural market development and access to market and irrigation systems? ● Have you had a chance to visit any of the project sites? Impressions? ● What is your opinion of the USAID roads project and its impact on local economic development? 53 Questionnaire for KII - Transporters Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? Questions for Transporters: ● How long have you been driving vehicles on this road? ● What type of vehicles run most frequently on this road? ● What types of passengers/goods do you usually carry? ● Do you think the number of vehicles using this road is increasing? ● Do you know when the road was improved? ● Has the road improvement been beneficial for you? ● Before renovation of this road, were you engaged in transportation or another line of work? ● Do you think your income has been raised due to the improved road? If yes, what percentage per month? ● Do the farmers typically carry their own agricultural products? ● Do you think the cost of transportation for farmers was reduced prior to this road being renovated? If so, how? ● Do you think students are going to school due to this road and transportation options? ● Do you think people are going to health centers more easily after road renovation? ● Has the cost of transportation been reduced due to the improved road conditions? If so, how much (%)? 54 Questionnaire for KII – FTF Project Implementing Partners Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the Bangladesh Feed the Future Agriculture Infrastructure Development (BAIDP) project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from BAIDP. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? ● What is the name of your project? ● When did the project start and end? ● Are you aware of BAIDP, an FTF project of USAID working in this area with LGED? ● Have seen any roads or collection centers (CCs) or market centers (MCs) constructed by the BAIDP project? ● If so, have you visited any? ● Based upon your knowledge of the BAIDP project, what benefits would you believe the project can produce? Income, livelihoods, agricultural production, health, education, any others? ● Do you have any suggestions as to where BAIDP should build a CC/MC or renovate a road? ● Have you been present at any of the BAIDP project meetings? ● Does your project work in the BAIDP areas (Jashore, Jheniadha) Any Suggestions? Comments? 55 Questionnaires for KIIs – Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the Bangladesh Feed the Future Agriculture Infrastructure Development (BAIDP) project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from BAIDP. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? ● What are the major crops grown in this area? ● Which crops are most commercially valuable to the farmers? ● How are crops marketed now? ● Are crops being marketing any differently now versus three years ago? ● How are farmers mitigating irrigation requirements during dry season? ● Has there been any change in the past three years in irrigation requirement mitigation? ● Have the roads in this area been renovated by USAID? ● If so, are the renovated roads beneficial for the farmers? ● Can you tell us about the impact of renovated roads on market access for farmers? ● What was the scenario before road renovation and now? Examples? ● Do farmers have access to market centers (MCs)? ● If so, how do farmers and traders benefit from MCs? ● Have you visited any MC or CC in this area? ● If so, are those facilities used by the local communities and farmers? ● Do the CCs work properly and for the benefit of farmers? ● Do you think farmers have managed to reduce transportation costs using renovated roads and MCs and CCs? ● Have farmers reduced wastage of crops due to a good road and availability of transport facilities? 56 ● Are the locations of MCs and CCs accessible to local farmers and traders? ● Have improved roads had any impact on transportation costs? If so, how? ● Other than farmers and traders, who else might benefit from renovated roads, MCs, and/or CCs? ● What is the impact on markets, transportation, education, health, agriculture, trade, business, others? ● What impact have renovated roads had upon women disadvantaged people—people with disabilities? 57 Questionnaire for KII – UNOPS Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the Bangladesh Feed the Future Agriculture Infrastructure Development (BAIDP) project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from BAIDP. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? ● What was the nature of cooperation between the USAID and UNOPS within the OCD/BAIDP project? (OCD = organizational capacity development) ● How would you describe the cooperation between UNOPS and USAID, technically, procedurally, etc.? Successes? Challenges? ● How many organizations did UNOPS support within the OCD Project besides LGED? Briefly describe the nature of each. ● How was the OCD organized with LGED? Was it incorporated in their internal processes/policies/procedures? Or standalone? ● How was the LGED Capacity Plan 2014 developed? Participatory? ● Who monitors the Plan’s implementation and adjustment? ● What were the key challenges/successes of LGED OCD? ● Can you briefly describe the budget management, policy capacity, implementation and procurement reform, monitoring and evaluation, innovation, science and technology, and talent management capacities of LGED? ● What should be done to improve LGED capacity in the future, including managing donor funds/projects? ● What are the lessons learned through OCD of LGED and other organizations you supported? 58 FGD with Farmers Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Start Time End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? ● How long you have been living in this area? ● What types of crops you are producing? ● Do you remember when this road/MC/CC was repaired? ● Have you benefited from the improved road and MC/CC? ● How frequently (weekly) do you use this road and MC/CC? ● Do you get adequate numbers of the traders purchasing produce here from MC/CC? ● Do you have any complaints about/problems with this road and MC/CC? ● What are the opportunities you see to use this road and MC/CC? ● Do you get benefits from the improved road? If so, what are those benefits? ● Does the road connection reduce any transportation cost? If yes, how much (%)? ● How do you travel to purchase daily essentials? Now and before. ● How far you go for purchasing daily essentials (km)? Now and before. ● What is your transportation cost to visit the nearby market? Now and before. ● How much time is required to reach the market and return back home? Now and before. ● Where do you sell your products? MCs/CCs? Now and before. o How frequently do you visit the following facilities (weekly)? Now and before. Health centers; Agriculture department; Markets; Relatives; Others. ● What were the problems you used to face before when the roads were unpaved, and the CC was in its dilapidated condition? ● What are the benefits of the improved roads and MC and/or CCs that you enjoy now? 59 Questionnaire for FGD/KII – Agribusiness Traders Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? ● How long you have been doing business in this area? ● What type of trading or business you do here? ● Do you remember when this road/market center (MC)/collection center (CC) was repaired? ● Have you benefited from the improved road and MC/CC? ● How frequently (weekly) do you use this road and MC/CC? ● Do you get adequate numbers of farmers bringing produce here to sell in the MC/CC? ● Do you have any complaints about/problems with this road and MC/CC?? ● What are the opportunities you see concerning this road and MC/CC?? ● Do you get benefits from the improved road? What are those benefits? ● Does the road connection reduce any transportation cost? If yes, how much (%)? ● What were the problems you used to face before when the roads were unpaved, and the CC was in its dilapidated condition? ● What are the benefits of the improved roads and MCs/CCs that you enjoy now? ● Do you get an adequate number of the farmers and next level buyers in this MC/CC? ● Did you trade large quantities prior to the road being improved or the developments of a MC or CC? ● Are the number of farmers and other traders increasing? ● Do the traders purchase produce/products directly from farmers? ● Do you have more buyers then before? ● Do you make more profit then earlier? 60 ● Do you get more fresh produce than earlier direct from Farmers? ● What type of vehicle you use for transportation? Motor, auto, others? ● Is your transportation cost reduced than before the improved road, MC, or CC? ● What is your distance for purchase and also for sale? ● Has the percentage of waste produce been reduced due to the improved road or CC/MC? If so, how much? 61 FGD with Local Community Members Participants: ● Local community people – Farmers (male and female): 4-5 ● Transporters – Owner of the vehicle and driver: 2 ● Market actors – Traders, vendors, market committee member: 2-3 ● School teacher: 1 ● Consumers: 2-3 ● Total 8-10 Place: Convenient place, e.g., school, building, tea stall Duration: Around 60 minutes Tools/Instruments: Checklist/Guideline/Questionnaire Number of FGDs per Day: One FGD in each day Total FGD: 15 (10 will be along with roads) 5 for Market Centers and Collection Centers Sampling Method: Purposive sampling techniques Contractor for Road, Markets, and Collection Centers Mini Survey: ● Will start before FGD facilitation with same participants, one-by-one individual questions ● Target respondents: 100 Representative from other departments: ● UNO or representative ● DAE representative – UAO, UAEO ● Local Elected representative – Upazila Chairman, UP Chairman or Members ● Any Association Representative ● Market Committee representative ● Collection Center Committee member (if) ● School teacher in the locality (if) ● Health department ● Education department ● Union Parishad Chairman or Representative ● Transport Vehicle owner or if any association representative ● Drivers of the transports ● Contractors of infrastructures construction ● Other project, donor representative ● Others 62 FGD with Consumers of the MC and CC Living in the Locality Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview Use separate sheet for attendance . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? 1. Could you tell us about changes that have improved your life as individuals, families, and community in the last 2-3 years? a. [If no one mentions the road/market and/or collection center probe] How about the road [name], market [name], collection[center]? Would you say that this has improved your life? 2. Think about your life prior to construction of this road, MC and/or CC. Could you describe how this road and/or MC/CC has improved your life? a. [Probe 1] Before the improvement of the MC/CC, did you come to the same MC/CC or a different one? b. [If different probe] What made you come to this MC/CC? c. [If the same MC/CC] How has this market changed? i. Safer construction ii. Cleaner iii. Healthier iv. Busier v. Easier access due to the reconstructed road (if one) 63 d. [Probe 2, if probe 1 did not elicit sufficient information] Could you compare this MC/CC to the one you come before (whether different or the same)? i. [If not enough comparisons] Could you tell us about problems you faced before that you are not facing now due to this MC/CC? ii. How about the number of traders? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. iii. How about quantity or quality or produce? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. iv. How about safety of produce? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. v. How about socializing, getting news? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. vi. How about the number of women? Are there more or less? vii. How about people with disability (PwD)? Do you know any examples of PwD whose lives have improved? e. [Probe 3, specific to road improvement] Could you compare the road now to the one before? What changes did this road bring to you and your family’s life? i. [If not enough comparisons] Could you tell us about problems you faced before that you are not facing now due to this new road? ii. How about the number of traders? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. iii. How about quantity or quality or produce? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. iv. How about safety of produce? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. v. How about socializing, getting news? Has it increased or decreased? Tell us about it. vi. How about the number of women? Are there more or less? vii. How about access to health care/mother and child pre-post-natal care? viii. How about access to school/more children go to school/more girls go to school? ix. How about PwD? Do you know any examples of PwD whose lives have improved? 3. Could you describe any negative effects associated with this road/MC/CC? a. [Probe 1] How about the distance travelled? More or less? b. How about the safety of road on the way? More or less traffic, more or less road crashes? Is it more or less safe for PwD? c. How about the safety of MC/CC construction? d. Any possibility for expansion if the MC/CC too small? e. How about problems that may have not been resolved? 4. Think about the time before the MC/CC was built. How did you learn about the MC/CC construction? a. [Probe 1] Have you heard about or participated in any consultations of the LGED with the villagers about this MC/CC? 64 b. [If yes, probe] What were these consultations about? c. [If not, probe] What would your suggestions have been, if there had been or you had participated in a consultation? 5. Think about your family in general and children in particular. What would be the number one change that could improve your children’s well-being today? 6. Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we discussed today? Thank you for taking your time to talk with us today. We want to emphasize that this information will remain confidential. 65 Questionnaire for KII/FGD – Agribusiness Traders/Farmers Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? 1. Could you tell us about two important changes that have improved your trade/work in the last 2-3 years? a. [If no one mentions the road/market and/or collection center probe] How about the road [name], market [name], collection[center]? In what ways would you say that this change has improved your trade/work? 2. Think about your trade prior to construction of this road, MC and/or CC. Could you describe how this road and/or MC/CC has improved it? a. [Probe 1] Before the construction/improvement of the MC/CC, did you come to the same MC/CC or a different one? b. [If different probe] What made you come to this MC/CC? i. Safer construction ii. Cleaner iii. Healthier iv. More consumers and middlemen v. Easier access due to the reconstructed road (if one) 3. Could you describe the ways this MC/CC has improved your business? [Probes] 66 a. Could you tell us about problems you faced before that you are not facing now due to this MC/CC? b. Could you describe how this MC/CC has affected the quality of your products compared to before its construction? How about the quantity? c. What has happened to your sales? Have they increased compared to the old/other MC/CC? d. How about safety of produce? Has it improved its construction compared to before? Tell us about it. e. How has the number of middlemen affected your sales compared to before MC/CC construction? f. To wrap up this topic, has your profit increased compared to before MC/CC construction? [If yes,] How does this profit increase affect your trade/work? How does it affect your family well-being? 4. Could you compare the road now to the one before? What changes did this road bring to your business and your family’s life? [Probe, if not enough comparisons] a. Could you tell us about problems you faced before that you are not facing now due to this new road? b. Could you describe how this road has affected the quality of your products compared to before its construction? How about the quantity? c. What has happened to your sales? Have they increased compared to before road reconstruction? d. How about safety of produce? Has it improved compared to before road reconstruction? Tell us about it. e. How has the number of middlemen affected your sales compared to before MC/CC construction? f. To wrap up this topic, has your profit increased compared to before MC/CC construction? [If yes,] How does this profit increase affect your trade/work? How does it affect your family well-being? 5. Could you describe any negative effects associated with this road/MC/CC? [Probe] a. How about the distance travelled? More or less? b. How about the safety of road on the way? More or less traffic, more or less road crashes? Is it more or less safe for PwD? c. How about the safety of road/MC/CC construction? d. Any possibility for expansion if the MC/CC is too small? e. Is the road still in a good condition? f. How about problems that may have not been resolved? 6. Think about the time before the road/MC/CC was built. How did you learn about the MC/CC construction? a. [Probe 1] Have you heard about or participated in any consultations of the LGED with the villagers about this road/MC/CC? b. [If yes, probe] What were these consultations about? 67 c. [If not, probe] What would your suggestions have been, if there had been or you had participated in a consultation? 7. Think about your work (trading/farming). What would be the number one change that could improve your trading/farming today? 8. Think about your family in general and children in particular. What would be the number one change that could improve your family’s and children’s lives? 9. Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we discussed today? Thank you for taking your time to talk with us today. We want to emphasize that this information will remain confidential. 68 Questionnaire for KII/FGD – Agribusiness Women Farmers Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? 1. Could you tell us about two important changes that have improved your farming work in the last 2-3 years? a. [If no one mentions the road/market and/or collection center probe] How about the road [name], market [name], collection[center]? In what ways would you say that this change has improved your farming/work? 2. Think about your work prior to construction of this road, MC and/or CC. Could you describe how this road and/or MC/CC has improved your work/life as a woman compared to before construction? a. [Probe 1] Before the construction/improvement of the MC/CC, did you come to the same MC/CC or a different one? b. [If different probe] What made you come to this MC/CC? i. Safer construction ii. Cleaner iii. Healthier iv. More consumers and middlemen v. Easier access due to the reconstructed road (if one) vi. Safer access due to the road vii. Family less concerned with my safety due to the new road 69 3. Could you describe the ways this MC/CC has improved your business as a woman? [Probe] a. Could you tell us about problems you faced before that you are not facing now due to this MC/CC? b. Could you describe how this MC/CC has affected the quality of your products compared to before its construction? How about the quantity? c. What has happened to your sales? Have they increased compared to the old/other MC/CC? d. How about safety of produce? Has it improved compared to before its construction? Tell us about it. e. How has the number of middlemen affected your sales compared to before MC/CC construction? f. Has your profit increased compared to before MC/CC construction? [If yes,] How does this profit increase affect your farming? How does it affect your family well￾being? 4. Could you compare the road now to the one before? What changes did this road bring to your business and your life as a woman? [Probe] a. [If not enough comparisons] Could you tell us about problems you faced before that you are not facing now due to this new road? b. Could you describe how this road has affected the quality of your products compared to before its construction? How about the quantity? c. What has happened to your sales, safety of products? Have they increased compared to before road reconstruction? d. How has the number of middlemen affected your sales compared to before MC/CC construction? e. Has your profit increased compared to before MC/CC construction? [If yes,] How does this profit increase affect your trade/work? How does it affect your family well-being? f. To wrap up this topic, has increased income (if so) affected your relations with family members? 5. Could you describe any negative effects associated with this road/MC/CC especially for women? [Probe] a. How about the distance travelled? More or less? b. How about the safety of road on the way? More or less traffic, more or less road crashes? Is it more or less safe for PwD? How about women? c. How about the safety of the road/MC/CC construction? d. Any possibility for expansion if the MC/CC is too small? e. Is the road still in good condition? f. How about problems that may have not been resolved? g. Are there any changes in the family relations due to this road/MC/CC that may have affected you negatively? 70 6. Think about the time before the road/MC/CC was built. How did you learn about the MC/CC construction? a. [Probe 1 ] Have you heard about or participated in any consultations of the LGED with the villagers about this road/MC/CC? b. [If yes, probe] What were these consultations about? c. [If not, probe] What would your suggestions have been, if there had been or you had participated in a consultation? 7. Think about yourself a woman farmer. What would be the number one change that could improve your work life today? 8. Think about your family and children in particular. What would be the number one change that could improve your family’s and children’s lives? 9. Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we discussed today? 71 Questionnaire for KII/FGD – Construction Contractors Names and Position/Occupation of Interviewees Name of Institution and Contacts # Male/Female Interviewees Date of Interview Location of Interview . . . . . Name of Interviewer/s Name of Note Taker Interview Start Time Interview End Time . . . . Thank you for participating in this interview. My name is ______ and I am a project evaluator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh. Our team is conducting an independent evaluation of the USAID roads project, which was launched in 2013 and will be completed in 2019. We are here today to talk to you as someone familiar with the project. Your views and the views of other respondents will help inform our recommendations about how future projects can learn from the project. We have prepared a few questions to guide our discussion, which will take approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. We encourage you to be as candid as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential; we will not use your name or title in our report. If there are any questions that you prefer not to answer just let us know and we will skip them. We would like to audio record this discussion to ensure that we accurately capture your views. This recording will be kept confidential. Do we have your consent to record? Do you have any questions before we begin? 1. Could you tell us about few most important changes that have been instituted by the LGED regarding work done as part of the BAIDP project? [If participants find it difficult to identify changes, probe] a. How about the procurement procedures? Was there anything different that you had to do that you are not doing for other LGED projects? b. How about technical standards? Was there anything different that you had to do that you are not doing for other LGED projects? c. How about monitoring of your work? Was there anything different that you had to do that you are not doing for other LGED projects? 2. Think about all changes that you just discussed. How have these changes affected your work? a. [Probe 1] Could you describe to us how specific changes have made your work easier? Can you illustrate with examples? b. [Probe 2] Could you describe how specific changes have improved the quality of your work? Can you illustrate with examples? c. [Probe 3] Could you describe how specific changes have being challenging to/created difficulty in your work? Can you illustrate with examples? 72 3. Think about the advantages and challenges that you just discussed. How would you define the overall outcome of these changes: more advantageous or more challenging? Why? 4. Could you describe your relationship with the communities where the (re)construction of roads/MC/CC was going on? a. [Probe 1] Did you have any meetings or contacts with surrounding communities prior to the start of this project? If yes, what were these meetings about? b. [Probe 2] Have you ever had/had consultation with communities for other projects commissioned by the LGED? c. [Probe 3] What do you think about consultations with the surrounding communities? Are they useful or not? 5. During LGED projects in general, does your company temporarily hire people from the areas where the project is implemented, or do you have permanent workers that travel to where the project is taking place? What hiring practice did you follow during implementation of the USAID funded projects? 6. What are the most important learning outcomes from this experience? 7. If you had the power to change one LGED practice in relation to contractors, what would that change be? 8. Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we discussed today? 73 Construction Site Assessment Tools for Engineers The Junior Field Engineer on BAIDP Evaluation team will physically observe/inspect the BAIDP project locations as per GPS coordinates received from LGED cross-checked with coordinates in all IOs. The Senior Engineer will guide the Junior Field Engineer in this work. The following information and protocols will guide this observation/inspection. 6.1 Types of BAIDP Infrastructures ● Construction and maintenance of roads (Road); ● Improvement/ reconstruction of market centers (MC); ● Improvement of collection centers (CC); and ● Improvement of irrigation/drainage, including re-excavation of irrigation canal and improvement of sluice gate (SG). 6.2 General Protocol for Assessment of Infrastructure During field assessment of all infrastructures, following general protocol has been planned for, however, the frequency and extent of work may need to be adjusted based on actual field conditions and findings: ● On-site assessment of all completed sub-projects will be conducted. ● The Bill of Quantities (BOQ) and specifications included in the bid documents will be used as the yardsticks to compare with the field conditions. ● All data and photos taken in the field will be recoded and reported with GPS coordinates. ● Materials sample, such as soil, aggregates, concrete, pavement cores, etc. will be collected, as deemed necessary, for at least 10 percent subprojects and tested preferably in LGED laboratories or any such competent laboratory. ● On a random basis, results of previous such laboratory tests done as part of QA/QC process will also be checked for comparison purpose. The number of such comparison will be dictated by the field observation and cannot be fixed beforehand. ● Any visually detectable problems related to material quality, construction fault, or other types will be reported. 