OPRC in Kaduna State, Nigeria: A Case Study of Experiences and Lessons Learned

PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTPUT
AND PERFORMANCE BASED ROAD CONTRACTS

(OPRC) IN KADUNA STATE, NIGERIA: A CASE
STUDY OF EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNED
Umaru Peter Sarki, Independent Consultant, Yaroson Partnership

MNSE, MASCE, PE
Peter Sarki is a registered highway engineer and independent consultant. He worked

as a lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria -
Nigeria; after which he joined private consulting practice working with various firms on
transport infrastructure projects. He was member of the design team for the first OPRC
pilot project in Nigeria.
Contact
+234 803 329 6027
upsarki@yahoo.com
Synopsis
In its effort to improve road access for rural communities, as well as improve the
sustainable management of its road assets, the Government of Kaduna State, Nigeria,
with the assistance of The World Bank implemented the Rural Access and Mobility
Project (RAMP). A major component of RAMP comprised of the upgrading,
rehabilitation and maintenance of transport infrastructure covering 457Km of the rural
road network using the Output and Performance based Road Contracts (OPRC)
mechanism. OPRC was implemented as a pilot scheme with the intention that Kaduna
State will improve upon the outcomes and adopt OPRC over a wider coverage of its
road network.
The OPRC pilot scheme in Kaduna State was implemented in four contract lots. The
services comprised of Initial/ Rehabilitation Works, Spot Improvement Works,
Emergency Works, and Maintenance Services. A 2-year period was allocated for the
completion of the Initial and Improvement Works, as well as the gradual start of
Maintenance Services on the earliest completed road sections; while a 3-year period
was dedicated to the full implementation of Maintenance Services on the overall road
network.
Challenges encountered during the design and implementation of the pilot scheme
were low OPRC awareness/ acceptance; very poor condition of the rural road network;
geographical dispersion of project roads; the “business-as-usual” attitude of
contractors; pre-financing constraints; poor performance of contractors’ self-control
units; inclement weather conditions; and security issues.
Notable benefits from OPRC implementation in Kaduna State included improved
access to farm inputs, markets, schools and health facilities; reduced journey times;
and reduced transport costs. These were in addition to improved quality of road works,
rise in land value and employment creation.
The main lessons learned were the need for all stakeholders support; suitable
adaptation of performance based contracts to local conditions; equitable risk sharing;
adequate and stable financing; requisite capacity of government/ road agency, design/
monitoring consultants, and contractors; suitable and achievable specifications and
service levels; and effective institutional framework to support sustainability.
To enhance the success of future OPRC projects, the paper recommended the
selection of roads suitable for network management, employment of the right mix of
skills and experience, engagement with consultants and contractors during
preparation of bidding documents, early procurement of monitoring consultant, strong
institutional support, and effective change management strategy.
This paper summarizes the project background, and highlights the main OPRC design
features and implementation strategy. The challenges encountered during the design
and implementation of the OPRC scheme are discussed, as well as the benefits
realized. The lessons learned are also articulated and recommendations offered for
future OPRC projects.
Africa Regional Seminar and Workshop on Performance-Based Contracts for Roads (PBC) 11th – 15th July 2016 AICC, Arusha, Tanzania Page | 2
OPRC in Kaduna State, Nigeria: A Case Study of Experiences and Lessons Learned by SARKI
1.0 Project Background
In its effort to improve road access for rural communities, as well as improve
the sustainable management of its road assets, the Government of Kaduna
State, Nigeria, with the assistance of The World Bank implemented the Rural
Access and Mobility Project (RAMP). The project had two major components.
The first component included the upgrading, rehabilitation and maintenance of
transport infrastructure covering 457Km of the rural road network (63Km paved
and 394Km unpaved) using the Output and Performance based Road
Contracts (OPRC) mechanism; while the second component comprised of
institutional strengthening, reforms and capacity building. RAMP therefore set
out not only to improve road infrastructure in the rural areas, but also to
strengthen the State’s institutions towards efficient and effective management
of its road assets.
The Federal Government coordinated the RAMP program through the Federal
Project Management Unit (FPMU); while Kaduna State implemented RAMP
through the State Project Implementation Unit (SPIU) in the Ministry of Works
and Transport.
OPRC was implemented as a pilot scheme with the intention that Kaduna State
will improve upon the outcomes and adopt OPRC over a wider coverage of its
road network.
Fig.1: Location of Kaduna State in Nigeria

