§ Completed road with clear road markings

WHAT VENDOR RATING IS ALL ABOUT: §Consultants’ performance since inception

2. The Grading System
§ Quality Addition The table below tabulates the grading system that is used in the Vendor In terms of performance of local and foreign Consultants on different
§ Timely delivery Rating System. Once a vendor is rated, his performance rating will be projects about 5 local Consultants’ project review had slight poor
§ Controlled Scope dependent on the score that he gets. The scores have a grading description performance records in the first three years’ of implementation as
§ High Performance which determines what action could be applied after the evaluation of the compared to 4 among the foreign consultant’s. Fifty three (53) Consultants’
§ Value Addition vendors. A grading of less than 60% is usually unacceptable and attracts projects have so far been rated since 2013. The average performance
§ Motivation warning letters as shown in the Table below. score for both local and foreign based consultants is above 60% which
§ Penalties to underperformers generally translates into acceptable satisfactory performance. In terms of
§ Project Management tool Percent of Performance Score range exemplary performance, no consultant has attained a PPR of above 90%.
Recommended In addition, no consultant has been rated as Technically Incompetent
1. Introduction Score range Description of Grade Obtained since the start of the vendor rating in the road sector.
Actions
The Road Development Agency developed the Vendor Rating System >89% Totally Satisfactory Performance Acceptable
(VRS) in 2012 in order to improve and enhance high performance by the
vendors (Consultants and Contractors) and to ensure quality works and 80%-89% Highly Satisfactory Performance Acceptable
accountability in the construction of roads. The implementation started
60%>79% Acceptable Satisfactory Performance Acceptable
in April, 2013.
40>59% Slightly Poor Performance Warning Letters
The System is implemented by the Agency’s personnel using the RDA Very Poor Performance-Technically Exclusion from
Vendor Rating Policy and Procedures Manual, January 2013 and the three <40%
Incompetent Future tenders
kits for design and supervision consultancy and contractors. The key
functions of the manuals are highlighted below: 3. Consultants Performance Rating
Since the start of the implementation of the system, Twenty Two (22)
Consultants have so far been assessed from 2013 to 2015 on about 53
projects and only eighteen (18) consultants had a Past Performance
Rating (PPR) above 60% which translates into acceptable satisfactory
performance. Four (4) Consultants had a PPR of between 47% and 59%
which translates into slightly poor performance. The Table and Charts
below shows the summary of the performance of the Consultants from
2013 to 2015. So far, the highest and lowest current past performance Completed Bridge works
ratings achieved by the Consultants is 81% and 47% respectively. Quality compliance

4. Contractors Performance Rating

Performance of Consultants on projects since inception of the Vendor In terms of Contractors’ rating since the start of Vendor Rating system,
Rating System Twenty Five (25) Contractors have so far been rated on 58 various projects
implemented by the Agency country wide from 2013 to 2015 . Seventeen
Consultancy Type Local Consultants Foreign Consultants (17) Contractors had a PPR above 60% which translates into acceptable
Category / Year 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 satisfactory performance whilst eight (8) Contractors had a PPR between
Totally Satisfactory 0 0 0 0 0 0 45% and 55% which translates into slightly poor performance. The charts
The four Vendor Rating Tool Kits Highly Satisfactory 0 0 0 0 0 0 below shows the summary of the performance of the Contractors from
2013 to 2015. So far, the highest and lowest current past performance
Acceptable Satisfactory 7 8 12 4 5 8 ratings achieved by the Contractors is 75% and 45% respectively.
A vendor’s current performance rating score is based on the past three Slightly Poor 2 1 2 3 0 1
(3) year ratings which are factored in accordance with the guidelines.
Performance appraisals for RDA Vendors are conducted on a quarterly Technically Incompetent 0 0 0 0 0 0 Performance of Contractors on projects since inception of the Vendor
basis and the past performance rating for each vendor is calculated at the Rating System
end of the year. Type of Contractor Local Contractors Foreign Contractors
PERFOMANCE OF CONSULTANTS FROM 2013
TO 2015 Category 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
9
8
Totally Satisfactory 0 0 0 0 0 0
Performance Score

7
6
5
4 Highly Satisfactory 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
2
1
0
Acceptable Satisfactory 3 4 8 8 5 10
Local Local Local Foreign Foreign Foreign
Consultants in Consultants in Consultants in Consultants in Consultants in Consultants in Slightly Poor 2 3 4 3 3 4
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
Le ge nd
Technically Incompetent 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totally Satisfactory Performance Hig hly Satisfactory Performance Contractor’s performance since inception
Acceptable Satisfactory Performance Slightly Poor Performance
Very Poor Performance-Technically Incompetent