6.3 Additional Protocol for Assessment of Roads ● Generally, on-site visual condition survey will be done preferably at an interval of about 300 to 400 meters. In case of specific heavily distressed locations, the interval will be less. ● Any detectable distresses, such as fatigue cracking, other cracks, rutting, pothole, flushing, raveling, shoulder drop-off, problems inside slope and protection work (if any), subgrade failure, etc., will be reported. ● If possible, the engineer will try to assess the actual annual average daily traffic (AADT) and the percentages of commercial/ heavy vehicles for about few subprojects. 6.4 Additional Protocol for Assessment of Market Centers and Collection Centers ● Any detectable problems, such as cracks, substandard materials mobilization or use, deviations from specification and/or design, etc., will be visually assessed and reported. 74 6.5 Additional Protocol for Assessment of Irrigation/Drainage Infrastructure ● The work quality and effectiveness of the drainage facilities (road-side or off-road) and culverts will be visually assessed and reported. ● The work quality and effectiveness of the irrigation facilities such as sluice gates and canal(s) and will be visually assessed and reported. ● Dumping places of excavated materials will be visited and assessed for any deviation from contracted arrangements. 6.6 Suggested Checks for Infrastructure Sub-projects (as applicable, but not limited to) (a) Road Embankment, Subgrade, Sub-Base, Base/ WBM, Brick on edge, Bituminous Base (if any), Bituminous Carpeting, Seal coat (Chip seal), Mixing plant (type and condition), Status of temperature control for mixing and compaction (if ongoing), Width of road, Layer thickness(es), Quality of bituminous layer (surface smoothness, color, integrity, compaction, etc.), Embankment (side) slope condition, Grass turfing, Drain condition, Guide wall, Slope protection work, Prime Coat, Tack Coat, Distresses (rutting, pothole, crack, etc.), HBB, Construction zone traffic management, Superelevation (check any negative banking), Roadside Signs (placement, quality, shape, color, conformance to standard, etc.), Road marking, Bridge repair work quality, Bridge approach road (road-bridge connection, any sign of depression or separation, etc.), Culvert (dimensions, works quality and status), Guide post (placement, quality, conformance to standard, etc.), Test Sample (type, amount, method, etc.), etc. (b) Market Center/Collection Center Property line, Boundary wall, Dimensions (Room size, Columns size, etc.), Reinforcement checking (diameter, placement, etc.), Concrete quality (production method, lab report, etc.), Brick work, Quality of Chips/Sand/Water, Concrete production quality, Joists/Supports, Other Structural Items, (CI sheet, steel structure, etc.), Electrical Items Checking (conduits, fan, wires, etc.), Mechanical Items (inserts, piping, etc.), Test Sample (type, amount, method, etc.), etc. (c) Irrigation Facility Property line, Earthwork in excavation of canals/khals, ponds, drains, etc. (depth, slope, dumping, leveling, etc.), Embankment (filling, benching, leveling, dressing, quality, etc.), Sluice gate/Water regulator operation (vertical lift gate/flap gate shutters, etc.), Dumping of Stone Boulders/CC blocks/Brick blocks/Sand Cement blocks, Reinforcement (diameter, placement, etc.), Concrete and RCC (production, lab report, etc.), Test Sample (type, amount, method, etc.), etc. 6.7 Infrastructure Assessment Form General template for Infrastructure Assessment Form is presented in the following page. 75 Bangladesh Agriculture Infrastructure Development Program (BAIDP) Assessment of Infrastructure Reported by: Visit Date: / /2019 District: Upazila: USAID ID: Infrastructure type: Length: km (if applicable) Project name: Contract no.: GPS Start (Lat., Long.): GPS End (Lat., Long.): Progress Status (as of March 2019): 100% complete, Final Bill Paid (FBP) Estimated cost: Taka Contract amount (revised): Taka Fund spent: Taka Contract date: / /2017 Scheduled completion date: / / Actual completion date: / / Documents checked (put “tick” mark): ● Implementation Orders (IOs) of USACE ● Tender (Bid) Document of LGED ● Tender Evaluation Documents ● Third party (Ecotech) certification documents ● Contractor’s Work Plan ● Lab Reports ● Documents related to: time extension, design change/variation, land problem, bill payment delays, etc. ● Any other document: Any other information: ………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 76 Coordinates Location Findings Photo Log km ● ● . ● . ● . -01 km ● ● . ● . ● . -02 km ● ● . ● . ● . -03 km ● ● . ● . ● . -04 Other Findings/Recommendations: ………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77 ANNEX 4: MINI-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND SELECTED DATA 78 79 80 81 82 Data for Figure 4: Improved Farm Inputs and Increased Local Businesses . Q3 Q11 Q16 Q18 Answer Choices Travel Frequency Access to Farm Inputs Cost of Transportation Number of Local Businesses More 95.3% 98.1% 6.1% 99.2% Less 4.7% 0.0% 93.1% 0.8% Same 0.0% 1.9% 0.8% 0.0% Data for Figure 5: Decreased Waste, Increased Sales and Profits Question Factor Before Improvement After Improvement Percentage Change Q12 a, b Produce Wasted (kg) 10.2 3.1 -86% Q13 a, b Produce Sold (kg) 152.2 242.5 37% Q14 a, b Daily Profit (Tk) 578.5 1,015.9 43% Data for Figure 8: Reduced Travel Time and Increased Number of Traders Q6 Q7 Q9a Q9b Travel time (before) Travel time (after) Traders (before) Traders (after) 40.7 15.4 34.4 69.8 Average minutes Average minutes Average number Average number % Change -62.1% % Change 50.8% Data for Figure 11: Increased Use of Road and Site Visit Frequency Q4 Q5 Q8a Q8b Use this route 5+ days/week (before) Use this route 5+ days/week (after) Come to this site 5+ days/week (before) Come to this site 5+ days/week (after) 6.3% 88.4% 27.3% 77.3% % Change 92.9% % Change 64.7% Data for Figure 13: Increased Access to Healthcare . Q21 Q15B Q15C Answers Increased access to healthcare Easier and quicker access to healthcare Access to pre/post￾natal services More or Yes 97.7% 85.3% 79.0% Data for Figure 14: Increased Access to Education . Q19 Q15A Q15D Q15E Q20 Answers Easier access to school More money for education Quicker to get to school Safer for girls to go to school Sending more girls to school More or Yes 100% 66.4% 88.8% 77.6% 98.5% 83 ANNEX 5: LISTS OF KIIS AND FGDS USAID BAIDP Final Performance Evaluation - Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) # Institution Participants M F Location Dates 1 USAID BAIDP team - Senior Agricultural Advisor and Project Management Coordinator, EG Office Mitchell Nelson Nazmul Bhuiyan 2 . USAID Mission, Dhaka March 17, 2019 2 Project Director, BAIDP - LGED Md. Jasim Uddin 1 . LGED Office￾Agargaon-Dhaka March 18, 2019 3 Accountant, BAIDP-LGED SK. Aboul Basar 1 . LGED Office￾Agargaon-Dhaka March 21, 2019 4 Former OCD Team Leader, UNOPS Joy Jakasalem Balane . 1 Hotel Six Seasons, Dhaka March 21, 2019 5 Chairman, Ecotech Md. Rafiqul Alam 1 . Ecotech Office, Baridhara, Dhaka March 23, 2019 6 World Bank Rajesh Rohatgi 1 . World Bank Dhaka Office March 25, 2019 7 Executive Engineer LGED Nurjahan . 1 LGED Office, Agargaon, Dhaka March 25, 2019 8 Assistant Engineer LGED Md. Abul Basar 1 . LGED Office, Agargaon, Dhaka March 25, 2019 9 Upazila Agricultural Officer (UAO) Dipanker Das 1 . Jhikorgacha Upazila Office March 27, 2019 10 Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), Jhikorgacha Md. Jahidul Islam 1 . Jhikorgacha Upazila Office March 27, 2019 11 Union Chairman, Bagharpara Abu Said Sardar 1 . Bagharpara Upazila March 28, 2019 12 UNO, Kotchadpur-Upazila Taslima Akter (AC-Land) . 1 Kotchadpur Upazila Office March 31, 2019 13 LGED Upazila Engineer, Kotchadpur Upazila M.M Mamun Hasan 1 . Kotchadpur Upazila Office March 31, 2019 14 UAO, Kotchadpur Upazila Shaik Sazzad Hossein 1 . Kotchadpur Upazila Office March 31, 2019 15 Upazila Fisheries Officer (UFO), Kotchadpur Upazila Md. Jalal Uddin 1 . Kotchadpur Upazila Office March 31, 2019 16 Transporter Showkat Ali 1 . Khushna Union, Kotchadpur Upazila March 31, 2019 17 Shopkeeper MD. Sayed Ahmed 1 . Jashore Sadar Upazila March 31, 2019 18 Union Chairman, Keshobpur Upazila Md Habibur Rahman 1 . Gourighana Union, Keshebpur Upazila April 2, 2019 19 Contractor, Keshobpur Upazila Anisur Rahman 1 . Gourighana Union, Keshebpur Upazila April 2, 2019 20 UNO, Keshobpur Upazila Md. Enamul Hoque 1 . Keshobpur Upazila April 2, 2019 21 LGED Upazila Engineer, Keshobpur Upazila Md. Mansur Rahman 1 . Keshobpur Upazila April 2, 2019 22 Agricultural Officer Mahadev Chandra 1 . Keshobpur Upazila Office April 2, 2019 23 UFO, Keshobpur Upazila Md. Abdul Bari 1 . Keshobpur Upazila April 2, 2019 84 USAID BAIDP Final Performance Evaluation - Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) # Institution Participants M F Location Dates 24 Businessman-Negura Bazar Lutfur Rahman 1 . Negura Bazar, Monirampur Upazila April 3, 2019 25 Upazila Engineer Md. Abu Sufian 1 . Monirampur Upazila April 4, 2019 26 UNO Md. Ahsan Ullah 1 . Monirampur Upazila April 4, 2019 27 UFO Ripon Kumr Ghosh 1 . Monirampur Upazila April 4, 2019 28 Primary School Head Teacher Hasem Ali 1 . Jashore Sadar Upazila April 6, 2019 29 Transporter Moshier Rahman 1 . Jashore Sadar Upazila April 6, 2019 30 UNO Md. Shahimuzzaman 1 . Abhoynagar Upazila Office April 7, 2019 31 Contractor Matiur Rahman Nannu 1 . Abhoynagar Upazila April 7, 2019 32 LGED Upazila Engineer Kamrul Islam 1 . Abhoynagar Upazila Office April 7, 2019 33 Agricultural Officer Abdus Subahan 1 . Abhoynagar Upazila Office April 7, 2019 34 LGED Upazila Engineer Md. Rashedul Islam 1 . Chowgacha Upazila Office April 8, 2019 35 KII with UAO Roich Uddin 1 . Chowgacha Upazila Office April 8, 2019 36 UFO S.M. Shiraj 1 . Chowgacha Upazila Office April 8, 2019 37 UNO Md. Maruful Alam 1 . Chowgacha Upazila Office April 8, 2019 38 Union Chairman Md. Tota Mia 1 . Chowgacha Upazila Office April 8, 2019 39 Transporter Roki 1 . Bohila Pota, Chowgacha Upazila April 8, 2019 40 Contractor Mahidul Islam 1 . Bohila Pota, Chowgacha Upazila April 8, 2019 41 UFO Bisshojit Kumar 1 . Jashore Sadar Upazila April 9, 2019 42 LGED Upazila Engineer Saidur Rahman 1 . Jashore Sadar Upazila April 9, 2019 43 USACE Robert M. Leach 1 . Zabeer Hotel International, Jashore April 10, 2019 44 SAAO (Sub Asst: UAO) M.M Mahbubul Kashem 1 . Bagharpara Upazila April 10, 2019 45 UNO Md. Mizanur Rahman 1 . Bagharpara Upazila April 10, 2019 46 UFO Md. Monjurul Islam 1 . Bagharpara Upazila April 10, 2019 47 UAO Md. Zahidul Islam 1 . Bagharpara Upazila April 10, 2019 48 Contractor Bishajit Das 1 . Zabeer Hotel International, Jashore April 10, 2019 85 USAID BAIDP Final Performance Evaluation - Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) # Institution Participants M F Location Dates 49 Transporter Towhid Rahman 1 . Jashore Sadar Upazila April 11, 2019 50 LGED Upazila Engineer Md. Sanaul Haque 1 . Kaliganj Upazila April 15, 2019 51 UNO Shushoma Rani Saha . 1 Kaliganj Upazila April 15, 2019 52 UAO Md. Jahidul Karim 1 Kaliganj Upazila April 15, 2019 53 Contractor Hasib Hasan 1 . Kaliganj Upazila April 15, 2019 54 Contractor Bashir Ahmed 1 . Kaliganj Upazila April 15, 2019 55 Primary School Head Teacher Monowara Khatun . 1 Jashore Sadar Upazila April 17, 2019 56 Asia Development Bank (ADB) Humayun Kabir and Shahidul Alam 2 . ADB Office, Agargaon, Dhaka April 30, 2019 Total . 52 5 . . USAID BAIDP Final Performance Evaluation - Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) # Category of Participants Total M F Location USAID ID# Date 1 Male Citizens 8 8 . Godkhali, Jhikorgacha Upazila Y5MC001 March 27, 2019 2 Farmers 8 7 1 Dig dana Khal, Sluice Gate Jhikorgacha Upazila Y5SG001 March 27, 2019 3 Farmers 10 6 4 Paik Para, Bagharpara Upazila Y2RD010 March 28, 2019 4 Consumers 9 8 1 Shait Khali, Bagharpara Upazila Y2RD012 March 28, 2019 5 Consumers 8 6 2 Rahmotpur, Kotchadpur Upazila Y1RD006 March 31, 2019 6 Consumers 9 9 . Khusna Union, Kotchadpur Upazila Y2RD011 March 31, 2019 7 Consumers 11 6 5 Barandi, Abhoynagar Upazila Y1RD011 April 1, 2019 8 Traders 8 8 . Arpara MC, Chowgacha Upazila Y1MC005 April 1, 2019 86 USAID BAIDP Final Performance Evaluation - Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) # Category of Participants Total M F Location USAID ID# Date 9 Farmers 10 10 . Arkandi Village, Chowgacha Upazila Y1MC005 April 1, 2019 10 Female Citizens 8 . 8 Gabtali More, Monirampur Upazila Y1RD007 April 3, 2019 11 Traders 10 10 . Ningura Market, Monirampur Upazila Y1MC001 April 3, 2019 12 Farmers 8 8 . Y Junction, Monirampur Upazila Y1RD008 April 3, 2019 13 Farmers 9 9 . Bissah Para, Monirampur Upazila Y1RD019 April 4, 2019 14 Male Citizens 9 9 . Nogorpur Village, Sadar Upazila Y3RD001 April 4, 2019 15 Male Citizens 10 10 . Shomospur, Sadar Upazila Y1RD020 April 6, 2019 16 Female Citizens 12 . 12 Shomospur, Sadar Upazila Y1RD020 April 6, 2019 17 Male Citizens 8 8 . Payra-Abhoynagar Upazila Y1RD010 April 7, 2019 18 Male Citizens 9 9 . Nogorpur Village, Sadar Upazila Y3RD001 April 11, 2019 19 Consumer 11 9 2 Hoibotpur, Sadar Upazila Y1RD006 April 11, 2019 20 Female Citizens 16 . 16 Haldar Para, Chowgacha Upazila Y5RD001 April 16, 2019 21 Traders 8 8 . Khorincha Bazar, Chowgacha Upazila Y5RD001 April 16, 2019 22 Traders 9 9 . Churamon Kathi Bazar, Sadar Upazila Y3RD005 April 17, 2019 23 Traders 8 8 . Satmail Bazar, Sadar Upazila Y1RD020- Y1RD006 April 17, 2019 Totals 216 165 51 . . . 