(Source: http://www.mapsofworld.com/nigeria/maps/nigeria-
political-map.jpg)
2.0 The Project Area
Kaduna State is located in the mid-central portion of the northern part of Nigeria
(Figure 1). It occupies an estimated land area of 46,000 sq. km, which is about
5% of the total land mass of Nigeria. Endowed with fertile soils and favourable
climate for agriculture, Kaduna is one of the most agriculturally productive
states in Nigeria. With about 6 million inhabitants (60% of them living in the rural
parts) Kaduna is the third most populous state in Nigeria. It is estimated that
about 80% of the population is engaged in small to medium scale agriculture.
Apart from being a major source of livelihood, this sector remains the largest
employer of labour and a key contributor to wealth, income creation and poverty
alleviation. Federal, State, and Local Government roads serve the state, but
rural roads are few, sparsely located and poorly maintained (World Bank,
2008).
3.0 Road Maintenance Management in Kaduna State Prior to OPRC

Prior to RAMP, the government of Kaduna State did not have a strategic policy
for roads development, maintenance and management. RAMP facilitated a
study on Reforms in the Road Transport Sector in Kaduna State, which
produced a Draft Road Transport Policy document and proposed an
institutional framework, towards achieving an effective and sustainable road
asset management system.
Currently, all matters related to roads are dealt with in the Ministry of Works and
Transport (MoWT); while it’s parastatal, the Kaduna State Public Works Agency
(KAPWA) has sole responsibility of roads maintenance. Regrettably, KAPWA
since its inception in 2002, has not been able to function effectively mainly due
to inadequate funding; insufficient capacity in terms of human resources, tools
and equipment; and employing the old traditional methods of direct labour and
force accounts for works procurement.
Furthermore, neither the MoWT nor KAPWA operated any form of road asset
management system that was capable of determining maintenance needs,
prioritizing maintenance strategies, nor justifying maintenance budgets through
sound economically based decision making tools (IT Transport & Enviplan
International, 2013). MoWT and KAPWA had therefore not been able to
satisfactorily perform its role, responsibilities, and statutory obligations to the
public, testified by the glaring neglect of public roads throughout Kaduna State.
Perhaps, the current state of road maintenance management in Kaduna gives
some justification to the claim by Bratland (2010) that the public sector should
not be in the business of infrastructure maintenance because it had no
motivation for maintenance, which should best be undertaken by the private
sector.
OPRC, together with the institutional development component under RAMP,
therefore presented Kaduna State with the opportunity to increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of its road asset management and maintenance practice, by
ensuring that the physical condition of the roads under contract satisfied the
needs of road users over the entire contract period.
4.0 Main OPRC Design Features and Implementation Strategy

An international consultant was engaged to provide consultancy services for
the preparation and implementation of OPRC. The consultant’s services
included broad technical studies to determine road networks suitable for OPRC;
network-specific technical studies and preparation of the bidding documents;
and provision of support to the procurement process.
The OPRC pilot scheme in Kaduna State was implemented in four contract lots
with two lots each in the northern and southern parts of the State (Kaduna State
Government, 2010). The works comprised of:
(a) Full improvement works (within the first 2 years) to upgrade an unpaved
road to a paved (DBST) standard based on a detailed design by the
employer (within first 2 years).
(b) Spot improvement works (within the first 2 years) at selected locations
mostly comprising the provision of box culverts, small bridges, vented
causeways (drifts), embankments and road signs, based on a detailed
design by the employer.
(c) Initial/ Rehabilitation Works (within the first 2 years) to bring all other
sections not included under improvement works to required service levels
based on the contractor’s design.
(d) Maintenance Services covering routine and periodic maintenance
activities, as well as management of the entire road network for the full
duration of the contract.
(e) Emergency Works to repair damage caused by unforeseen natural events.
Envisaged works included replacement of washed out sections of
embankment and repair of structural damage to culverts, drifts and
bridges.
A 2-year period was allocated for the completion of the Initial and Improvement
Works, as well as the gradual start of Maintenance Services on the earliest
completed road sections; while a 3-year period was dedicated to the full
implementation of Maintenance and Management Services on the overall road
network.
Four indigenous contractors were selected to carry out the works contracts, and
a monitoring consultant was also engaged to provide technical and financial
supervision and guidance in order to ensure that works were carried out in
accordance with the contract and to the satisfaction of the employer.
The works contracts were prepared using World Bank’s Sample Bidding
Documents for the Procurement of Works and Services under Output and
Performance-based Road Contracts (World Bank, 2006).
5.0 Design and Implementation Challenges
Challenges encountered during the design and implementation of the pilot
scheme included the following:
(a) Limited OPRC awareness/ public acceptance
Prior to the advent of RAMP in Kaduna State, there had been very little, if
any, awareness about OPRC as a road maintenance and management
strategy. The SPIU had a communications unit, but was largely ineffective
in creating the necessary awareness through information dissemination
and interaction with the public. The initial communication efforts using
pamphlets, and television and radio advertorials were not sustained. As a
result, awareness and acceptance of OPRC outside the immediate circle
of those involved in its implementation was very limited.
(b) Poor condition of the rural road network

