7EN TUNIS Theunynck School Construction FINAL

1

School Construction Strategiesfor Universal Primary Education in

Africa

I. Lessons Learned

2nd Africa Region Education Capacity Development Workshop“Country Leadership and Implementation for Results in the EFA-FTI Partnership”

Tunis, December 4, 2007

Serge Theunynck Sr. Implementation Specialist, The World Bank

2

Construction Needsfor EFA in 2015

To buildTo build 2 million classrooms2 million classrooms Offices/storagesOffices/storages Sanitation in all schools Sanitation in all schools

(today 55%)(today 55%) Water in all schools Water in all schools

(today 45%) (today 45%) Furniture for all Furniture for all

studentsstudents

To financeTo finance BetweenBetween

$ 23 billion$ 23 billion $ 30 billion$ 30 billion

depending on strategy depending on strategy

School construction in School construction in Africa will be the most Africa will be the most important single important single construction business in construction business in the worldthe world

3

Can Technology save cost?

Five main technologies have been Five main technologies have been implemented over the four last decadesimplemented over the four last decades

Modern TechnologyModern Technology Local materials Local materials SheltersShelters Industrialized Prefabrication Industrialized Prefabrication The “classic” school constructionThe “classic” school construction

4

Sophisticated Modern Construction(all countries 1960-70)

Procurement Approach Procurement Approach Large ContractorsLarge Contractors ICBICB

Expected ResultsExpected Results Large CapacityLarge Capacity Economies of ScaleEconomies of Scale Quality of WorksQuality of Works Simple ProceduresSimple Procedures

Actual ResultsActual Results Few Schools BuiltFew Schools Built Very High Costs : US$ Very High Costs : US$

500 per m500 per m22

No Local Development No Local Development Cumbersome Cumbersome

ProceduresProcedures

5

Local Materials( all countries 1970-80)

Approach Approach Test by NGOsTest by NGOs Scale Up by DonorsScale Up by Donors

Expected ResultsExpected Results Low CostsLow Costs Local Development Local Development Economy of cementEconomy of cement Community Community

appropriationappropriation Easy Scale UpEasy Scale Up

Actual ResultsActual Results No Cost SavingsNo Cost Savings Large Technical Large Technical

AssistanceAssistance No cement savingNo cement saving No appropriationNo appropriation Abandon Abandon

6

The Shelter(Few countries 1980-2000)

ApproachApproach Administration provides Administration provides

roof (ICB / NCB)roof (ICB / NCB) Communities complete Communities complete

buildingbuilding

Expected ResultsExpected Results Very low costVery low cost Quick implementationQuick implementation Community Community

appropriationappropriation Massive productionMassive production

Actual ResultsActual Results Very low cost (60%)Very low cost (60%) Quick implementationQuick implementation Second-class statusSecond-class status Abandon when pressure Abandon when pressure

decreasesdecreases

7

Industrialized Prefabrication(few countries 1970-80)

Approach Approach Off-site manufacturingOff-site manufacturing Large contracts Large contracts

Expected ResultsExpected Results Low costLow cost Quick constructionQuick construction Mass-productionMass-production Modernization of the Modernization of the

construction industryconstruction industry

Actual ResultsActual Results Higher cost that “classic”Higher cost that “classic” Long delaysLong delays Few schools builtFew schools built No contribution to local No contribution to local

development development AbandonAbandon

8

Industrialized-PrefabricationThe example of USA

2001 (the most industrialized country)

2 million enterprises (stable number since 1970)2 million enterprises (stable number since 1970) Majority of micro-contractorsMajority of micro-contractors Labor Intensive Industry Labor Intensive Industry

9

These Technologies have failed

Four technologies have proven failed to lower cost Four technologies have proven failed to lower cost

and / or scale upand / or scale up

Modern Technology : expensiveModern Technology : expensive Local materials: not replicable, no cost saving Local materials: not replicable, no cost saving Industrialized Prefab: not implementableIndustrialized Prefab: not implementable Shelters: second-class, not sustainedShelters: second-class, not sustained

And what ?And what ?