Completed road works

 improve on their short comings. General observations has been made on
PERFOMANCE OF CONTRACTORS FROM 2013 TO 2015 the improvement of the workmanship on works, provision of Occupational
10 Health and Safety such providing of Personal Protective Clothing (PPE) to
general personnel on site. Documentation control and management has
Performa nce Score

6 also improved. Other benefits of the VRS includes:

4

2 § Improved and Maximised performance against Performance Indicators

0 closely aligned to contractual objectives
Local Local Local Foreign Foreign Foreign
Contractors in Contractors in Contractors in Contractors in Contractors in Contractors in
§ Improved quality of services and works provided by Consultants and
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Contractors.
Legend
§ Improved timely delivery of services and works. ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Totally Satisfactory Performance Highly Satisfactory Performance § Use it as “Carrots” and “Sticks” Getting rid of non-performers and award
Acceptable Satisfactory Performance Slightly Poor Performance more contracts to performing vendors.
Very Poor Performance-Technically Incompetent § Improved Investor confidence and thus induce further global
partnerships.

VENDOR RATING
§ Improved administration of road related projects.
In terms of performance of local and foreign Contractors on different § Cost management, scope management, time management will help to
projects 9 local Contractors’ project review had slight poor performance ensure value for most of the road projects is achieved.
records in the first three years’ of implementation of Vendor Rating System as § Improved relationships with vendors (Consultants and Contractors)
compared to 10 among the foreign Contractors. Forty Six (46) Contractors’ § Performance Measurement which enhances continuous improvement
projects have so far been rated since 2013. The average performance score within a collaborative working process.
for both local and foreign based Contractors is comparable to Consultant’s
performance and stands at about 60% which generally translates into
acceptable satisfactory performance. In terms of exemplary performance,
no contractor has attained a PPR of above 90%. In addition, no Contractor CONTACT DETAILS
has been rated as Technically Incompetent since the start of the vendor
rating in the road sector. However, it is worth noting that more foreign Road Development Agency Lusaka Regional Office
Contractors fall under the category of slightly poor performance. This can Head Quarters P.O. Box 30918
be attributed to the fact that most of the Zambian road sector industry is P.O. Box 50003, LUSAKA LUSAKA
dominated by foreign based contractors. In addition, most of these foreign Tel: 253801/253002/253088 Tel: 241765
based companies have difficulties in terms of Project Management as Email: RDA_HQ@roads.gov.zm
observed during vendor rating exercises. Northern Province Regional Office
Central Province Regional office P.O. Box 410720
5. Major Findings on Sites P.O. Box, 80180, KASAMA
Using the criteria set out in the Vendor Rating system guidelines, the KABWE Tel. 221290/230046
Agency has found out and highlighted to the respective stakeholders the Tel: 222263/224662
common problems that usually need attention in order for the project to North Western Province Regional
be executed smoothly. The following are some of the findings on various Copperbelt Regional Office office
sites which attributed to the poor performance of both contractors and P.O. Box 71517 P.O. Box 110094
consultants: NDOLA SOLWEZI
Tel: 650264/650497 Tel: 821196
1. Lack of Quality Assurance Plans (QAP) on projects.
2. Use of unqualified/inexperienced personnel on site. Eastern Province Regional Office
3. Inadequate knowledge in Contract Management. Private Bag 18,
4. Use of wrong Construction Materials. CHIPATA Southern Province Regional Office
5. Use of wrong Construction methodologies Tel: 221033/ 222026 P.O. Box 640431
6. Poor supervision by Consultants (non-presence of key personnel such LIVINGSTONE
as Resident Engineer on site). Luapula Regional Office Tel: 324097/321940
7. Failure to update and approve the program of works by the Contractors P.O. Box 710007
and Consultants respectively. MANSA Western Province Regional Office
8. Lack of Communication Management Plan and Risk Management Plan. Tel: 821702/821973 Plot 164, Mongu – Senanga Road
The issues highlighted above are usually attended to with the respective Private Bag Mongu
implementing departments and concerned vendor. That way projects are MONGU VISION:
not affected unnecessarily. Tel: 222036 To be the leading Model Road Agency in the developing world
that is providing a world class Core Road Network in Zambia.
Project inspection
MISSION
6. Conclusion To provide a World Class Core Road Network in Zambia
For more details on vendor rating visit our website on http://www.rda.
The Vendor Rating System (VRS) has proved to be a beneficial tool as it has
org.zm/index.php/publications
been commended by most key stakeholders. The tool helps vendors to