Most of the project roads carry less than 50 vehicles per day. Estimated
levels of motorized traffic are shown in Figure 2.
TRAFFIC LEVELS
Medium (50 – 100 High (> 100

vehicles / day) vehicles / day)
19% 7%
Low – Very Low

(< 50 vehicles /
day)
74%
Figure 2: Traffic on OPRC Roads
Although vehicular traffic on most roads was low, there was high use of the
roads by motorbikes and non-motorized traffic often carrying agricultural
produce. This demonstrated the potential for traffic growth once the roads
were improved.
The condition of roads at the design phase was classified according to the
level of maintenance intervention required: Very Good (routine maintenance),
Good (routine maintenance and spot reshaping/regravelling); Fair (periodic
reshaping and regravelling) and Poor (rehabilitation required). Despite being
in good condition, some roads were in fact sub-standard, especially in terms
of width, and required improvement works irrespective of their current
condition. As seen in Figure 3, about 72% of the surveyed roads were found
to be in poor condition.
DISTRIBUTION OF ROAD SURFACE CONDITION
Poor
72%
Good
21%
Fair
7%
Figure 3: Surface Condition

Only about 28% of the roads were in such a condition that they could be
maintained by routine maintenance without major repair. About 72% of the
total road length required substantial improvements and initial works to bring
them to maintainable condition (EgisBCEOM & Enviplan International, 2010).
(c) Geographical dispersion of project roads

The design consultant prepared a list of roads suitable for OPRC, which
was subject to the employer’s consideration and approval. After much
consideration, the final list of approved roads contained discrete and
widely dispersed road links that did not allow for the formation of cohesive
networks.
The impact of having non-cohesive road networks tended to decrease
efficiency of maintenance services due to long distances between project
roads, and to increase the costs of meeting service level requirements,
thereby increasing the likelihood of default, especially for the
inexperienced contractors.
(d) “Business-as-usual” attitude of contractors
The “business as usual” mentality of the contractors as obtained in the
implementation of traditional contracts prevented them from approaching
OPRC project implementation with the seriousness and commitment it
deserved. They did not fully realize and come to terms with their full
responsibility for maintenance management, especially with the level of
documentation and inspections required. The focus of the contractors was
more on attaining quantity, and not quality of the road works. As such,
some contractors delivered unsatisfactory initial works, and were
consequently faced with high cost of maintenance.
(e) Poor performance of contractors’ self-control units

The performance of the contractors’ self-control units was below
expectation. There were clear deficiencies in road design capacity, and
construction and project management capabilities of the contractors. Skills
for determination and cost estimation of maintenance requirements, and
risk impact analysis were also missing. The contractors also had
difficulties in understanding how the OPRC payment model works. These
deficiencies combined to make planning, scheduling, and monitoring
activities very difficult.
(f) Pre-financing constraints

Pre-financing and the urge to recover money as quickly as possible and
start making profit serves as incentive for the contractor to carry out
efficient and effective maintenance strategies for the roads under OPRC.
However, most of the contractors had difficulties in obtaining sufficient
lines of credit from financial institutions, and also servicing such credit, due
to the very stringent conditions including very high interest rates on such
loans. Contractors therefore faced financial strain during implementation,
which contributed to their inability to satisfy service level criteria, as and
when due.
(g) Risk sharing

