Reporting and supervision

Closer coordination, capacity building, and handholding can improve project implementation when the executing agency has limited experience on implementing ADB-assisted projects. A review mechanism for assessing the efficacy of the trainings needs to be designed. The executing agency should be well versed in the ADB's safeguard policies to ensure compliance and accurate budgeting of the cost of safeguards. Any delays in the mobilization of experts to complement the staff of the executing agency should be expeditiously addressed.

Timely and appropriate change in the project scope can help enhance project performance. For example, adjustments on the project design during the early stages of implementation can enhance project results at completion. A project scope that requires corrective actions needs to be addressed during midterm review to enable the project to achieve better results.

Allocating dedicated technical assistance resources to support government compliance with ADB requirements, notably those related to Monitoring and evaluation and Gender, is important.

Data collection on all Indicators in each tranche project should be ensured to facilitate a reliable assessment of the accomplishments and performance of each project and the entire MFF. The executing agency (EA) is required, as part of the government’s undertakings, to establish a project performance monitoring system to collect and measure baseline data on the performance Indicators in the design and monitoring framework (DMF) during implementation and to submit to ADB, as self-evaluation, the government’s completion report for the implemented projects.

Although it did not negatively impact the program, submission of the monthly and quarterly progress reports was irregular throughout the MFF implementation. This cannot go unattended under the second MFF, as without timely reporting, program management will not be in a good position to address the implementation challenges, especially those unforeseen at MFF and individual tranche approval. The program management unit should establish a mechanism to regularly monitor physical and financial progress per contract.

Land acquisition and government approval processes need to be assessed and factored into the design of projects to mitigate the risk of delays. In addition to institutional capacity, other matters such as the time required for land acquisition and processing of internal approvals need to be assessed during project preparation. Appropriate risk mitigation measures need to be in place. Undertaking these activities would have helped lessen the implementation delays encountered by this project to which delays in contract awarding and land acquisition were major contributing factors.

Timely reassessment can be instrumental to project success. After the project was approved, a series of devastating storms caused severe damage in the project area. The timely engagement of a consulting firm to revise the project design helped avoid project delays. Project interventions were revised based on the additional rehabilitation needs and the new evidence about potential impacts of storms on the coastline.

Close and consistent supervision by ADB is crucial in ensuring quality road works and effective project implementation. The quality of construction supervision (including bridge design) and close, regular supervision by ADB since 2017 were critical in ensuring the quality of bridge construction and installation under this project. Despite delays and issues in financial management and procurement, the project achieved high-quality bridge construction, which contributed to project effectiveness.