87 ANNEX 6: BIBLIOGRAPHY/LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Annex 6A: BAIDP Implementing Order (IO) Documents No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 1 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 01-2013-R July 17, 2014 March 7, 2019 USAID 2 IO#01 - USAID 002 - Accept Road Design-Shorupdah Bagardari Road-Y1RD004-29-January-2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 3 IO#01 - USAID 006 - Accept Revised Cost and Milestones Y1RD004-Shorupdah Bagardari Road- 29-January￾2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 4 IO#01 - USAID Y1RD004 - Approved Cost Estimate- Y1RD004-Shorupdah Bagardari Road- 22-April-2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 5 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 02-2014-R August 20, 2014 March 11, 2019 USAID 6 IO#02 - USAID 0005 - Accept Cost and Milestone Y1RD014 Sayedpur- Baliaghat Road-30 June 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 7 IO#02 - USAID 0005 - Accept Cost and Milestone Y1RD012 Sayedpur- Baliaghat Road Revised, 1 July 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 8 IO#02 - USAID 0007 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD012 Kamlapur-Sayedpur- Road 19 August 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 9 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 03-2014-R November 4, 2014 March 7, 2019 USAID 10 IO#03 - USAID 0013 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD015-17-Haibatpur-Arpara Road-Final-28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 11 IO#03 - USAID 0014 - Accept Cost Road Milestone Y1RD015-17-Arpara Road-28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 12 IO#03 - USAID 0015 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD020-Haibatpur-Arpara Road-Final-28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 13 IO#03 - USAID 0016 - Accept Cost Road Milestone Y1RD020-Mothurapur- Magura Road-28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 14 IO#03 - USAID 0017 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD018-Mobarakpur-Shinger Khajura Road-Final-3 October 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 88 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 15 IO#03 - USAID 0018 - Accept Cost Road Milestone Y1RD018-Mobarakpur-Shinger Khajura Road 3 October 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 16 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 04-2014-R November 6, 2014 March 7, 2019 USAID 17 IO#04 - USAID 0009 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD001-Deluabati- Joypur Road Final -28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 18 IO#04 - USAID 0010 - Accept Cost and Milestone Y1RD001-Deluabati- Joypur Road -28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 19 IO#04 - USAID 0011 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD008-Shinger Khajura-Hoibotpur Road -28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 20 IO#04 - USAID 0012 - Accept Cost and Milestones Y1RD008-Shinger Khajura-Hoibotpur Road -28 September 2014 March 25, 2019 USAID 21 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 06 -2015-R July 1, 2015 March 4, 2019 USAID 22 IO#06 - USAID 0019 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD006_Muradgor-Ramatpur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 23 IO#06 - USAID 0020 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1RD006 Muradgor-Ramatpur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 24 IO#06 - USAID 0021 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD007_Sahapur-Moshimnagor Road March 25, 2019 USAID 25 IO#06 - USAID 0022 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1RD007_Sahapur-Moshimnagor Road March 25, 2019 USAID 26 IO#06 - USAID 0023 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD019_Haitpur-Shahapur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 27 IO#06 - USAID 0024 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1RD019_Haitpur-Shahapur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 28 IO#06 - USAID 0024-1 - Accept Revised Costs and Milestones Y1RD019_Haitpur-Shahapur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 29 IO#06 - USAID Y1RD019 - Estimate & Milestone (Modified) SEPT 27 March 25, 2019 USAID 30 IO#06 - USAID Y1RD019_Drawing MODIFIED DESIGN ACCEPTED SEPT 2016 BY ACE March 25, 2019 USAID 31 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 07 -2015-R November 10, 2015 March 7, 2019 USAID 89 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 32 IO#07 - USAID 0025 - Accept LGED Road Design_Y1RD010_Paira-Jamira Road March 25, 2019 USAID 33 IO#07 - USAID 0026 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1RD010_Paira-Jamira Road March 25, 2019 USAID 34 IO#07 - USAID 0027 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD011_Ghoradha-Khoer Beel Road March 25, 2019 USAID 35 IO#07 - USAID 0028 - Accept Costs and Milestones corrected Y1RD011_Ghoradha – Khoer Beel Road March 25, 2019 USAID 36 IO#07 - USAID 0029 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD016_Teererhat - Syedpur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 37 IO#07 - USAID 0035 - Accept Revised Costs and Milestones Y1RD016_Teererhat - Syedpur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 38 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 08 -2015-R March 30, 2015 March 11, 2019 USAID 39 IO#08 - USAID 0031 - Accept LGED Road Design Y2RD015 Halta Clinic to Makuma Cyclone Shelter Road March 25, 2019 USAID 40 IO#08 - USAID 0032 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2RD015 Halta Clinic to Makuma Cyclone Shelter Road March 25, 2019 USAID 41 IO#08 - USAID 0033 - Accept LGED Road Design Y2RD016_Pullerhat-Khajura Chuturbaria Road - Puller Hat March 25, 2019 USAID 42 IO#08 - USAID 0034 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2RD016_Pullerhat-Khajura Chuturbaria Road - Puller Hat March 25, 2019 USAID 43 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 09 -2016-R May 2016 March 11, 2019 USAID 44 IO#09 - USAID 0035 - Accept LGED Road Design Y2RD011_Kushna UP Office - Gurpara Bazar Road March 25, 2019 USAID 45 IO#09 - USAID 0036 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2RD011_Kushna UP Office - Gurpara Bazar Road March 25, 2019 USAID 46 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 10 -2016-R September 21, 2016 March 7, 2019 USAID 47 IO#10 - USAID 0039 - Accept LGED Road Design Y2RD018_Purapara Sardar para CARE Bridge_Sukpukuria Road March 25, 2019 USAID 48 IO#10 - USAID 0040a - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2RD018_Purapara Sardar para CARE Bridge_Sukpukuria Road_Revised 22 July 2016 March 25, 2019 USAID 90 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 49 IO#10 - USAID 0047 - Accept LGED Road Design Y3RD002 Charavita Bazar March 25, 2019 USAID 50 IO#10 - USAID 0048 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y3RD002 Charavita Bazar-House of Atiar Rahman-Chaibaria Road March 25, 2019 USAID 51 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 11 -2016-R June 28, 2016 March 7, 2019 USAID 52 IO#11 - USAID 0037 - Accept LGED Road Design Y3RD001_Nongorpur Mazar - Nongorpur GPS Road March 25, 2019 USAID 53 IO#11 - USAID 0038 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y3RD001_Nongorpur Mazar - Nongorpur GPS Road March 25, 2019 USAID 54 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 12 -2016-R September 6, 2016 March 7, 2019 USAID 55 IO#12 - USAID 0041 - Accept LGED Design Y1MC003_Shinghar Khajura Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 56 IO#12 - USAID 0042 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1MC003_Shinghar Khajura Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 57 IO#12 - USAID 0043 - Accept LGED Design Y1MC004_Joypur Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 58 IO#12 - USAID 0044 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1MC004_Joypur Collection Center_Revised 4 Aug 2016 March 25, 2019 USAID 59 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 13 -2016-R November 9, 2016 March 7, 2019 USAID 60 IO#13 - USAID 0045 - Accept LGED Road Design Y3RD005 Churamonkathi GC-Kayermkhola GC Road March 25, 2019 USAID 61 IO#13 - USAID 0046 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y3RD005_Churamonkathi GC-Kayermkhola GC Road March 25, 2019 USAID 62 IO#13 - USAID 0053 - Accept LGED Road Design Y2RD010_UZ Headquarter - Darazhat UP Road March 25, 2019 USAID 63 IO#13 - USAID 0054 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2RD010_UZ Headquarter - Darazhat UP Road March 25, 2019 USAID 64 IO#13 - USAID 0055 - Accept LGED Road Design Y2RD012_Mahmudpur Bazar to Vitabolla March 25, 2019 USAID 65 IO#13 - USAID 0056 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2RD012_Mahmudpur Bazar to Vitabolla March 25, 2019 USAID 66 IO#13 - USAID 0026-01 - Accept Revised Costs and Milestones Y2RD010_Paira-Jamira Road March 25, 2019 USAID 91 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 67 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 14 -2016-R January 10, 2017 March 7, 2019 USAID 68 IO#14 - USAID 0049 - Accept LGED Design Y1MC005_Arpara Rural Market & Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 69 IO#14 - USAID 0050 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1MC005_Arpara Rural Market & Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 70 IO#14 - USAID 0051 - Accept LGED Design Y1MC008_Bakospole Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 71 IO#14 - USAID 0052 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1MC008_Bakospole Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 72 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 15 -2017-R August 1, 2017 March 11, 2019 USAID 73 IO#15 - USAID 0061 - Accept LGED Design Y2MC017_Puler hat Market and Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 74 IO#15 - USAID 0062 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2MC017_Puler hat Market and Collection Center March 25, 2019 USAID 75 IO#15 - USAID 0063 - Accept LGED Design Y2MC018_Sukpukuria Market Center March 25, 2019 USAID 76 IO#15 - USAID 0064 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2MC018_Sukpukuria Market Center March 25, 2019 USAID 77 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 16 -2017-R July 30, 2017 March 8, 2019 USAID 78 IO#16 - USAID 0059 - Accept LGED Road Design Y1RD013_Belermath-Kamalapur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 79 IO#16 - USAID 0060 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1RD013_Belermath-Kamalapur Road March 25, 2019 USAID 80 IO#16 - USAID 0060-01 - Accept Revised Costs and Milestones Y1RD013_Belermath-Kamalapur Road revised 3.15 March 25, 2019 USAID 81 IO#16 - USAID 0069 - Accept LGED Road Design Y3RD003_Fokair Bari More - Barandi Beel Road March 25, 2019 USAID 82 IO#16 - USAID 0070 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y3RD003_Fokair Bari More - Barandi Beel Road March 25, 2019 USAID 83 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 17 -2017-R August 1, 2017 March 8, 2019 USAID 84 IO#17 - USAID 0065 - Accept LGED Design Y1MC001_Ningura Market & Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 92 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 85 IO#17 - USAID 0066 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1MC001_Ningura Market & Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 86 IO#17 - USAID 0067 - Accept LGED Design Y3CC001_Cold Chain Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 87 IO#17 - USAID 0068 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y3CC001_Cold Chain Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 88 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 18 -2017-R May 18, 2017 March 8, 2019 USAID 89 IO#18 - USAID 0071- Accept LGED Road Design Y4RD003_Godkhali bazar - Panishara UP (Borni bazar) Road (1) March 24, 2019 USAID 90 IO#18 - USAID 0072 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y4RD003_Godkhali Bazar - Panishara UP (Borni Bazar) Road March 24, 2019 USAID 91 IO#18 - USAID 0074 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2RD007 Dalutpur WAPDA - Pakhimara Bazar Rd March 24, 2019 USAID 92 IO#18 - USAID 0075 - Accept LGED Road Design Y2RD007 Dalutpur WAPDA - Pakhimara Bazar Road March 24, 2019 USAID 93 IO#18 - USAID Y2RD007_Milestone March 24, 2019 USAID 94 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 19 -2018-R May 28, 2018 March 8, 2019 USAID 95 IO#19 - USAID 0077 - Accept LGED Design Y5SG001_Re-excavation Digdana Khal for Irrigation March 24, 2019 USAID 96 IO#19 - USAID 0078 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5SG001_Re-excavation Digdana Khal for Irrigation corrected March 24, 2019 USAID 97 IO#19 - USAID Y5SG001_Estimate & MS corrected March 24, 2019 USAID 98 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 20 -2018-R May 28, 2018 March 11, 2019 USAID 99 IO#20 - USAID 0089 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC002_Kismat Chakla Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 100 IO#20 - USAID 0090 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC002_Kismat Chakla Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 101 IO#20 - USAID 0091 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC003_Ramnagar Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 93 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 102 IO#20 - USAID 0092 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC003_Ramnagar Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 103 IO#20 - USAID 0095 - Accept LGED Design Y1MC002_Ghouriguna Market Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 104 IO#20 - USAID 0096 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y1MC002_Ghouriguna Market Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 105 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 21 -2018-R April 22, 2018 March 7, 2019 USAID 106 IO#21 - USAID 0079 - Accept LGED Road Design Y5RD001_Swarupda UP office -Kharincha Bazar Road March 24, 2019 USAID 107 IO#21 - USAID 0080 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5RD001_Swarupda UP office -Kharincha Bazar Road March 24, 2019 USAID 108 IO#21 - USAID 0085 - Accept LGED Road Design Y5RD005_Panishara Khaler More - Choto Panishara Mosque More Road March 24, 2019 USAID 109 IO#21 - USAID 0086 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5RD005_Panishara Khaler More - Choto Panishara Mosque More Road March 24, 2019 USAID 110 IO#21 - USAID 0093 - Accept LGED Road Design Y5RD007_Fulbari Railgate (RHD)- Hasanhati via Kastobhanga Bazar Road March 24, 2019 USAID 111 IO#21 - USAID 0094 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5RD007_Fulbari Railgate (RHD)- Hasanhati via