Under Kaduna OPRC (Kaduna State Government, 2010), contractors
were allocated the risk for estimating initial works which includes not
only reshaping, regravelling and minor repairs, but also to establish
acceptable horizontal and vertical alignment, cross-section and
drainage where this was required.
Financial risk transfer to the contractors was represented by the large
proportion of initial works (ranging from 52 to 76% of total contract sum)
to be done during the initial 24 months but paid evenly over the full
duration of the contract.
Also, given the poor state of most of the roads, 70% to 85% of the
contract sum was consumed by bringing the roads to a maintainable
state; leaving only 15% to 30% of the total contract sum for
maintenance services. Contractors therefore had very little motivation
towards providing maintenance services.
With respect to risk of pavement overloading, laws for axle load regulation
were not in place. It was therefore incumbent on the contractors to propose
a strategy on how to handle this risk.
(h) Inclement weather conditions

With the change in recent times of weather and climatic conditions,
heavier than expected rainfall was experienced, resulting in increased
incidence of floods, erosion and embankment washouts. During the dry
season, the resulting dust from increased dryness and lack of speed
control measures, had combined to accelerate the rate of material loss
from the road pavement. This situation made it necessary to increase the
frequency of regravelling, thereby increasing the cost of maintenance.
(i) Security issues

Kaduna State experienced several civil unrests due to political and labour
disputes and sectarian clashes. Such occurrences often resulted in lost
time for demobilization and remobilization efforts, as well as, recruitment
and assignment of staff.
6.0 Project Benefits