10

The “Classic” School Building (all countries 1980-2000)

ApproachApproach Modern non-sophisticated Modern non-sophisticated

technologytechnology Small / medium contractors Small / medium contractors

from formal / informal sector from formal / informal sector Procurement NCB / LCB / Procurement NCB / LCB /

NS)NS)

Expected ResultsExpected Results Technology known by local Technology known by local

contractorscontractors Quick implementationQuick implementation Massive productionMassive production Local development Local development Appropriation by Appropriation by

communitiescommunities

Actual ResultsActual Results Quality construction (acceptable Quality construction (acceptable

to good )to good ) Quick deliveryQuick delivery No limitation of production No limitation of production

capacitycapacity Local developmentLocal development The school plays a role model The school plays a role model

for low cost housingfor low cost housing Becomes the universal modelBecomes the universal model

11

Wide Range of Costs of the “Classic” model

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Proj 1 Proj 2 Proj 4 Proj 5 Proj 6 Proj 7 Proj 6 Proj 7

US$/m2

Example of unit costs achieved in one country by several projects

12

Why areSchool Construction Costs so

different What do We Know ?

The Implementation Arrangements

“WHO does WHAT, HOW and for HOW MUCH ?”

13

The Actorspublic private

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

CBO

Local Governmt

Medium contractor

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Small contractor

Local office

CMA/NGO

communities

Central Governmt

CMA or NGO

Large national

contractor c

entr

aliz

ed

governement semi-public and NGO sectors

private sector

Schoolbuilding

14

The 3 management approaches

1.1. Management by Public AdministrationsManagement by Public Administrations

2.2. Delegation of Management Delegation of Management

3.3. DecentralizationDecentralization

15

3 options3 options: :

ICBICB ICB combined with Community ICB combined with Community

Participation or Micro-EnterprisesParticipation or Micro-Enterprises NCBNCB

1. Management by MoE

16

1.1. Centralized Management with ICB

JustificationsJustifications Weak procurement Weak procurement

capacity capacity Limited construction Limited construction

industry capacity industry capacity Weak monitoring Weak monitoring

capacitycapacity

ResultsResults Cumbersome Cumbersome

proceduresprocedures High prices: US$15,000 High prices: US$15,000

to 30,000 per classroom to 30,000 per classroom Small quantitiesSmall quantities Long delaysLong delays

public private

builds the

subcontract school(often hidden procedure)

builds the

school

School institution

School commu-

nity

Local Governmt

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

c

entr

aliz

ed

semi-public and NGO sectors

Central Governmt

governement communities

ICB for large contract

Medium contractor

Small contractor

Large national

contractor

Local commu-

nity

private sector

dece

ntra

lized

Schoolbuilding

17

1.2 ICB with Community Participation

ExpectationsExpectations Cost saving on Cost saving on

materials and labormaterials and labor Community ownershipCommunity ownership

ResultsResults Too complexToo complex Cost savings : Cost savings :

Yes / ICBYes / ICB No / NCBNo / NCB

Long delays: Difficult Long delays: Difficult synchronizationsynchronization

Who? BF, Gambia, Who? BF, Gambia, Zambia, Senegal, Zambia, Senegal, Bangladesh Bangladesh

Scale up ? No: Abandoned.Scale up ? No: Abandoned.

public private

supply imported materials

mobilizes Schools

provides support

provides support to supervision

mobilizes the school community

dec

entr

aliz

edce

ntr

aliz

ed

ICB supply of imported materials


private sector

Local MediumGovernmt

contractor

Local commu-

nity

governement communities

Internat. supplier/

contractor

(institution)

Village/ neighbor-

-hood

School commu-

nityprovides

labor

Large national

contractor

School institution

Central Governmt

(MoE)

Schoolbuilding

18

1.3 Centralized Management With NCB ExpectationsExpectations

Reduce cost Reduce cost Use national contractors Use national contractors

(SME)(SME) Achieve larger scaleAchieve larger scale

ResultsResults CompetitionCompetition Cost-saving: US$/m2 180 Cost-saving: US$/m2 180