Kastobhanga Bazar Road March 24, 2019 USAID 112 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 22 -2018-R June 18, 2018 March 7, 2019 USAID 113 IO#22 - USAID 0101 - Accept LGED Design Y5CC001_Godkhali Flower Collection Centre March 24, 2019 USAID 114 IO#22 - USAID 0102 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5CC001_Godkhali Flower Collection Centre March 24, 2019 USAID 115 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 23 -2018-R April 26, 2018 March 7, 2019 USAID 116 IO#23 - USAID 0097 - Accept LGED Road Design Y5RD006_Panishara Nabisuddin Rice Mill - Kulia Road March 24, 2019 USAID 117 IO#23 - USAID 0098 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5RD006_Panishara Nabisuddin Rice Mill - Kulia Road March 24, 2019 USAID 94 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 118 IO#23 – USAID EMMP Y5RD006 (May 2017) March 24, 2019 USAID 119 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 24 -2018-R September 11, 2018 March 7, 2019 USAID 120 IO#24 - USAID 0057 - Accept LGED Road Design Y3RD004 Cyclone Shelter Road March 24, 2019 USAID 121 IO#24 - USAID 0058 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y3RD004_Cyclone Shelter Road March 24, 2019 USAID 122 IO#24 - USAID 0081 - Accept LGED Road Design Y5RD003_Panishara-Towra Road March 24, 2019 USAID 123 IO#24 - USAID 0082 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5RD003_Panishara-Towra Road March 24, 2019 USAID 124 IO#24 - USAID 0083 - Accept LGED Road Design Y5RD004_Panishara - Kulia Road March 24, 2019 USAID 125 IO#24 - USAID 0084 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5RD004_Panishara-Towra Road March 24, 2019 USAID 126 IO#24 - USAID 0103 - Accept LGED Road Design Y5RD009_Fulbari Railgate (RHD) Hasanhati via Wood Break (Kastobhanga) Bazar Road March 24, 2019 USAID 127 IO#24 - USAID 0104 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y5RD009_Fulbari Railgate (RHD) Hasanhati via Wood Break (Kastobhanga) Bazar Road March 24, 2019 USAID 128 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 25 -2018-R October 1, 2018 March 7, 2019 USAID 129 IO#25 - USAID 0073 - Accept LGED Design Y2MC004_Chapli Bazar Wholesale Market - Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 130 IO#25 - USAID 0074 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y2MC004_Chapli Bazar Wholesale Market - Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 131 IO#25 - USAID 0087 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC001_Danga Mohisdia Bazar CC March 24, 2019 USAID 132 IO#25 - USAID 0088 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC001_Danga Mohisdia Bazar CC March 24, 2019 USAID 133 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 26 -2018-R December 19, 2018 March 11, 2019 USAID 134 IO#26 - USAID 0121 - Accept LGED Road Design Y6RD002_Dumurkhali-Goalbari Road March 24, 2019 USAID 95 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 135 IO#26 - USAID 0122 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6RD002_Dumurkhali-Goalbari Road March 24, 2019 USAID 136 IO#26 - USAID 0123 - Accept LGED Road Design Y6RD003_Haitpur Asrayan Prokolpo-Rampur Road March 24, 2019 USAID 137 IO#26 - USAID 0124 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6RD003_Haitpur Asrayan Prokolpo-Rampur Road March 24, 2019 USAID 138 Target of completion for packages under IO-26 & 27 March 24, 2019 USAID 139 USAID Reimbursement Implementation Order No. 27 -2018-R December 19, 2018 March 7, 2019 USAID 140 IO#27 - USAID 0105 - Accept LGED Design Y6MC004_Pardia Market & Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 141 IO#27 - USAID 0106 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6MC004_Pardia Market & Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 142 IO#27 - USAID 0107 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC005_Joypur Jamtola Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 143 IO#27 - USAID 0108 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC005_Joypur Jamtola Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 144 IO#27 - USAID 0109 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC006_Gobindrapur Notun Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 145 IO#27 - USAID 0110 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC006_Gobindrapur Notun Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 146 IO#27 - USAID 0111 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC007_Parkhajura Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 147 IO#27 - USAID 0112 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC007_Parkhajura Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 148 IO#27 - USAID 0113 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC008_Joypur Kacharibari Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 149 IO#27 - USAID 0114 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC008_Joypur Kacharibari Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 150 IO#27 - USAID 0115 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC009_Gabukhali Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 151 IO#27 - USAID 0116 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC009_Gabukhali Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 152 IO#27 - USAID 0119 - Accept LGED Design Y6CC010_Panchbaria Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 96 No. Document Name and Date Date Received Source 153 IO#27 - USAID 0120 - Accept Costs and Milestones Y6CC010_Panchbaria Bazar Collection Center March 24, 2019 USAID 97 Annex 6B: List of Other Documents Reviewed # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 1 Scope of Work (SOW) for USAID BAIDP Final Performance Evaluation, February 10, 2019 February 10, 2019 USAID 2 Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) for USAID Development Objective 2 (DO2) - June 2012 February 26, 2019 USAID 3 BAIDP-00 Activity Agreement No: 388-F-00-13-0001-00 for the Bangladesh Agricultural Infrastructure Development Program (BAIDP), LGED and USAID, Signed January 6, 2013 February 27, 2019 USAID 4 BAIDP-01 Amendment One-Adding $4.2 million, Action Memorandum to the Mission Director, From. Mark Tegenfeldt, Director, Economic Growth Office February 27, 2019 USAID 5 BAIDP-02 Amendment Two-Time extension to December 2018 February 27, 2019 USAID 6 BAIDP-03 Amendment Three Adding $3 million, August 15, 2016 February 27, 2019 USAID 7 BAIDP-04 Amendment Four- December 2017 February 27, 2019 USAID 8 BAIDP-05 Amendment Five Adding $3.5 million, Action Memorandum to the Mission Director, July 2018 February 27, 2019 USAID 9 BAIDP-06 Amendment Six-Adding 1.3 million, Action Memorandum to the Mission Director, September 2018 February 27, 2019 USAID 10 BAIDP Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan, June 14, 2015. February 27, 2019 USAID 11 BAIDP Description- January 2012, http://www.lged.gov.bd/ProjectHome.aspx?projectID=284 BAIDP Scheme Details. http://www.lged.gov.bd/ProjectSchemeDetailsAllView.aspx?projectID=284 BAIDP Geographic Coverage. http://www.lged.gov.bd/ProjectGeographicalCoverage.aspx?projectID=284 BAIDP Organogram. http://www.lged.gov.bd/ProjectOrganogram.aspx?projectID=284 LGED Jashore Home page. http://www.lged.gov.bd/DistrictHome.aspx?districtID=41 February 27, 2019 Web 12 Access-to-Market and-Outcome-Experience of the Extreme- Poor, Mohammad Ali Ahsan, July 2016, UKAID, http://www.shiree.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/33-Access-to-Market-and-Outcomes-Experience-of-the-Extreme￾Poor.pdf February 27, 2019 Web 98 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 13 IMC Project Rural infrastructure development _IMC Worldwide, Project Completed 2009-2010, http://www.imcworldwide.com/project/bangladesh-rural-infrastructure-development/ February 27, 2019 Web 14 Impact of Road infrastructure on agricultural development and Rural Road Infrastructure programs in India, Lakesha M.N* and Dr. Mahesha M**. November 2016, http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v5(11)/version-2/A0511020107.pdf February 27, 2019 Web 15 140-149 Assessing-the Effectiveness of Agricultural-Interventions -2010-Inter American Development Bank (IDB) https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Assessing-the-Effectiveness-of-Agricultural￾Interventions.pdf February 27, 2019 Web 16 Tracking Promises- Analyzing the Impact of Feed the Future Investments in Bangladesh, Author-Reid Hamel, September 2016, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs public/publication/160908_Hamel_TrackingPromises_Web.pdf February 27, 2019 Web 17 Recommended-Good-Practices Road Development to Support Water Management and Flood Resilience, September 24, 2017. Final November 2018, http://roadsforwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Recommended-Good-Practices￾Document-final-Nov-2018.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 18 ILO Rural Road maintenance, Sustaining the Benefits of Improved Access. 2007. Chris Donnges Geoff Edmonds Bjorn Johannessen. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@asia/@robangkok/documents/publication/wcms_100030.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 19 Tender Document 2017-LGED, Improvement of Panishara - Nabisadding Rice Mill - Kulia Road USAID ID￾Y5RD006 & LGED ID 241235294 at Ch. 0.00km - Ch. 503.00m Total Length 0.503 km under Upazila Jhikargacha District Jessore. https://www.tendersontime.com/asia-tenders/2/ March 2, 2019 Web 20 BD Road Department-Construction Practice and procedure manual. Bangladesh Roads and Highways Department, May 2001. http://www.rhd.gov.bd/Documents/ConvDocs/ConstructionPracticesAnsProceduresManual.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 21 LGED 1999- Road Pavement Design Manual, Prepared by Technical Working Group, LGED. http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/UnitPublication/4/99/1999_Road%20Pavement%20Design%20Manual.p df March 2, 2019 Web 99 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 22 LGED 1999- Standard Specification for Feeder Road Type-B and Rural Road Type-R1, Prepared by Technical Working Group, LGED, May 1999. http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/UnitPublication/4/16/1999_Standard%20Specification%20for%20FRB_R 1.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 23 LGED-Road Design Standard-Rural Road-2005, Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA), 2005. http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/UnitPublication/4/11/2005_Road%20Design%20Standards_Rural%20Ro ads_Final.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 24 LGED launches innovative code of conduct online training programme, Business News 24 BD, http://businessnews24bd.com/lged-launches-innovative-code-of-conduct-online-training-programme/ March 2, 2019 Web 25 LGED Power Point Presentation- Executive Engineer, Speaker Mohammad Mahmudul Alam, https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/6-c.Bangladesh.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 26 World Bank Infographic-Bangladesh-Agriculture-A-Key-Driven-in Reducing Poverty, May 17, 2016, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/05/17/bangladeshs-agriculture-a-poverty-reducer-in-need-of￾modernization March 2, 2019 Web 27 World Bank Full Report Agricultural Growth Reduction Poverty in Bangladesh, May 17, 2016, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/05/17/bangladeshs-agriculture-a-poverty-reducer-in-need-of￾modernization March 2, 2019 Web 28 ADB Bangladesh Road Maintenance and Improvement Project (Performance Evaluation Report), Reference Number: PCV: BAN 2010–19 Project Number: 33243 Loan Numbers: 1789 and 1790 August 2010. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/evaluation-document/35595/files/in184-10.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 29 ADB Completion Report- Bangladesh: Rural Infrastructure Improvement Project-September 2010. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/62754/31304-01-ban-pcr.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 30 ADB evaluation road project October 26, 2014, https://www.adb.org/documents/special-evaluation-study-poverty￾impacts-evaluation-road-projects-bangladesh March 2, 2019 Web 31 ADB Bangladesh: Road Maintenance and Improvement Project. December 11, 2014, https://www.adb.org/documents/bangladesh-road-maintenance-improvement-project March 2, 2019 Web 100 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 32 ADB provides $200M to upgrade rural network in Bangladesh, Daily Sun. January 13, 2019. https://www.daily￾sun.com/post/363786/2019/01/13/ADB-provides-200mn-to-upgrade-rural-road-network-in-Bangladesh March 2, 2019 Web 33 Building quality roads with low cost, Shahiduzzaman Khan, Published, April 2017, Updated: October 22, 2017, https://www.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/views/building-quality-roads-with-low-costs-1507125904 March 2, 2019 Web 34 Case Study -Citizen Engineering in Public Procurement-Experience from the pilot district. Dr. Md. Shanawez Hossain, Gazi Arafat-Uz-Zaman Markony, Raihn Ahmed. September 2016 https://www.academia.edu/35833067/Case_Study_Citizen_Engagement_in_Public_Procurement_Experience_from_pil ot_districts March 2, 2019 Web 35 GIZ 2014 Improving Rural-Transport-Infrastructure -Experience From Bangladesh RIIP-project, Published By GIZ, https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloads/Fachexpertise/giz2014-en-rural-transport-Infrastructure-experience-from￾bangladesh-RIIP-project.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 36 1st Government to Government Partnership Helps Build Critical Infrastructure in Bangladesh. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/183398/1st-government-government-partnership-helps-build-critical-infrastructure￾bangladesh March 2, 2019 Web 37 Highest construction cost for poor quality road, October 1, 2017. Daily Sun-e-paper￾https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/258417/Highest-construction-cost-for-poor-quality-road March 2, 2019 Web 38 Infographic-Bangladesh-Agricultural a key Driven- in Reducing poverty-May 17, 2016, World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/05/17/bangladeshs-agriculture-a-poverty-reducer-in-need-of￾modernization March 2, 2019 Web 39 LGED Maintenance of rural road network- the Guardian, December 20, 2013. http://www.theguardianbd.com/lged-maintenance-of-rural-road-network/ March 2, 2019 Web 40 Road construction in Bangladesh-Highest cost, poor quality Expert Blame lack of monitoring, accountability, Independent Online Desk- September 30, 2017. http://www.theindependentbd.com/post/116608 March 2, 2019 Web 41 Roads in Bangladesh the next millennium 1999 http://www.rhd.gov.bd/Documents/RHDPublications/RoadsInBangladesh/Glossy_19_Revised.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 101 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 42 Rural Road Planning and Prioritization Model-User Guide_ February 2018, Published By LGED. Funded by UK Aid. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ac48721ed915d0b7d4a3924/DURP-BUET-2018- PlanningPrioritisationRuralRoads-FinalReportVol1-AsCAP-BAN2072-180201.compressed.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 43 UK Aid-Ground Improvement for Khulna Soft Clay Soil -Draft report. Matt MacDonald, May 2017. As CAP (Asia Community Access Partnership). March 2, 2019 Web 44 Impact Evaluation Study of Rural Infrastructure Development Project - (Mymensingh, Tangail Jamalpur, Sherpur, Kishorgonaj, Netrokona District) 2nd Revised June 2011. Conducted by Research Evaluation Associates for Development Ltd. (READ). https://imed.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/imed.portal.gov.bd/page/e773d5bf_182e_4fc5_a856_dfd3c8d05ced/F inal%20report_%20IMED%20RIDP%202011-Final%2012.06.11.pdf March 2, 2019 Web 45 World Bank, Dynamics of Rural Growth in Bangladesh, Sustaining Poverty Reduction, May 7, 2016. Conference Edition. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/512481467996688090/Dynamics-of-rural-growth-in-Bangladesh￾sustaining-poverty-reduction March 2, 2019 Web 46 World Bank, Agricultural Growth Reduces Poverty in Bangladesh, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/05/17/bangladeshs-agriculture-a-poverty-reducer-in-need-of￾modernization March 2, 2019 Web 47 UNOPS Organizational Capacity Development (OCD) for USAID’s Local Implementing Partner in Bangladesh Final Completion Report (01/10/2014- 30/09/2017) December 2017 March 7, 2019 USAID 48 BAIDP Quarterly Report Q3, FY 2014-2015, January 1-March 31, 2015 March 7, 2019 USAID 49 BAIDP Quarterly Report Q1 FY 2018-2019, July 1-September 30, 2018 March 7, 2019 USAID 50 BAIDP Contact List March 11, 2019 USAID 51 UNACE Milestone Acceptance Report 27 January 2019_Project-Y1MC001, Improvement of Nigura Market and Collection Center-Monirampur Upazila-Jashore March 11, 2019 USAID 52 BAIDP Quarterly Report Q4 FY 2014-2015, April 1-June 30, 2015 March 11, 2019 USAID 102 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 53 BAIDP Quarterly Report Q2 FY 2018-2019, October 1 - December 31, 2018 March 11, 2019 USAID 54 Feed the Future Bangladesh Agricultural Value Chains Project: Systemic Change CLA Case Study, July 2018, https://www.marketlinks.org/sites/marketlinks.org/files/resources/bavc_systemic_change_cla_case_study_july_2018_3 .pdf March 15, 2019 USAID￾DEC 55 The Status of Food Security in the Feed the Future Zone and Other Regions of Bangladesh: Results from the 2011– 2012 Bangladesh Integrated Household Survey, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2011-2012, Akter U. Ahmed, Kaikaus Ahmad, Victoria Chou, Ricardo Hernandez, Purnima Menon, et al, April 2013, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/FTF-baseline-Bangladesh-Final-Report.pdf March 15, 2019 USAID￾DEC 56 Outline of the BAIDP selection process by USAID, Mitchell. G. Nelson, Acting Deputy Director/Feed the Future Coordinator. March 17, 2019 USAID 57 PPT about BAIDP presented by Mitchell G. Nelson, Senior Agricultural Advisor, Government Agreement Technical Representative (GATR) of BAIDP Economic Growth Office. March 17, 2019 USAID 58 Agricultural Infrastructure Case Study Report by ACME (Draft) March 17, 2019 USAID 59 Ag. Infra Annual Results (FY-2014 Result) March 17, 2019 USAID 60 Report -Training on Fraud Detection, Prevention and Correction for LGED, August 8, 2015 March 17, 2019 USAID 61 Final Report-Workshop-2 Fraud Detection-August 9-13, 2015 March 17, 2019 USAID 62 LGED CDP Implementation Committee TOR March 17, 2019 USAID 63 Minutes of the 6th meeting CDP – July 25, 2016 March 17, 2019 USAID 64 Minutes_8th Meeting_CDP- November 20, 2016, LGED Bhaban Dhaka March 17, 2019 USAID 65 OCD Project Quarterly Progress Report 3_April to June 2015_rev2 March 17, 2019 USAID 66 OCD_Quarterly report_Q2_FY 2016_April 2016, Prepared by UNOPS OCD Team March 17, 2019 USAID 103 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 67 Monthly Progress-Report Charavita Bazar-HO Atiar Rahman (USAID ID: Y3RD002, January 2017 March 17, 2019 USAID 68 Monthly Progress-Report MS Liton Traders Baliaghat Road (USAID ID: Y1RD014), June 2015 March 17, 2019 USAID 69 Monthly Progress Report Paira - Jamira USAID-ID(Y1RD010) Copy, January 2017 March 17, 2019 USAID 70 Monthly Progress Report Purapara SP CARE Bridge-Sukpukuria March 17, 2019 USAID 71 Progress Report _Arpara Market & Collection Center (Y1MC005) March 17, 2019 USAID 72 Progress_Bakoshpole Collection Center (Y1MC005), January 2017 March 17, 2019 USAID 73 Progress_Tererhat -Syedpur USAID-ID (Y1RD016, January 2017 March 17, 2019 USAID 74 Revised Bangladesh Capacity Building_UNOPS_LGED April 9, 2015 March 17, 2019 USAID 75 Thank you letter from CE LGED, 7 November 2018. Chief Engineer Md. Abul Kalam Azad March 17, 2019 USAID 76 LGED Annual Procurement Plan Goods http://www.lged.gov.bd/ProjectLibrary.aspx?projectID=284 March 18, 2019 LGED 77 BAIDP-Annual Procurement Plan 2014-15-Works below 1 core Created by LGED. http://www.lged.gov.bd/ProjectLibrary.aspx?projectID=284 March 18, 2019 LGED 78 BAIDP Capacity Development Plan signed May 2015 March 18, 2019 LGED 79 BAIDP- Quality Assurance-Plan_ Road_Draft March 18, 2019 LGED 80 BAIDP-SOP final May 2014-Signed by USAID March 18, 2019 LGED 81 Technical Specifications for Road and Road Structure, October 2013 March 18, 2019 LGED 82 DQA Report August 2015 Annexes (15 files, including photographs) March 18, 2019 USAID 83 DQA Report September 2018 Annexes (19 files, including photographs) March 18, 2019 USAID 104 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 84 BAIDP DQA Report, USAID ACME, September 23, 2015 March 18, 2019 USAID 85 BAIDP-DQA- Follow-Up Report, USAID ACME, October 7, 2018_NB-Final March 18, 2019 USAID 86 Data Quality Assessment Checklist-B-Sampling - F4.5.1-17 edits September 23, 2015 March 18, 2019 USAID 87 USAID Construction Assessment 2014. November 21, 2014, Editor, Cynthia Clapp-Wincek, USAID https://www.usaid.gov/node/263831 March 19, 2019 LGED 88 CSISA USAID LGED Ag-Infra Request Site Form – CSISA-BD – May 1, 2013 MGN DECISION, Recommendation for Agriculture Infrastructure Improvement Sites- IRRI, CIMMYT and Worldfish March 20, 2019 USAID 89 USAID LGED Ag-Infra Request for Site form 2014- Accelerating Agriculture Productivity Improvement (AAPI) Project International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), March 23, 2014 March 20, 2019 USAID 90 USAID LGED Ag-Infra Request for Site form 2014 Recommendations for Agriculture Infrastructure Improvement Sites-v2. Accelerating Agriculture Productivity Improvement (AAPI) Project International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), March 23, 2014 Shalikha Upazila March 20, 2019 USAID 91 USAID Mail - Fwd_ FTF Partner Input on the next round of Agriculture Infrastructure Projects-Final March 20, 2019 USAID 92 USAID Mail - Fwd_ Request for assistance to USAID's Ag. Infra Project March 20, 2019 USAID 93 Bangladesh_ CDCS_ USAID’s DOs- FY2011- FY2016, September 2011. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Bangladesh_CDCS.pdf March 21, 2019 Web 94 Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) Bangladesh Country Plan. May 31, 2018. https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1867/global-food-security-strategy-gfss-bangladesh-country-plan March 23, 2019 Web 95 Data Quality Assessment (DQA) report (Follow Up DQA), Prepared by USAID ACME, October 3, 2018 March 23, 2019 USAID 96 Ecotech- Consultant Profile-Brief- Prepared by Ecotech March 23, 2019 Ecotech 97 Quality Assurance Forms - Other than Road, Prepared by Ecotech March 23, 2019 Ecotech 105 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 98 Quality Assurance Form- Milestone Inception Report, Prepared by Ecotech March 23, 2019 Ecotech 99 Milestone Inception and Test Report- Y3RD003-1.5(b)-R3- Fakir Bari More- Barandi Beel, Prepared by Ecotech March 23, 2019 Ecotech 100 Modification no. 2 AID-388-T-11-00001 Countersigned ADDS BAIDP March 25, 2019 USAID 101 Signed Participating Agencies Program Agreement (PAPA), USAID and UNACE, April 17, 2011 March 25, 2019 USAID 102 PAPA Modification Number 2, May 7, 2013 March 25, 2019 USAID 103 BAIDP Project Tracker, 13 March 2019 March 25, 2019 USAID 104 Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF) Stage 1 Rapid Appraisal Update 2016 March 27, 2019 USAID 105 LGED Monthly Progress Report (Physical and Financial) -Jashore Office, updated- March 2019 March 27, 2019 LGED-J 106 LGED Monthly Progress Report (Physical and Financial) -Jashore Office, updated- April 2019 April 18, 2019 LGED-J 107 Public Finance Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF) Manual - A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 220, New Edition, July 28, 2014. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/220mae.pdf April 19, 2019 USAID 108 USAID Construction Risk Management - A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201, New Edition, October 5, 2017. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/201maw.pdf April 19, 2019 Web 109 LGED Implementing Letter-March 2012 April 23, 2019 USAID 110 LGED Assessment Final White Paper 2016 - BAIDP April 24, 2019 USAID 111 LGED Baseline Road Data August 2018 April 24, 2019 USAID 112 BAIDP Project Tracker March 25 Rationale for Choosing April 24, 2019 USAID 113 LGED Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (EMMP) http://www.lged.gov.bd/UploadedDocument/ProjectLibraryGallery/386/EMMP.pdf April 29, 2019 Web 106 # Full Title, Author, Date Published, Version (final, draft) Link (if available), Date Downloaded (if available) Date Received/ Accessed Source 114 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), Jennifer Coates, Anne Swindale, Paula Bilinsky. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259998974_Household_Food_Insecurity_Access_Scale_HFIAS_for_Measu rement_of_Household_Food_Access_Indicator_Guide_v_3 May 1, 2019 Web 115 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of Household Food Access, Indicator Guide, Version-2, September 2006. Anne Swindale, Paula Bilinsky https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HDDS_v2_Sep06_0.pdf May 1, 2019 Web 116 Journey with Green Climate Fund, Bangladesh’s Country Program 2018, Published November 16, 2017. NDA Secretariat, GOB. https://erd.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/erd.portal.gov.bd/page/1a7e22cf_6faf_488a_86ff_d57855ea38cc/Bangl adesh_GCF-CP_Draft.pdf May 2, 2019 Web 117 Peter Múčka, “International Roughness Index Specifications around the World,” Road Materials and Pavement Design 18:4 (June 2016), page 951, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303894238_International_Roughness_Index_Specifications_around_the_Wo rld. May 3, 2019 Web 118 ADS 201 Additional Help: Monitoring & Evaluation for a Government-To-Government Agreement, Dec. 2016 Web 119 ADS Chapter 220: Use and Strengthening of Reliable Partner Government Systems for Implementation of Direct Assistance, Partial Revision Date: 03/12/2019 Web 107 ANNEX 7: PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED AT BAIDP INFRASTRUCTURE SITES ID Type Status Summary of Findings Y1RD001 Road Completed - Signal post uprooted and displaced (0.8 km) - Depression (0.8 km) - Soil erosion and breaking side of box-culvert (BC) (1.2 km) - Distress and horizontal crack (1.2 km, 1.5 km, 3.8 km, 3.9 km) - Depression in the approach of culvert slab and road (2.7 km, 2.2 km) - Huge distress and horizontal crack (3.4 km) - Marks of iron wheel vehicle in the top surface of road Y1RD003 Road Ongoing - Workers are working without PPE - Site office facilities are incomplete Y1RD004 Road Completed - Distress and horizontal crack (0.15 km, 2 km, 3.5 km, 4 km) - Minor depression (2.0 km) - Depression in the approach of culvert slab and road (3.5 km) Y1RD006 Road Completed - Approach to the road is not smooth - Distress and longitudinal crack (0.75 km) - De-plastering in box culvert (0.75 km) - Edging failure due to soil erosion is damaging some parts of BC (0.8 km, 1 km) Y1RD007 Road Completed - Drainage is in bad condition with visible water logging. Possibility of stripping and gradual breaking of BC (1.3 km) - Big depression in one place (1.3 km) Y1RD010 Road Completed - Horizontal crack in several locations in the side of the road (0.25 km, 0.7 km, 4 km) possibly due to displaced brick edging - Distress and horizontal crack in several locations of the road (1.5 km, 4 km, 5.321 km) Y1RD011 Road Completed - Depression in several locations of the road with massive one at 0.3 km distance - Low height slope protection wall (0.3 km) Y1RD012 Road Completed - Visible distresses and horizontal crack in two sides of the road from starting to 0.2 km Y1RD013 Road Completed - Some stripping of BC at 0.55 km - Approach to other road is not finished well and quality aspects are not maintained (3 km, 2.9 km) - Soil erosion at 2.9 km - Slab of culvert and approach