Notable benefits from OPRC implementation in Kaduna State included
improved access to farm inputs, markets, schools and health facilities; reduced
journey times; and reduced transport costs. These were in addition to improved
quality of road works and provision of employment for semi-skilled and unskilled
labour from the areas surrounding the project roads. With the much improved
access, significant increase in land value has also been reported.
7.0 Lessons Learned
The main lessons learned from OPRC implementation in Kaduna State include:
(a) It took about 10 years from the beginning of the process for procurement
of design consultant to the end of project implementation. It was a tortuous
journey that was sustained by a group of people who believed in the
initiative; and through their determination and selfless service supported
the project to its conclusion. Without the support of key stakeholders, it
would have been impossible to pursue the pilot OPRC to its logical end.
(b) Each performance based contract must be adaptable to the local
conditions of the project area. Issues such as prevailing road sector laws;
local economy; financial regulations; safety and security; maturity of
construction industry; and the physical environment must be thoroughly
considered in the preparation of the bidding documents.
(c) Prescribed standards, specifications and performance indicators
must not only be suitable, but also achievable, considering local conditions
and level of technological advancement.
(d) Risks must be shared equitably in a manner which ensures that they
are allocated to the party that is best capable of handling them. In the
Kaduna experience, contractors clearly shouldered risks which they did
not understand and were incapable of dealing with. This manifested in
several cases if non-compliance to the prescribed service levels.
(e) Adequate and stable financing is vital for the success of OPRC, as it
requires payments to be made as and when due to ensure service levels
are attained and sustained. Unstable funding has the potential of
adversely affecting the ability of contractors to satisfy the service level
criteria.
(f) The implementing parties (employer, monitoring consultant, and
contractors) must have good understanding of the OPRC concept and
principles, together with the requisite skills and experience to
satisfactorily deliver the OPRC project. This was an obvious deficiency in
the Kaduna OPRC as none of the implementing parties had prior OPRC
knowledge or experience. This was manifested in most of the
implementation challenges encountered.
(g) As the Kaduna OPRC approached its twilight days, one question that kept
reverberating from stakeholders was – what next for OPRC? Without the
necessary institutional framework to support sustainability, it is near
impossible to build on the gains made from the pilot project and ensure
that future projects are better prepared and implemented.
A cursory look at the above lessons, revealed that adequate attention was not
paid to the issues that needed to be considered before the introduction of PBCs
as enumerated by Sultana, Rahman & Chowdhury (2012).
8.0 Recommendations
Based on the lessons learned, the following recommendations are made to
enhance the outcomes of future OPRC projects:
(a) Selection of roads for OPRC should be done in such a manner that
ensures the roads can be maintained and managed as a network.
(b) Where a significant portion of the road network is in poor/ very poor
condition, the roads should be brought back to a maintainable condition in
a separate contract, before employing OPRC for maintenance and
network management.
(c) OPRC deployment at this early stage of its maturity requires not only
careful preparation to suit local conditions, but also employment of the
right mix of skills and experience. The bidding documents for the
procurement of consultants and contractors should explicitly specify
requisite skills and experience required for the implementing parties to
effectively and efficiently perform their respective roles. Prior to
implementation, it would be beneficial to engage an OPRC advisor who
would provide technical assistance to the implementing parties by
facilitating better understanding of OPRC, raising red flags where
necessary and advising on best ways to avoid or surmount challenges.
(d) Engagement with the community of consultants and contractors during
preparation of bidding documents is essential for the establishment of
simple, measurable and achievable service levels, together with
associated performance indicators.
(e) The procurement for the monitoring consultant should be made early
enough for the consultant to be appointed and mobilized before the works
contractors are engaged. This will allow the consultant sufficient time to
understand the project environment and contract requirements, and
prepare for effective performance monitoring of the contracts.
(f) Implementation of OPRC facilitates good asset management (Gericke,
Henning & Greenwood, 2014); but for OPRC to thrive, it must have strong
institutional support. For countries such as Nigeria that are yet to reform
their road sector institutions, it is pertinent to do so if the gains of initiatives
like OPRC are to be sustained. Such institutional frameworks must
encompass mechanisms that address issues of autonomy, funding, good
governance, and transparency (Robinson, 2006).
(g) There is need for the implementation of an effective change management
strategy in public sector institutions. Introduction of the OPRC approach
presents a paradigm shift away from the traditional approach. This
fundamental shift implies change in strategic objectives, personal and
organizational attitudes and culture, skills, responsibilities, and
relationships. Apart from individual’s natural resistance to change,
resistance might arise out of fear of job loss, new responsibilities, or the
lack of requisite skill sets. It is essential that such legitimate concerns are
addressed in a responsible and sensitive manner.
9.0 References
Brätland, J. (2010) “Capital concepts as insights into the maintenance and
neglect of infrastructure”, Independent Review, 15 (1), pp.35-51.
EgisBCEOM & Enviplan International (2010) Final Report: Consultancy
Services for The implementation of a Long Term Output and Performance
Based Road Contracts (OPRC). April 2010.
Gericke, B., Henning, T., & Greenwood, I. (2014) "A Guide to Delivering Good
Asset Management in the Road Sector through Performance Based
Contracting", Transport Papers (TP 42B), World Bank, pp.13-14.
IT Transport & Enviplan International (2013) Final Report: Study on Road
Management, Institutional Development and Capacity Building Reforms in
Kaduna State. May 2013.
Kaduna State Government (2010) Bidding Document for Improvement/
Rehabilitation/ Maintenance of Rural Roads in Kaduna State using Output and
Performance based Road Contracts: Volume I (Bidding Procedures, Project
Specifications and Conditions of Contract and Forms). October 2010.
Robinson, R. (2006) "A Perspective on Road Sector Restructuring in
Developing and Transitional Countries", Public Administration & Development,
26(3), pp.265-278.
Sultana, M., Rahman, A. & Chowdhury, S. (2012) "An Overview of Issues to
Consider Before Introducing Performance-based Road Maintenance
Contracting", World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
62(2012), pp.350 – 355.
World Bank (2006) Sample Bidding Documents for the Procurement of Works
and Services under Output and Performance based Road Contracts and
Sample Specifications. October 2006.
World Bank (2008) Nigeria - First Rural Access and Mobility Project (RAMP I).
February 2008.

OPRC in Kaduna State, Nigeria: A Case Study of Experiences and Lessons Learned

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPRC in Kaduna State, Nigeria: A Case Study of Experiences and Lessons Learned

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTPUT

AND PERFORMANCE BASED ROAD CONTRACTS

Umaru Peter Sarki, Independent Consultant, Yaroson Partnership

Peter Sarki is a registered highway engineer and independent consultant. He worked

Fig.1: Location of Kaduna State in Nigeria

3.0 Road Maintenance Management in Kaduna State Prior to OPRC

4.0 Main OPRC Design Features and Implementation Strategy

(b) Poor condition of the rural road network

Medium (50 – 100 High (> 100

Low – Very Low

Figure 2: Traffic on OPRC Roads

DISTRIBUTION OF ROAD SURFACE CONDITION

Figure 3: Surface Condition

(c) Geographical dispersion of project roads

(e) Poor performance of contractors’ self-control units

(f) Pre-financing constraints

(g) Risk sharing

(h) Inclement weather conditions

(i) Security issues

6.0 Project Benefits

You might also like