(44% cost saving/ ICB)(44% cost saving/ ICB) Increased but still limited Increased but still limited

capacity capacity Delivery delaysDelivery delays

All countries and almost all All countries and almost all donors with few exceptions donors with few exceptions

Scale-up: YesScale-up: Yes

public private

procures works through NCB

builds the

school

private sector communities

cent

raliz

ed

Central Governmt

(MoE)


Local Governmt

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

Large national

contractor

Small

contractor

Medium contractor

Schoolbuilding

19

Procurement of school Construction by Administration

Shift from ICB to NCB

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ICB before 1990

ICB after 1990

NCB after 1990

US$ per m2

20

To CMAs (AGETIPs)To CMAs (AGETIPs) To NGOsTo NGOs To Social FundsTo Social Funds

2. Delegation of Contract Management

21

2.1 Delegation to CMAs (AGETIPs) ExpectationsExpectations

Compensate lack of Compensate lack of Administration’ capacityAdministration’ capacity

procurement capacity procurement capacity business opportunities business opportunities

for SMEsfor SMEs

ResultsResults Initial cost-saving vs. ICBInitial cost-saving vs. ICB No cost saving vs. NCB No cost saving vs. NCB

by admin.by admin. Capacity to deliver Capacity to deliver Often limited to urban Often limited to urban

areasareas

Who? Mostly Francophone Who? Mostly Francophone countries countries

Scale up: YesScale up: Yes

public private

Memoran dum

of Agree ment

contracts

works through

NCB executes the

works

School institutionde

cent

raliz

ed

Local Governmt

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Local commu-

nity

Small contractor

Medium contractor

School commu-

nity

communities

Central Governmt

Contract

Managt

Agency


Large national

contractor

c

entr

aliz

ed

governement private sector

Schoolbuilding

22

2.2 Delegation to NGOs ExpectationsExpectations

community community participation/ownershipparticipation/ownership

costcost Compensate lack of local Compensate lack of local

const. industry capacityconst. industry capacity

ResultsResults Small cost-saving Small cost-saving

compared to NCBcompared to NCB Community participation Community participation

irregularirregular Substitute to local industry Substitute to local industry

= no sustain.= no sustain.

Who ? BF, Chad, Gambia, Who ? BF, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Moz, Sen, Guinea, Mali, Moz, Sen,

Scale up ? NoScale up ? No

public private

Memoran dum

of Agree ment

mobilizes community to provide labor

provides

materials tools

technical assistance

and supervision

provides labor paid by NGO

provides

work

NGOLarge

national contractor

c

entr

aliz

ed

governement

Central Governmt

Local Governmt

Medium contractor

Small contrator

Individual worker

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

Local commu-

nity

School commu-

nity

communitiessemi-public and NGO sectors

private sector

Schoolbuilding

23

2.3 Delegation to Social Funds(when SF acts as CMA)

ExpectationsExpectations Demand-driven responseDemand-driven response Community empowermtCommunity empowermt costcost proc capacityproc capacity

ResultsResults No cost-saving compared No cost-saving compared

to centralized NCBto centralized NCB Limited com. empowermt Limited com. empowermt Large capacity (fragile Large capacity (fragile

states)states)

Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Madagas. Eritrea, Burundi, Madagas.

Scale up ? YesScale up ? Yes

public private

Memoran dum

of Agree ment

contracts

works through NCB or

3-quotations expresses

needs

executes contributesthe works to the works


private sector

Social Fund

Large national

contractor

School commu-

nity

Medium contractor

communities

Small contractor

Local commu-

nity

c

entr

aliz

ed

governement

Central Governmt

Local Governmt

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

Schoolbuilding

24

2.4 Delegation of Contract Management

050

100150

200250

300350

ICB (admin)

NCB (admin)

CMA (AGETIP)

NGOs (cont. orCMA)

SocialFunds as

CMA

US$ per m2

25

To lower levels of To lower levels of AdministrationAdministration

To Local GovernmentsTo Local Governments To CommunitiesTo Communities

3. Decentralisation of Contract Management

26

3.1 Delegation to Local MoE Offices(acting by themselves) ExpectationsExpectations

Smaller contractsSmaller contracts Increased competitionIncreased competition Procurement closer to Procurement closer to

beneficiaries (reduce beneficiaries (reduce corruptioncorruption))