of road is not finished well (2.7 km) - Thickness of BC is 30 mm, which is less by 2 mm than that of contract amount Y1RD014 Road Completed - Side slope in one side in a very bad condition Y1RD016 Road Completed - Depression in the approach of bridge and road Y1RD020 Road Completed - Distress and horizontal crack (0 km, 0.2 km, 1.5 km) - Depression in the approach of culvert slab and road (0.5 km, 0.7 km, 1 km, 1.5 km) - Signal posts are not vertical (0.7 km) - Depression and water collection in the road (1 km) Y1MC002 MC Ongoing - Materials stored in a way that coarse aggregate and sand has mixed - Rebar is stored directly in the soil, which led to corrugation 108 ID Type Status Summary of Findings Y1MC003 CC Completed - Site ID indicates MC, but actual site is CC - Construction joints are not done properly - Continuous crack in some places - Surface finishing and leveling is not good - Water clogging in top of CC is seen in some places - CC is used for storing sand for the adjacent ongoing construction - CC height makes a shadow that hinders crop yield according to farmer and land owner Y1MC004 CC Completed - Site ID indicates MC, but actual site is CC - Crack in the side drain outlet - Debonding between RCC slab and side brick wall. Y1MC005 MC Completed - Wrong drainage option in front of ramp - Depth of drain is not low enough to avoid overflow of discharged water during rainy season - No painting work is done other than neat cement finishing Y1MC008 CC Completed - Site ID indicates MC, but actual site is CC - Approach of CC and road is not smooth - Outlet of drain filled with garbage and cracks in some places - Crack and de-plastering in the side walls of CC - Some part of the side drain is filled with clay - Debonding between RCC slab and side brick wall Y2RD011 Road Completed - Distress failure at some locations (2 km, 2.9 km, 4.65 km) - Top surface of almost the whole road is slightly damaged due to the use of steel wheel vehicles - Surface drain is cracked or partly broken (2.5 km) - Face wall of culvert is cracked (2.6 km) - Potholes in some locations (2.65 km) - Depression and crack combined failure in approach of bridge (4.1 km, 4.65 km) Y2RD012 Road Completed - Side slope is incomplete; many rat (weld access) holes observed in embankment that can be detrimental to stability; and low compacted unstable mix found in BC for 3-4-meter length that has most likely resulted from low temperature roller operation (23.16880, 89.346660) Y2RD016 Road Completed - Side drain filled with clay and garbage (0.1 km) - Small crack on BC surface at 0.2 km - Inadequate drainage and collection of water in the side of road (0.3 km) - Depression and patching work in the road (0.3 km) - Soil erosion in edging brick (0.4 km) - Distress and continuous horizontal crack (0.5 km) - Soil erosion and side failure (0.5 km) - Patching of BC work in the edge of road, especially turning areas (1 km) - Crack in the face wall of BC - Distress, patching of BC, side failure and edging failure (1.4 km) Y2RD018 Road Completed - Old bridge without railing (0.9km, 3.3 km) - Bridge deck and road connection is not smooth - Crack in the face wall of culvert - Depression in the connection of culvert slab and road (3.3 km) Y2MC018 MC Completed - Wrong slope finishing to drain out MC water - Wrong placement of ramp 109 ID Type Status Summary of Findings Y3RD001 Road Completed - Top surface of BC is rough - Minor depression in the approach of culvert and road (0.15 km) - Distress and longitudinal crack at 0.15 km, 0.25 km, 0.4 km, 0.5 km - Visible sign of movement of iron wheel vehicle throughout the road - Edging displaced at 0.5 km Y3RD002 Road Completed - Evidence of slight surface tear off in two locations, probably due to high temperature roller operation (23.20120, 89.372010 and 23.194430, 89.363340) - Road side slope is incomplete (4.175 km; 23.20181, 89.373390) Y5RD003 Road Ongoing - No safety signage and cautionary signage at the site - Workers working without PPE Y3RD003- 3A Road Completed - Depression in the approach of culvert slab and road - At the end part of 2.36 km, almost 500 m BC construction is inappropriate most likely because of inappropriate placement and compaction at low temperature Y3RD004 Road Ongoing - Bricks seem a mixture of 1st class and 2nd class - During T-testing, sample brick has broken - Color of the broken brick seem low-burnt Y3RD005 Road Completed - Side drain of starting of road filled with clay and garbage - Minor depression in the approach of culvert and road (0.15 km) - Face wall of culvert cracked massively at 0.15 km Y5RD001 Road Ongoing - Painting on signal post yet to be done - Irrigation drain is constructed in some locations - Rebar is kept extended other than cutting (1 km) - Depression in the approach of culvert slab and road (1.6 km) - Workers working without PPE Y5RD002 Road Ongoing - No safety signage, public cautionary signage or PPE for workers on the site Y5RD005 Road Ongoing - No safety signage and cautionary signage at the site - Workers working without PPE Y5RD009 Road Ongoing - Soil erosion resulting from improper soil compaction at 3.936 km and 2.863 km - Height of unsupported soil or unstable slope (top of road and top of slope protection wall) is more than 7 feet at 0.563 km Y5SG001 Canal Completed - One of the two gate controls displaced and needs repair work in order to be workable Y6RD003 Road Completed - Visible serious depression at BC in road - Side slope is not in good condition; Soil erosion from slope is visible (0.650 km, 0.8 km) - Proper geometric section of box culvert has not been maintained (0.650 km) Y6CC002 CC Completed - Constructed drain has the possibility of silting and clogging by clay, especially in the summer and winter, as there is no top cover - Compaction of side slope is not done properly - Side slope at the start of CC seems unstable - At the end of CC, demarcation work has not been done in some portion Y6CC003 CC Completed - Connection of CC and road is not finished well - Side drain is filled up with clay Y6CC005 CC Completed - There is no provision for drain slab. Y6CC008 CC Completed - Approach to CC is not smooth and so bad that water can collect - Some part of the side wall is filled with clay - Hole in the side soil which results from improper compaction and drainage 110 ID Type Status Summary of Findings Y6CC010 CC Completed - Approach of road and CC has partly cracked 111 ANNEX 8: DATABASE AND MAPS OF BAIDP CONSTRUCTION SITES (SEPARATE EXCEL FILE) House icon is in this cell i i I I ) I l i I l i l i i l i i l i l Person icon is in this cell Envelope is in this cell Phone icon is in this cell USAID BAIDP Construction Sites 7/15/19 Abhoynagar / Jashore Summary: Bagherpara / Jashore Summary: Chowgacha / Jashore Summary: Jhikargacha / Jashore Summary: Keshabpur / Jashore Summary: Sadar / Jashore Summary: CREATED BY: Monirampur / Jashore Summary: 9 Sites; 1 MC, 8 Roads, Total length 16.235 3 Sites; 3 Roads, Total length 11.155 5 Sites; 1 MC, 4 Roads, Total length 15.299 7 Sites; 2 MC, 5 Roads, Total length 16.873 22 Sites; 2 MC, 12 CC, 8 Roads, Total length 17.635 10 Sites; 1 SG, 1 CC, 2 MC, 6 Roads, Total length 11.075 2 Sites; 1MC, 1 Road, Total length 2.291 Last Updated: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: BDT 1,394,796,872.07 Muhammad Imran Khan, Data Analyst / GIS Specialist, USAID BMEL Activity +88 01730310497 ikhan@engl.com USAID/BMEL Activity TOTAL VALUE : SLICERS Upazila District Abhoynagar Bagherpara Chowgacha Jhikargacha Jashore Kalapara Kaliganj Keshabpur Kotchandpur Jhenaidah Mathbaria Monirampur Sadar Patuakhali Pirojpur Type of Site Collection Center Market Center Road SluiceGate (Irrigation) Rehabilitation Status Overrun Cancelled Cost Completed Time Ongoing Time & Cost (blank) GPS Start GPS End GPS start GPS end Rehabilitation S te # Upazila District Type of S te O No. LGED D USAID ID Name Length (km Tota BDT Value F na Contract Amount Overrun Remarks (from mp ementat on Orders) (from mp ementat on Orders) (from eva uat on eng neers) (from eva uat on eng neers) Status Paira - Jamira via Ghoradair Primary 1 Abhoynagar Jashore Road 7 241042010 Y1RD010 5.321 22° 58' 22.68" N 89° 23' 37.34" E 22° 57'41.09" N 89° 23' 28.46" E 22.983219, 89.389553 22.943203, 89.396484 Completed 55,048,043.64৳ 47,098,313.15৳ Cost School Road 2 Abhoynagar Jashore Road 7 241045226 Y1RD011 Ghoradir - Koyar Beel Road 1.889 22° 58' 22.68" N 89° 23' 37.34" E 22° 58' 1.17" N 89° 23' 51.87" E 22.967567, 89.39331 22.972876, 89.393797 Completed 14,251,540.58৳ 10,147,622.93৳ 241044014,241044067,24 Fokirbari More Barandi Beel- WF 3 Abhoynagar Jashore Road 16 Y3RD003/ Y3RD003A 3.945 D003A-22° 57' 16.86"N, 89°22' 57.38"E RD003A-22° 56' 54.20"N, 89°23' 44.03"E 22.964671, 89.374186 22.949739, 89.379775 Completed 37,249,462.61৳ 37,587,474.56৳ 1045240 & 241045580 programs UZ. Head quarter-Darazhat UP Road 5 Bagherpara Jashore Road 13 241093006 Y2RD012 4.650 23° 10' 14.30" N 89° 20' 22.30" E 23° 09' 55.30" N 89° 22' 27.30" E 23.17062, 89.33998 23.16536, 89.37404 Completed 48,261,039.42৳ 41,680,960.44৳ 4 Bagherpara Jashore Road 13 241093011 Y2RD010 4.752 23° 13' 13.18" N 89° 20' 47.71" E 23° 12' 05.50" N 89° 19' 41.57" E 23.22026, 89.34646 23.2016666, 89.328333 Completed 28,349,574.90৳ 22,718,205.00৳ Mahmudpur Bazar to Vitabolla via Shaihkhali Road 6 Bagherpara Jashore Road 8 241095035 Y2RD016 Pullerhat - Khajura Churbaria Road 1.722 25.803°N & 73.467° E; 25.789°N & 73.476° E; 23.306748, 89.296537 23.312508, 89.29882 Completed 14,946,367.04৳ 13,459,058.56৳ 241095105,241094019 & Charavita Bazar - House of Atiar 241095190 Rahman - Chaibaria Road 7 Bagherpara Jashore Road 10 Y3RD002 4.175 23° 11' 21.94" N, 89° 26' 41.33" E 23° 12' 6.81" N, 89° 22' 24.12" E 23.189444, 89.444722 23.192777, 89.358888 Completed 41,608,463.01৳ 30,882,376.58৳ IO#10 has wrong coordinates Puler hat Market & Collection 8 Bagherpara Jashore Market Center Y2MC017 23° 18' 24.04" N 89° 17' 47.01" E Cancelled Centre (connected to Road 016) 9 Chowgacha Jashore Market Center 14 Y1MC005 Arpara Market & Collection Center 23° 16' 57.10" N 89° 06' 7.13" E 23.282601, 89.102039 Completed 5,895,969.01৳ 3,465,287.37৳ Purpara Market Center (Sukpukuria Market & Collection Center) 11 Chowgacha Jashore Road 1 241113016 & 241115049 Y1RD004 Shorupdha–Bagardari Road 4.767 23° 15' 12.25" N 88° 59' 54.79" E 23° 16' 19.37" N 89° 0' 38.46" E 23.253364, 88.998535 23.271989, 89.010662 Completed 41,394,006.62৳ 40,776,654.39৳ Time & Cost 10 Chowgacha Jashore Market Center 15 Y2MC018 23°16'23.21"N , 89° 56'24.76"E 22.253079, 88.943014 Completed 3,221,583.98৳ 2,784,616.00৳ 12 Chowgacha Jashore Road 2 241114053 Y1RD012 Sayedpur-Kamlapur Road & Culvert 1.470 23° 15' 59.05" N 89° 06' 56.01" E 23° 16' 11.76" N 89° 7' 15.02" E 22.264764, 89.120104 22.25801, 89.118992 Completed 12,383,483.15৳ 10,848,769.81৳ 13 Chowgacha Jashore Road 2 241114054 Y1RD014 Sayedpur-Baliaghat Road 3.115 23° 16' 11.76" N 89° 07' 15.02" E 23° 16' 12.78" N 89° 08' 20.23" E 23.269948, 89.149381 23.270249, 89.139018 Completed 29,570,616.80৳ 23,593,602.39৳ Purapara Sardar para CARE Bridge- 14 Chowgacha Jashore Road 10 241115062 Y2RD018 5.868 23°15'29.5"N, 89°14'14.10"E 23°15'30.67"N, 88°55'32.11"E; 23.279687, 88.94946 23.258535, 88.925615 Completed 58,998,302.48৳ 50,023,946.00৳ Sukpukuria Shorapdha UP office -Kharincha 15 Chowgacha Jashore Road 21 241113016 Y5RD001 1.700 23°16' 00.10" N 88° 59' 23.80" E 23°16' 28.30" N 88° 58' 45.80" E 23.266626, 88.989939 23.274601, 88.979354 Ongoing 24,966,838.14৳ 26,400,188.21৳ Bazar Road 16 Sadar Jashore 17 Y3CC001 23° 15' 29.37" N 89° 14' 14.34" E Cancelled 3,974,590.01৳ Collection Nongorpur Mazar Collection Center Center (Cold Chain CC) 17 Sadar Jashore Road 6 241614031 Y1RD006 Somospur - Rahomatpur Road 1.930 23° 3' 39.09" N 89° 13' 53.41" E 23° 2' 52.22" N 89° 15' 58.15" E 23.273524, 89.158981 23.280408, 89.173619 Completed 22,385,035.40৳ 18,387,170.47৳ Time 18 Sadar Jashore Road 16 241474067 Y1RD013 Belermath-Kalampur Road 3.137 23° 14' 08.31" N 89° 07' 15.70" E 23° 15' 28.09" N 89° 07' 08.47" E 23.235652, 89.120965 23.257749, 89.119055 Completed 28,955,078.87৳ 27,037,414.31৳ Teererhat-Mothurapur Rd/Haibatpur-Mothurapur Rd 20 Sadar Jashore Road 7 241472010 Y1RD016 Teererhat - Sayedpur Road 1.600 23° 15' 39.7" N 89° 08' 33.4" E 23° 15' 40.214" N 90° 52' 18.12" E 23.261129, 89.142489 23.261804, 89.128346 Completed 22,047,112.80৳ 21,648,732.12৳ Cost 19 Sadar Jashore Road 3 241472010 Y1RD015/Y1RD017 2.450 23° 15' 26.62" N 89° 09' 49.04" E 23° 15' 42.14" N 89° 08' 57.71" E 23.257409, 89.163595 23.26037, 89.146559 Completed 25,305,208.87৳ 21,497,079.56৳ Cost 21 Sadar Jashore Road 3 241475011 Y1RD020 Mothurapur - Somospur Road 2.749 23° 15' 42.18" N 89° 08' 57.59" E 23° 16' 24.30" N 89° 09' 32.23" E 23.261976, 89.120865 23.27361, 89.159031 Completed 23,626,089.83৳ 19,857,282.75৳ Time IO#11 has wrong GPS start 22 Sadar Jashore Road 11 241475308 Y3RD001 0.597 23°15'29.5"N, 89°14'14.1"E 23°15'22.4"N, 89°13'58.0"E 23.25827, 89.237272 23.256189, 89.232725 Completed 6,653,421.48৳ 6,090,716.25৳ location and probably wrong Nongorpur Mazar to Nongorpur GPS Road (Cold Chain Project) length Charamonkathi GC - Kayemkhola GC 24 Sadar Jashore Road Y6RD001 Teererhat- Baliaghat Road 2.304 23° 15' 41.00" N 89° 08' 27.90" E 23° 16' 42.40" N 89° 08' 31.50" E 23.261397, 89.141079 23.261432, 89.141109 Ongoing 18,002,993.05৳ 18,896,398.28৳ Sluice Gate 23 Sadar Jashore Road 13 41472014 Y3RD005 1.468 23°13'8.38"N, 89° 9'17.62"E 23°13'19.27"N, 89° 9'13.00"E 23.203218, 89.142489 23.212367, 89.139168 Completed 16,779,677.51৳ 14,076,100.00৳ 25 Jhikargacha Jashore 19 Y5SG001 Re-excavation of Digdana Khal 22° 58' 16.73" N 89° 04' 53.83" E 23°03'27.71"N 89°05'00.73"E 22.964722, 89.09 Completed 6,577,305.55৳ 6,683,914.64৳ (Irrigation) 26 Jhikargacha Jashore 22 Y5CC001 23° 03' 5.50" N 89° 03’ 38.90”E 23.1648, 89.21109 Ongoing 31,077,943.21৳ 30,450,165.03৳ Collection Godkhali Flower Market and