ResultsResults Cost: mixed results Cost: mixed results Average cost similar NCBAverage cost similar NCB Low efficiency: long Low efficiency: long

delaysdelays Neglect of educational Neglect of educational

mandatesmandates

Who ? BF, Mozambique, Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-)(-)


public private

delegates implementation responsibility

procures works through NCB

executes the works

Small

contractor


private sector

cent

raliz

ed

Local Governmt

Local Office of

MoE

Large national

contractor

Central Governmt

(MoE)

communities

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Medium contractor

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School commu-

nity

School institution

Schoolbuilding

27

3.2 Delegation to Local Governments(acting by themselves) ExpectationsExpectations

Smaller contractsSmaller contracts Increased competitionIncreased competition Procurement closer to Procurement closer to

beneficiaries (reduce beneficiaries (reduce corruptioncorruption))

ResultsResults Cost: mixed results Cost: mixed results Average cost similar NCBAverage cost similar NCB Low efficiency: long Low efficiency: long

delaysdelays Neglect of educational Neglect of educational

mandatesmandates

Who ? BF, Mozambique, Who ? BF, Mozambique, Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea (-)(-)


public private

Fiscal Transfer

procures work through NCB expresses needs

executesworks

c

entr

aliz

ed



Central Governmt

Large national

contractor

Local Governmt

Medium contractor

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Small contractor

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

Schoolbuilding

28

Delegation to MoE Local Officesor Local Governments (acting by themselves of through CMA)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

ICB (admin)

NCB (admin)

CMA (AGETIP)

NGOs (cont. orCMA)

Local OffMoE/ Admin

LG (self orCMA)

US$ per m2

29

These delegations have expanded capacitybut not saved costs

2.1 : CMAs NCB2.1 : CMAs NCB 2.2 : NGOs themselves2.2 : NGOs themselves 2.3 : SFs NCB2.3 : SFs NCB 3.1 : LL of MoE NCB3.1 : LL of MoE NCB 3.2 : LGs NCB3.2 : LGs NCB

And So What ?And So What ?

30

4. Delegation toCommunities

1 : MoE communities1 : MoE communities 2.1 : CMAs 2.1 : CMAs 2.2 : NGOs communities2.2 : NGOs communities 2.3 : SFs communities2.3 : SFs communities 3.1 : LL of MoE communities3.1 : LL of MoE communities 3.2 : LGs communities3.2 : LGs communities

31

4.1 Direct delegation by MoE to Communities

ExpectationsExpectations Demand-driven responsesDemand-driven responses Community Empowerment Community Empowerment

procurement / fin. managt)procurement / fin. managt) Local developmentLocal development

ResultsResults High cost-saving (60%/ICB, High cost-saving (60%/ICB,

35% / NCB) 35% / NCB) Large capacity Large capacity Community ownership on Community ownership on

schoolschool

Who ? Mauritania, India, Laos Who ? Mauritania, India, Laos (IDA) Uganda, Zambia, Ghana (IDA) Uganda, Zambia, Ghana (MPP)(MPP)


public private

signs school

Financing community Agreement requests

with CBO financing for the for its construction school of the project

school

executes procures providesworks works support

contributes to work

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Small contractor

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

Central Governmt

(MoE)

Large national

contractor

Local Governmt

Medium contractor



c

entr

aliz

ed

Schoolbuilding

32

4.1 Delegation to Communities

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

ICB (admin)

NCB (admin)

CMA (AGETIP)

NGOs (cont. orCMA)

Local OffMoE/ Admin

LG (self orCMA)

commu nities

US$ per m2

33

4.2 Delegation by NGOsto Communities

public private

Memoran dum

of Agree ment

mobilizes community to provide labor

provides

materials tools

technical assistance

and supervision

provides labor paid by NGO

provides

work

NGOLarge

national contractor

c

entr

aliz

ed

governement

Central Governmt

Local Governmt

Medium contractor

Small contrator

Individual worker

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

Local commu-

nity

School commu-

nity

communitiessemi-public and NGO sectors

private sector

Schoolbuilding

public

Memoran dum of Agree ment

Financial Agreement for sub-project

procures contract

executes

the works

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

supe

rvis

ion

Local worker

Local Governmt

Medium contractor

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Small contractor

private

c

entr

aliz

ed



Central Governmt

NGOLarge

national contractor

Schoolbuilding

34

4.2 Construction by NGOs the 3 approaches

NGO as contractor : no NGO as contractor : no cost saving / NCBcost saving / NCB

NGO as CMA : no cost NGO as CMA : no cost saving / NCBsaving / NCB

NGO delegate to NGO delegate to communities = cost communities = cost saving saving 0

20406080

100120140160

NGO as contractor NGO as CMA

NGO delegate tocommunities

US$ per m2

Who?Burkina ChadGambiaGuineaMozambiqueSenegal

Who?MaliGuinea

Who?BurkinaGhana

35

4.3 Delegation by Social Fundsto Communities

public private

Memoran dum

of Agree ment

contracts

works

through

NCB or 3-quotations expresses

needs

executes contributes

the works to the works


private sector

Social Fund

Large national

contractor

School commu-

nity

Medium contractor

communities

Small contractor

Local commu-

nity

c

entr

aliz

ed

governement

Central Governmt

Local Governmt

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

Schoolbuilding

public private

Memoran dum

of Agree ment

signs

financing agreement with

community and finances expresses

community needs

contracts works


c

entr

aliz

ed



Central Governmt

Social Fund

Large national

contractor

Local Governmt

Medium contractor

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Small contractor

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

Schoolbuilding

Direct procurement Delegation to Communities

36

4.3 Social Funds Social Funds act as Social Funds act as

CMAsCMAs

Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Who ? Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Eritrea, Burundi, MadagascarMadagascar


0

50

100

150

200

Social Funds acting as CMAs

Other agencies, NCB, same countries

US$/m2

Social Funds delegate Social Funds delegate to communitiesto communities

Who ? Benin, Malawi, Who ? Benin, Malawi, Senegal, ZambiaSenegal, Zambia

Scale up ? yesScale up ? yes

020406080

100120140

Social Funds delegate to

communities

Other agencies though NCB

(same countries)

US$/m2

37

4.4 Delegation by Local Governmentsto Communities (the CDD approach)Direct procurement Delegation to

Communitiespublic private

Fiscal Transfer

procures work through NCB expresses needs

executesworks

c

entr

aliz

ed



Central Governmt

Large national

contractor

Local Governmt

Medium contractor

Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Small contractor

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

Schoolbuilding

public private

Fiscal Transfer

expresses needs

Finances Community SubProject

contract works


Village/ neighbor-

hood institution

Small contractor

Local commu-

nity

dece

ntra

lized

School institution

School commu-

nity

Central Governmt

Large national

contractor

Local Governmt

Medium contractor



c

entr

aliz

ed

SchoolbuildingSchoolbuilding

38

4.4 Delegation to Local Governments : the 3 approaches

LGs procure by LGs procure by themselves: no cost themselves: no cost saving / NCBsaving / NCB

LGs procure through LGs procure through CMA : no cost saving / CMA : no cost saving / NCBNCB

LGs delegate to LGs delegate to communities = cost communities = cost saving saving

0

50

100

150

200

250

LGs by themselves

LGs through CMA

LGs delegate to communities

US$ per m2

Who?GhanaGuineaMadagascarRwandaSenegal

Who?MauritaniaSenegal

Who?BeninGhanaUganda

39

4.5 Delegation to Communities (Whoever Delegates) and Other Agencies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

ICB (admin)

NCB (admin)

CMA (AGETIP)

NGOs (cont. orCMA)

Local OffMoE/ Admin

LG (self orCMA)

commu nities

US$ per m2

40

Thank YouFor Your Attention

7EN TUNIS Theunynck School Construction FINAL

Documents

Transcript of 7EN TUNIS Theunynck School Construction FINAL