Center Collection Centre Complex Godkhali Flower Market Centre Complex Godkhali Flower Market Centre 27 Jhikargacha Jashore Market Center 22 Y5MC001 23° 03' 5.50" N 89° 03’ 38.90”E 23.1648, 89.21109 Ongoing 98,134,946.60৳ 92,592,366.62৳ 28 Jhikargacha Jashore Market Center Y5MC001 (extension) 23.1648, 89.21109 Ongoing Complex Godkhali bazar - Panishara UP (Borni bazar) Road 29 Jhikargacha Jashore Road 18 241233025 Y4RD003 1.500 23°03'31.30"N, 89° 04'11.50"E 23°03'27.71"N, 89° 05'00.73"E 23.058721, 89.069687 23.057692, 89.083517 Ongoing 16,333,549.33৳ 15,683,689.61৳ 23° 04' 50.20" N 89° 03' 30.10" E; 23° 02' 04.00" N 89° 03' 30.30" E; (23.080619,89.058336) (23.034506, 89.058505) 30 Jhikargacha Jashore Road no IO Y5RD002 Godkhali -Seordah GC road 5.905 23.080619, 89.058336 23.034506, 89.058505 Ongoing 108,140,633.40৳ 101,143,974.03৳ 31 Jhikargacha Jashore Road 24 241235035 Y5RD003 Panishara-Towra Road 0.833 23°03΄06.80ʺN & 89°03'56.40"E 23°03΄31.60ʺN & 89°04΄05.10ʺ E 23.051819, 89.065652 23.058811, 89.06809 Ongoing 9,639,413.71৳ 9,785,554.29৳ 32 Jhikargacha Jashore Road 24 241235036 Y5RD004 Panishara - Kulia Road 1.312 23° 02' 42.50" N 89° 03' 50.10" E; 23° 02' 25.00" N 89° 04' 24.20" E; 23.051819, 89.065652 23.040287, 89.073382 Ongoing 12,716,232.59৳ 13,380,704.71৳ Panishara Khaler more - Choto Panishara Mosque more road 33 Jhikargacha Jashore Road 21 241235390 Y5RD005 1.022 23° 03' 23.80" N 89° 03' 31.90" E 23° 03' 04.90" N 89° 03' 38.50" E 23.056575, 89.058862 23.051391, 89.060737 Ongoing 16,215,144.39৳ 17,053,644.40৳ i i I I ) I l i I l i l i i l i i S te # Upazila District Type of S te O No. LGED D USAID ID l i l 34 Jhikargacha Jashore Road 23 241235294 Y5RD006 35 Keshabpur Jashore Market Center 20 Y1MC002 36 Keshabpur Jashore Road 24 241385133 Y3RD004 37 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 12 Y1MC003 38 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 12 Y1MC004 39 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 14 Y1MC008 40 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 25 Y6CC001 41 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 20 Y6CC002 42 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 20 Y6CC003 43 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 27 Y6CC005 44 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 27 Y6CC006 45 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 27 Y6CC007 46 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 27 Y6CC008 47 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 27 Y6CC009 48 Monirampur Colle Jashore Center ction 27 Y6CC010 49 Monirampur Jashore Market Center 17 Y1MC001 50 Monirampur Jashore Market Center 27 Y6MC004 51 Monirampur Jashore Road 4 241613006 Y1RD001 52 Monirampur Jashore Road 26 Y1RD003 53 Monirampur Jashore Road 6 241615212 Y1RD007 54 Monirampur Jashore Road 4 241614039 Y1RD008 55 Monirampur Jashore Road 3 241614092 Y1RD018 56 Monirampur Jashore Road 6 241614040 Y1RD019 57 Monirampur Jashore Road 26 241614105 Y6RD002 58 Monirampur Jashore Road 26 241615009 Y6RD003 59 Kaliganj Jhenaidah Road 21 244334059 Y5RD007 60 Kaliganj Jhenaidah Road 24 244334059 Y5RD009 61 Kotchandpur Jhenaidah Road 9 244423003 Y2RD011 62 Kalapara Patuakhali Market Center 25 Y2MC004 63 Kalapara Patuakhali Road 18 578665089 Y2RD007 64 Mathbaria Pirojpur Road 8 579584099 Y2RD015 Name Panishara Nabisadding Rice Mill - Kulia Road Ghouriguna Market & Collection Center Cyclone Shelter Road Shinghar Khajura "Y" Junction Collection Center Joypur Collection Center Bakoshpole Collection Center Danga Mohisdia Bazar Collection Center Kismat Chakla Bazar Collection Center Ramnagar Bazar Collection Center Joypur Jamtola Bazar Collection Center Gobindapur Natun Bazar Collection Center Parkhajura Bazar Collection Center Joypur Kacharibari Collection Center Gabukhali Bazar Collection Center Panchbaria hat Collection Center Nengura Market & Collection Center Pardia Market & Collection Center Deluabati – Joypur Road Jaljara - Bakospol Road Sahapur - Moshimnagor Road Shinghar Khajura- Haitpur Road Mobarakpur - Shinghar Khajura Road Haitpur - Sahapur Road Dumurkhali - Goalbari road Haitpur Asrayan Prokolpo - Rampur Road Fulbaria Railgate (RHD) Hasanhati via Kastobhanga Bazar Road (Ch 0- 5769m) Fulbari Railgate (RHD) Hasanhati via Kastobhanga Bazar Road (Ch 5769- 10632m) Kushna U.P.Office-Gurpara bazar(Bakshipur) road Chaplibazar Market & Collection Center Daulutpur WAPDA - Pakhimara Bazar Halta Clinic-Makuma Cyclone shelter road Length (km 0.503 2.290 4.826 2.370 1.496 0.800 2.926 1.100 3.100 1.017 5.769 4.863 4.970 4.525 5.180 GPS Start (from mp ementat on Orders) 23° 02' 48.50" N 89° 03' 35.40" E; 22° 50' 40.64" N 89° 20' 56.92" E; 22°55'12.34"N, 89°19'54.43"E 22° 57' 32.9" N 89° 10' 02.1" E; 23° 02' 52.70" N 89°15' 57.50" E 23° 02' 50.47" N 89° 14' 10.41" E 23°15' 29.37"N, 89°14'14.34"E 22° 56' 53.40" N 89° 05' 25.71" E 22° 58' 16.80" N 89° 13' 39.90" E E= 730648.51, N= 2550614.16 E=730334.94, N=2541891.54 E= 716747.97, N= 2539040.34 E= 730838.86, N= 2550256.53 E= 736610.82, N=2554291.96 E= 735239.72, N= 2549312.75 22° 57' 17.70" N 89° 10' 44.15" E E= 725672.60, N= 2544586.74 23° 03' 39.09" N 89° 13' 53.41" 23° 03' 2.01" N 89° 13' 47.53" E 22° 57' 19.59" N 89° 09' 11.64" E 22° 57' 33.19" N 89° 10' 02.66" E 22° 58' 8.61" N 89° 9' 33.06" E 22° 57' 19.32" N 89° 09' 47.79" E 22° 59' 40.70" N 89° 06' 09.40" E 22° 57' 33.80" N 89° 09' 52.70" E 23°17' 12.50" N 89° 09' 18.50" E; 23° 17' 38.16" N 89° 06' 56.35" E; 23° 27' 38.22" N 89° 00' 47.56" E 21°50' 09.20"N, 90°12'22.95"E 21°56' 35.1"N, 90°08'37.6"E 22°15'14.2"N & 90°01'18.7"E; GPS End (from mp ementat onOrders) 23° 02' 42.50" N 89° 03' 50.10" E; 22°54'30.83"N, 89°20'15.40"E ?? N = 2539306.95, E=714349.98 ?? N = 2542079.32, E=728368.52 23° 02' 52.22" N 89° 15' 58.15" 23° 03' 3.26" N 89° 13' 40.38" E 22° 57' 35.19" N 89° 8' 48.59" E 22° 57' 19.32" N 89° 09' 47.99" E 22° 57' 33.09" N 89° 10' 2.27" E 22° 57' 19.68" N 89° 09' 11.89" E 22° 59' 38.20" N 89° 04' 30.30" E 2546948.20 N 720972.80 E 23° 17' 38.16" N 89° 06' 56.35" E; 23° 18' 43.80" N 89° 05' 26.00" E; 23° 26' 13.02" N 89° 02' 32.52" E 21°56' 48.1"N, 90° 10' 31.3"E 22°15'42.4"N & 90°00'0.4"E; GPS start (from eva uat on eng neers) 23.16543, 89.21097 22.851989, 89.382887 22.920082, 89.331784 22.959204, 89.167251 23.048021, 89.266047 23.041692, 89.19941 23.001938, 89.302892 22.948004, 89.091674 22.971392, 89.227625 23.047252, 89.250995 22.968472, 89.246523 22.945239, 89.11511 23.04475, 89.252919 23.080499, 89.309896 23.035672, 89.295629 22.955135, 89.179037 22.9943666666667, 89.2013666666667 23.060917, 89.231431 23.039622, 89.247238 22.955488, 89.153306 22.959126, 89.167257 22.954882, 89.180399 22.955401, 89.163141 22.985857, 89.100509 22.962122, 89.155218 23.293373, 89.115764 23.31134, 89.090504 23.460683, 89.013266 not visited not visited not visited GPS end (from eva uat on eng neers) 23.98326, 89.38964 22.908828, 89.338037 23.047884, 89.265962 23.050454, 89.229886 22.963293, 89.147372 22.955264, 89.163319 22.969132, 89.159291 22.955391, 89.163099 22.9939444444444, 89.5716666666667 22.959374, 89.164655 23.286742, 89.155139 23.29333, 89.115788 23.437061, 89.042303 Rehabilitation Status Completed Ongoing Ongoing Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Ongoing Completed Completed Ongoing Completed Completed Ongoing Completed Ongoing Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Ongoing Ongoing Completed Ongoing Ongoing Completed Tota BDT Value F na Contract Amount Overrun Remarks 4,505,815.83৳ 4,827,275.17৳ 32,210,406.83৳ 30,537,772.13৳ 19,374,863.64৳ 26,067,634.47৳ 7,940,055.42৳ 5,620,157.00৳ design map 528,471.95৳ 367,200.00৳ Cost 2,107,620.68৳ 1,537,476.31৳ 1,059,323.00৳ 1,006,260.35৳ 1,980,535.66৳ 2,275,329.00৳ 1,356,139.39৳ 1,308,279.82৳ 3,403,212.57৳ 3,381,608.31৳ 2,744,905.14৳ 2,437,191.42৳ 2,166,302.88৳ 2,168,135.74৳ 1,570,194.88৳ 1,551,335.43৳ 4,244,322.30৳ 3,782,692.59৳ 1,443,462.15৳ 1,420,316.39৳ 3,974,590.01৳ 3,672,535.36৳ 4,568,038.16৳ 4,257,360.96৳ 47,069,717.59৳ 37,294,095.36৳ Time 41,209,503.35৳ 36,359,819.18৳ 15,209,828.63৳ 11,952,473.00৳ 2,382,076.16৳ 1,935,680.25৳ errors 15,424,848.34৳ 10,198,280.00৳ 17,560,817.07৳ 18,946,691.82৳ Cost 26,629,839.62৳ 26,583,624.25৳ 6,131,927.73৳ 6,020,834.23৳ 45,446,385.07৳ 44,205,236.57৳ 44,675,227.86৳ 44,893,311.03৳ 47,278,528.00৳ 44,763,592.40৳ 12,036,465.67৳ 10,938,105.92৳ 42,330,139.16৳ 38,684,373.11৳ 53,523,639.35৳ 51,011,954.44৳ Check GPS location as per LGED IO#12 may have GPS location errors, as it shows the same location as Y1MC003. But LGED design shows 2 different IO#20 location (in red) not understandable IO#20 location (in red) not understandable IO#27 location (in red) not understandable IO#27 location (in red) not understandable IO#27 location (in red) not understandable IO#27 location (in red) not understandable IO#27 location (in red) not understandable IO#27 location (in red) not understandable IO#27 location (in red) not understandable IO#4 GPS location may have TOTALS CONSTRUCTION SITES: 64 TOTAL LENGTH: 115.916 64 BDT 1,394,796,872.07 BDT 1,275,738,614.47 Upazila Lookup Modify or add entries to this list. Simply type over an existing entry or add a new entry directly below the last row of the table. Abhoynagar Road Jessore Time Bagherpara Market Center Jhenaidah Cost Chowgacha Collection Center Patuakhali Time & Cost Jhikargacha SluiceGate (Irrigation) Pirojpur (none) Keshabpur Monirampur Sadar Kotchandpur Kaliganj Kalapara Mathbaria Upazila Type of Construction District Overrun Upazila District Road MC CC SG Total (site in upazila) Bar Chart (Number of sites of each type) Abhoynagar Jashore 3 3 Bagherpara Jashore 4 1 5 Chowgacha Jashore 5 2 7 Jhikargacha Jashore 6 2 1 1 10 Keshabpur Jashore 1 1 2 Monirampur Jashore 8 2 12 22 Sadar Jashore 8 1 9 Kotchandpur Jhenaidah 1 1 Kaliganj Jhenaidah 2 2 Kalapara Patuakhali 1 1 2 Mathbaria Pirojpur 1 1 Total (type of site) 40 10 13 1 112 ANNEX 9: PHOTOS OF BAIDP CONSTRUCTION SITES (GOOGLE DRIVE) 113 ANNEX 10: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS 1. Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist Mr. John Willsie has served as a Team Leader or member conducting multiple evaluations and assessments on behalf of USAID, USDA and the World Bank. He is an agribusiness expert with three decades of global experience as a private sector entrepreneur engaged in agriculture, food processing, manufacturing, transportation and aviation. Mr. Willsie has 15 years of donor development experience in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Central and South Asia. In conjunction with donor development assignments within Bangladesh, Mr. Willsie has worked directly with senior governmental officials in the Ministries of Industries, Agriculture and Health. Mr. Willsie has also interacted with governmental officials at the division, district and upazila level in Bangladesh. He is knowledgeable concerning USAID code 22 CFR and ADS 204. While managing a USAID project in Afghanistan, Mr. Willsie had an extensive working relationship with the US Army Corps of Engineers during the USAID funded conversion of a large military complex into a regional public event center. In 2015, on behalf of USAID BH and BFS, Mr. Willsie conducted an assessment of the USAID Nutrition Portfolio in Bangladesh. In 2016, he participated in the final evaluation of a USAID project related to linking farm products to markets. 2. Agri-Business Expert (Bangladeshi) Mr. Rafiq Sarkar has more than 24 years of experience in developing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating agriculture, value chain, market, and gender-based programs. He has extensive experience in strategies for agribusiness and agricultural market systems; private sector development; supply chain management; contract farming, rural market development (M4P); value chain strengthening; capacity building to enhance small to medium-sized enterprises’ competitiveness and growth management; rural enterprise development; the farmer-to-farmer learning process. As a consultant, Mr. Sarkar also worked on more than 40 evaluations, assessments, surveys, and feasibility studies and has developed on business plans and participated in sub-sector and value chain assignments (agro-based, off-farm and non-agriculture, production, market research, and sector diagnosis). He has also worked on projects focused on women’s economic empowerment and mainstreaming women’s participation in the value chain. Mr. Sarkar’s modern agricultural farming system experience includes GlobalG.A.P (good agricultural practices), agronomic practices and agro-based compliances, and he is a GlobalG.A.P. Licensed Certified Farm Assurer (crops, vegetables, and fruits). Mr. Sarkar has worked in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, India, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Thailand, the UAE, and Singapore. 3. Senior Civil Engineer (Bangladeshi) Dr. Javed Bari has more than 21 years of government, development sector, corporate and research experience in civil engineering in Bangladesh and the United States, including 15 years of university teaching. He also has extensive experience managing civil engineering projects related to pavement design, highway projects, construction and maintenance of roads, drainage structures, and public buildings. As a consultant, he has assessed roads and other structures for the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. Dr. Bari is a registered Professional Civil Engineer in the United States with an active license and he is a Transportation Engineering/Materials expert of the Southwest region of the United States. He is proficient in numerous computer applications for pavement design and management, statistical analysis, computer aided design (CAD), project management, engineering estimates and software programming. Dr. Bari has supervised junior engineers as the manager for many projects and consultancies. 114 Conflict of Interest Declarations 115 116